North Korean Nuclear Test

North Korea’s nuclear test reminds me of my last days in the Foreign Service around 1996-97.  I was the American Embassy’s science officer in Rome, working on nuclear non-proliferation issues, as well as a number of other matters, such as the environment. 

At that time, Italy held the rotating presidency of the European Union, so that I dealt with the Italian government both on bilateral issues and on issues for the whole European Union.  The first agreement intended to rein in North Korean nuclear proliferation was in effect, the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, under which the US, Japan and South Korea were to provide North Korea with certain things in return for North Korean nuclear restraint.  In the short term we were to provide North Korea with fuel oil to keep its conventional electric power plants running, and in the future with nuclear electric power plants that did not use or produce materials that could be used in a bomb. 

I don’t remember all the details, but the US was obligated to pay several million dollars for the fuel oil to be supplied to North Korea.  The US Congress refused to appropriate those funds, which meant that we could not meet our obligation under the KEDO agreement.  It became my job to go to the Italians and the EU and ask them to provide funding for the fuel oil that the US Congress would provide. 

I found this very unpleasant, although the Italians were very polite and listened patiently.  I thought that the US should meet its obligations under the agreement, and not provide North Korea with an excuse, US noncompliance, to renounce the agreement and resume its nuclear bomb program.  This was probably the straw that broke the camel’s back, and I retired from the Foreign Service and returned to the US.

In addition to the KEDO fiasco, a number of other things had gone badly for the issues for which I was responsible.  Almost the day after I arrived, the State Department was sued by four environmental groups for failing to force Italy to implement UN resolutions regarding the use of driftnets to catch swordfish in the Mediterranean.  As I recall the groups were the legal arms of Greenpeace, the Humane Society, the Sierra Club, and one or two other groups.  The State Department lost the case, and in effect a Federal judge assumed control of US policy regarding Italian use of driftnets.  What would happen if some policy issue arose was that the judge would consult the environmental groups, and they would consult with a Greenpeace activist, who was really the only person on the spot.  He would visit fishing boats, inspect their nets and their catch and report back to his colleagues in the US, who would report back to the judge, who in turn would approve (or not) whatever policy proposal was on the table.  This meant that in effect my office worked for the Greenpeace representative on this issue.  One of my last acts was to accompany the Ambassador to meet with the Italian Agriculture Minister on this issue because Sicilian fishermen had hired Mafia hit men to kill fisheries enforcement personnel if they harassed the fishermen.  Supporters of the fishermen were also blocking streets in downtown Rome.  The main message I had for Ambassador was that he could not agree definitively to any proposal from the Minister, because it would have to be approved by the Federal judge back in the US.  The Ambassador was not happy about that. 

In addition, the Space Shuttle had flown an Italian tethered satellite, the TSS-1R, which was to be extended on the tether about 20 km from the Shuttle and reeled back in.  The tether broke and the satellite drifted off into space.  The crew of the Columbia’s STS-75 mission came to Italy to meet with the Italians about the mission.  Unfortunately, because of the loss of the satellite, the visit became something of an apology tour, which I was responsible for organizing. 

Another somewhat unfortunate, space-related incident occurred at a cocktail party given to celebrate the launch by the US of an Italian telecommunications satellite.  At the party, I met a man who worked for the telecommunications company whose satellite was being launched.  He said something like, “You Americans must really hate me, since you won’t let my daughter go to Disney World.”  I was taken aback.  He said his daughter had applied for a visa to go to Disney World, but the Embassy had refused to give her one because her father worked for the telecommunications company.  Apparently the company had some tenuous connection with Cuba, and the Helms-Burton Act prohibited us from issuing visas to employees or their families.  I went to see the Consul General, who is in charge of visas, the next day.  She told me that what he said was correct and there was nothing she could do about it.  At some point, I had read Herman Wouk’s Winds of War books.  In them, the heroine, a Jewish mother, wants to leave Italy to go to Israel.  She is told that she can go, but her child cannot; they will not give the child a visa.  It seemed too similar.  It was Rome; it was a child’s visa.  Why should the US punish children for the sins of their parents?  Even the Bible Old Testament says, “In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.”

There were probably some other things that led to my retirement, but a diplomat is to some extent a salesman for his country.  As an Army Vietnam veteran, the son of a veteran of World War II and Korea, the grandson of a veteran of the Spanish-American War and World War I, and the great-grandson of a veteran of the Civil War, I loved my country, but I felt that it was not living up to its reputation and was not upholding its honor.  I was old enough and had served long enough to retire; so, I did.  I didn’t have to explain any more why it looked like North Korea was honoring the KEDO agreement and the US was not, giving them a perfect excuse to resume their nuclear program.  I did not have to explain how we lost Italy’s satellite.  I did not have to explain why the US punished children for the sins of their fathers. 

Good diplomats do a lot of things that they may not like doing.  I often lied to protect intelligence or to protect negotiating positions.  If I had not been eligible for retirement, I probably would not have fallen on my sword and resigned.  I wish I had left under better circumstances, but I have many good memories of my career.  It seemed, however, that no matter how high you rose, you always could end up responsible for policies that you disagreed with.  Even the Secretary of State has to do what the President wants.  Ask Hillary about Syria or Libya.  

