Detailed Abstractions

Wikileaks, that organization which released over 100K US war documents (here), is at it again.  This time, they have released US diplomatic cables (here):

…WikiLeaks released thousands of State Department documents that disclosed candid impressions from diplomats and other world leaders about America’s allies and foes. The memos also unveil occasional U.S. pressure tactics aimed at hot spots in Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Korea….

& now the stories begin – depending upon which story you read, their basic slant, and their ability to search quickly for specific keywords to make their points while ignoring the vast majority of information available, reports vary.  For instance, from Salon we see the US helping Yemen attack AQAP resulting in civilian casualties (here):

…confirms that the Obama Administration has secretly launched missile attacks on suspected terrorists in Yemen, strikes that have reportedly killed dozens of civilians….

From CSMonitor we have reports that Israel is vindicated with its policy towards Iran (here) as the cables contained:

…candid assessments from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt that Iran posed the biggest strategic threat to regional stability. The assessments even stressed the need for considering conventional attacks on Tehran before its nuclear program becomes operational….

From Bloomberg, we get news about North Korea selling weapons to Iran (here):

Iran obtained 19 advanced missiles from North Korea, potentially giving the Islamic nation the capability of attacking Moscow and cities in Western Europe, according to embassy cables posted by WikiLeaks.org and provided to the New York Times…

From eWeek, news about China’s cyber-warfare against privay (here):

China’s government was indeed behind the hack on Google’s Gmail system earlier this year according to a cable captured by the controversial Wikileaks organization….

& this is just the beginning.  With the number of documents and their contents, there is likely many more “reports” to come, but most coming this early are little more than attention seeking headlines, as all are without context.

This isn’t to say anything being reported is inaccurate, only to say that no one individual fact can be said to be indicative of any specific trend nor should it be used to shape overall analysis.

Irregardless of what reports are now stating, without question this is another serious blow to the security apparatus of the US by Wikileaks (here):

WASHINGTON – Hundreds of thousands of confidential U.S. diplomatic cables, posted online Sunday by WikiLeaks and made available to other media, are sending shudders through the diplomatic establishment and could strain relations with some countries, influencing international relations in ways that are impossible to predict.

The cables, most of them from the past three years, provide an unprecedented look at backroom bargaining by embassies around the world, brutally candid views of foreign leaders and frank assessments of nuclear and terrorist threats….

Realitically, we’re a long way a way from knowing the true impact, assuming it can ever be known.  For instance, not only could frank assessments damage relationships by revealing less than positive views the US has about their allies, but this leak could also work to reduce open discussions in the future.  (more…)

Update:  Yesterday in a DA post, F*$k North Korea, I noted from Stratfor about North Korea’s attacks on a South Korean island that:

…the sustained shelling of a populated island by North Korea would mark a deliberate and noteworthy escalation…

For those unfamiliar with Stratfor, they are a professional intelligence gathering organization and not simply another media outlet for international news.  With that in mind, phrases like “deliberate and noteworthy escalation” are very serious (unlike standard TV media where everything will kill you and everything is horrendously worse than it ever has been).

DA further noted, that while there were open questions, the facts….. are not open:

…A soverign and free nation, was just attacked and had its citizens murdered by a bully,a terrorist sponsor, an illegal weapons supplier, a despotic and opressive human rights abuser, all run run by an idiot who propagandizes others in his divinity….

Now there has been an increase in the level of rhetoric and threat response from the US (here).  Speaking of normal media’s rethoric, the title: Obama sends U.S. warship to Yellow Sea in show of strength as two Koreas teeter on the brink of all-out war is instructive.

Either way the US response has gotten better:

…Mr Obama earlier issued a statement condemning the ‘outrageous’ assault and underlining America’s close ties with Seoul.

…The White House called on North Korea to end ‘its belligerent action.’…

And:

…President Obama has ordered a U.S. warship to Korea in a shetow of strength to prevent an escalation of one of the most serious confrontations in the region for decades….

I say gotten better, because we should stand by our allies and in cases like these, even stand with countries who aren’t necessarily strong allies if they are a free people being attacked by a despotic country.