Think Tank Corruption

I was disturbed by the long article that ran on the front page of the NYT on August 8 regarding the transfromation of the Brookings Institution from a think tank to a lobbying organziation.  It seemed like the icing on the cake of corruption in Washington.  In the old days, when a congressman, senator, or high ranking career government bureaucrat resigned, they often went into academia or to a think tank like Brookings.  But starting a generation or longer ago, they started going into lobbying, usually using their influence in the very areas that they deal with while they were in government.  The revolving door has been spinning faster and faster, and now Brookings has joined in.  Washington has sold its integrity for money.  Men and women who should be concerned about the fate of their country now sell themselves to the highest bidder, and Brookings has put on its hot pants and joined the other hookers on the street corner.  If what it is doing is not be illegal, ir is certainly unethical.  It has sullied its reputation.  

I was initailly concerned that Jews had taken over Brookings and had brought low class ethincs with them.  The photographs on the inside pages of the story were of Martin Indyk, Henry Kravis, and Marek Goodman, all Jews.  The article focussed on what Brookings was doing to promote the business of Lennar Homes.   The main Lennar contact in the article is Kofi Bonner, who is Ghanan, not Jewish.  

The other think tank mentioned at length in the article is the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).  The article raises questions about its connections with and possible lobbying for General Atomic and Huntington Ingalls.  General Atomic builds drones, and Huntington Ingalls builds ships for the Navy.  I didn’t see any Jewish connection there.  It just seemed like more of the old-boy, revolving door network of former regulators or purchasers now on the other side, helping sell to their old colleagues.  

MTCR References

Following are some references to the Missile Technology Control Regime, which I helped create.  Most deal with India's membership.

http://www.mea.gov.in/rajya-sabha.htm?dtl/27303/QUESTION+NO2815+STATUS+OF+INDIAS+MEMBERSHIP+TO+MTCR

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/modi-to-push-china-for-nsg-entry-investments/article8960438.ece

I concur in the following Bulletin criticism of controls on drones.  When I was at State, the Pentagon was always trying to expand the MTCR controls to cover any thing or any country they didn't like.  One of the worst incidents in my career came when the Pentagon vetoed the sale of a ground-based satellite tracking system that Brazil planned to use to download information on the environment in the Amazon.  The Pentagon said the ground stations could be used to track test launches of nuclear-capable missiles that Brazil might develop.  Brazil had no such missiles, and the ground stations would not have been very useful for this purpose.  It was like banning the sales of automobiles because they could be used to run over and kill people.  The Penatagon decision was ultimately reversed, but only after the Brazilians were very mad about the denial.

http://thebulletin.org/too-late-missile-nonproliferation/how-emphasis-drones-harms-missile-controls

http://www.narendramodi.in/india-joins-missile-technology-control-regime-496223

http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/mtcr-membership-to-help-india-export-satellites-and-launch-116072101166_1.html

Attitudes Toward Military Service

I find the op-ed unconvincing in the NYT today by someone who avoided the Vietnam War draft and now repents for doing so.  He fails to address the hatred and vitreol directed against returning Vietnam veterans, and the moral sef-righteousness displayed by those who did not go.  He does not address the way that the war was portrayed as inhumane slaughter, and returning vets as baby-killing perverts.  Even at the relatively conservative University of Alabama, which I returned to, the only vets who got positive feedback from other students were those who confessed to committing atrocities.  Veterans who did not commit atrocities were very conflicted by feeling that after sending them to Vietnam, where they thought they gave honorable service, their country now denouced them as war criminals.  Serving in Vietnam was only part of the “sacrifice”; returning to a hateful US was another part.  While the op-ed writer wishes he had “served” he still feels morally superior to his war-criminal cohorts who did in fact serve.  

Relatively few Vietnam veterans have had much political success.  Three who did, all started out with silver spoons in their mouths.  John McCain’s father and grandfather were senior admirals.  John Kerry’s mother was a Forbes heiress.  Al Gore’s father was a senator.  They did not come back to the same obliquy as other vets.  Both McCain and Kerry went into some Navy VIP program for returning VIP veterans.  McCain in particular was treated as a returning hero, unlike the vast bulk ofther returnees, including some who were also combat heros.  They all ran for President, but they were all rejected by their country.  Veterans don’t always make good Presidents; General Ulysses Grant was one the worst in history.  The same could have been true for one of these three.  Al Gore actually won more votes than George W. Bush in the 2000 election, but the Supreme Court awarded the presidency to Bush.  Bush, of course, avoided going to Vietnam by using his family influence to get into the Alabama National Guard, where he spent the war skipping even his National Guard duties, drinking heavily, and becoming an alcoholic.  Of course, Bill Clinton, like Donald Trump, avoided the draft, and Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama were never subject to the draft, and did not volunteer to serve.  

America now appears to have come full circle, and venerates military service almost religiously.  If you look closely, however, you find that the best people don’t volunteer to serve.  How many graduates of Harvard or Stanford are serving in the military?  How many children of the top 20% of the population, much less of the 1% or 0.1%?  No, nice people don’t serve in the military.  And the press is always quick to note if someone in the news for some horriible crime has served.  They protray the US Marine Corps as the breeding ground for mass murderers.  

There was a period, right after 9/11, when nice people went into the militarr, because it looked like America was really under threat.  But the political and military leadership botched the wars so badly that military service became a bad thing again.  A lot of the praise for the military today is because people want some other fool to go fight so that they don’t have to.  It’s selfish, not loving.  If we reinstated the draft there would be a sea change in attitudes toward military service.  

This is not to take away the honor of the sacrifice made by soldiers, particularly those killed or wounded in action, like Captain Khan.  But it is to say that a lot of the furor about dishonor to the gold star parents is politically motivated, not genuine sympathy for those involved.  It’s more like, “Thank goodness that’s not me, but shame on anybody who says that out loud.”