The open question however is: Will this matter?

As North Korea is just bully and a coward, there’s reason to think this isn’t the end.  Stratfor noted in an update on the situation today, that North Korea does indeed (more…)

Early yesterday afternoon (local time in South Korea), North Korea began shelling a South Korean controlled island with artillery (from Stratfor here):

…Though details are still sketchy, South Korean news reports indicate that around 2:30 p.m. local time, North Korean artillery shells began landing in the waters around Yeonpyeongdo, one of the South Korean-controlled islands just south of the NLL. North Korea has reportedly fired as many as 200 rounds, some of which struck the island, injuring at least 10 South Korean soldiers, damaging buildings and setting fire to a mountainside. South Korea responded by firing some 80 shells of its own toward North Korea, dispatching F-16 fighter jets to the area and raising the military alert to its highest level….

What’s interesting to note, is that North Korea has murdered South Koreans before, such as the recent sinking of the ChonAn, but as Stratfor puts it (emphasis added):

…While the South Korean reprisals — both artillery fire in response by self-propelled K-9 artillery and the scrambling of aircraft — thus far appear perfectly consistent with South Korean standard operating procedures, the sustained shelling of a populated island by North Korea would mark a deliberate and noteworthy escalation…

(more…)

Over time I’ve come to the conclusion that where news entities fail miserably is in their analysis with international politics.  Most pundits, writers, journalists, etc, seem to be able to semi-grasp domestic policies, albeit still in the usual, overly simplistic, fits-to-the-narrative type of way, but lose all rationality with respect to international affairs.

Interestingly enough, I think their failures in both domestic & international analysis stem from the same basic cause, oversimplification.  But it would seem that the degree to which it effects each type of analysis differs due to the lack of incentives private interests have in resolving inaccurate reports on international issues.

Thinking about the counter thought to international policy, domestic policy, we see incentives existing to resolve press inaccuracies.  For instance, if the press pushes inaccurate opinions and analysis which oversimplifies a given topic, a special interest group or two, plus at least one political party, and finally non-profits everywhere will try to enlighten by showing the fallacy of the common narrative.

This is because people rightfully see domestic issues as more directly impacting their lives.  The corollary is that our politicians, our leaders, our special interests, and our non-profits tend to focus where we as a society focus.

The problem that can stem from this seems intuitive – inaccurate press on international issues should be held as highly suspect, but get printed without much serious disagreement.   Since very little counters popular wisdom, this gives the press a power to change opinions and as well as spread myths.

This leads to all kinds of odd conclusions, with large swaths of people all over the planet prone to believe in things without substantial proof nor any degree of rational logic.

For instance believing that western countries are somehow to blame for poor countries with constant internal strife and corrupt governments which inefficiencies and lack of resources.  Or said another way, people all over believe in a zero sum game.  This is true not only in the international sense, but also when dealing with immigration and free trade issues.

Mistaken assumptions such as zero-sum games also lead to beliefs about what one thinks a President can actually do, versus what reality tends to dictate what will actually be done.  This leads to politicians making believable, yet highly impossible claims about given international situations.  This has been done to all recent Presidents, including President Obama when pulling a missile defense shield out of Poland & Czechoslovakia was made to appear as a rash decision amounting to abandoning our allies, when in fact it wasn’t a bad decision when concluding what options were open and what were the greatest threats to our security and security in the region (wrote about it here, though Mr. Obama went and said it had nothing to do with Russia… which was just amazing… wrote about that here).

It leads to pundits everywhere snidely remarking how this action wasn’t “tough” or that action was going to anger others because it was “unilateral”.  With little recourse, journalists  print all sorts of things without taking into any account the actual framework through which any given action action was taken, under what circumstances, with what available options, or really they just leave out anything resembling actual analysis.

Unfortunately, it seems no organization is immune.  A recent piece published in the Economist titled  Even greater expectations discussing the idiotic Nobel Prize Committee decision, is a far cry from the analysis for which the Economist is known.

They rightfully begin with the question the world was asking, “Is it premature to give Barack Obama the Nobel peace prize, less than a year into his presidency?”, but delve quickly into non-international events dressed up to seem as if change had already happened:

…Most broadly, he has sought to engage with opponents, saying that America would “extend a hand, if you unclench your fist”, for example to those who were earlier dismissed as an “axis of evil”. Somewhat to the discomfort of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had bolstered his domestic support by vilifying America as an aggressor, Mr Obama has proposed holding talks about nuclear affairs, removing a precondition that Iran first abandon enrichment of uranium. Mr Obama made withdrawal of American forces from Iraq one of the main pledges of his election campaign and has since overseen a slightly quicker run down of troops than was envisaged by Mr Bush. Towards North Korea, too, Mr Obama has dangled the prospect of bilateral talks and closer engagement.

Regarding Russia Mr Obama has developed a policy of notably warmer ties, dubbed “hitting the reset button”. Relations had become especially frosty towards the end of Mr Bush’s presidency when war broke out between Georgia, an ally of America, and Russia…

Continuing with this as reasoning:

…Yet Mr Obama’s main achievement is a change of tone in foreign policy. A speech given in Egypt in June was an eloquent call for a new understanding between America and Islam. It was designed both to assure Muslims, now thought to number 1.6 billion around the world, that America is not set on a crusade. Similarly it was intended to convey to any Americans (and others) who believe in the notion of a “clash of civilisations” that friendly ties between religions is eminently possible.

Similarly, American policy towards small and repressive regimes, ranging from Myanmar to Cuba, has shifted in mood, if not yet substance, by offering the prospect of engagement if governments demonstrate progress towards democracy…

Which to date has not only done absolutely nothing to help international cooperation, but has made our interests tougher to protect.  In nearly every UN Conference on whatever, for instance the G-20 dealing with the economic crisis, the US asks for a lot of cooperation and everyone goes their separate ways.

In some ways this is to be completely understood.  American solutions for economic issues will differ from that of Germany or the UK.  Even though the same basic problem afflicts most countries during the global recession,  their banking industries are setup with much different regulations, making the solutions for one country not necessarily compare to another country.  The separate policies might even be attempting the exact same “type” of solution, for instance increasing capital requirements, but under different systems any one specific solutions will affect different countries differently.

When it comes to reaching our hand out to those regimes, we see that North Korea, Russia, and Iran have been openly hostile to any US intents.  Iran’s deadline of October the 1st to fess up or face sanctions has come and gone, even while it was precipitated by Iran admitting to an additional enrichment facility.

And all this, including that all important warming of US-Russian relations, Russia has stated publicly the will continue to trade with Iran, meaning they will back them, if the UN, lead by the US impose stricter sanctions against Iran.

Now these situations are fluid to some extent, especially between cautious friends such as US-Russia and most of the controversial moves taken by Iran & North Korea would likely have happened to test any new US President’s resolve.

The issue is that by glossing over the realities we end up believing in myths.  Think about all that talk about “unilateral” action as if it’s a huge negative due to the controversy surrounding the last semi-unilateral decision to be made, without understanding that this is exactly as we should expect it.

No country should do something the US requests if they know in the end the analysis states otherwise.  On the international stage, Europeans, Cechs, Persians, Africians, indeed every person deserves the same representation we deserve – for their representatives to look out for their interests.

Now this can and does lead to all kinds of international policies from all different governments that appear wrong or unseemly when in truth it’s a playing field for which no one actor controls the rules which leads to countries making decisions that seem antithetical to their stated morals or goals.

It also allows one country to look at another as particularly egregious, regardless of their country’s current international policies.   It should be obvious that while beating up on your own politicians on domestic policy makes sense, doing so on the international stage is just beating yourself up.  Even if well-deserved, it’s easier to beat up on other country’s policies than it is to self reflect.

In some ways, national feeling probably affects this as well.  When most countries populations have enough information to dislike a number of other countries, going against that grain can be seen as being unpatriotic.  You certainly wouldn’t see a major political figure like Tony Blair coming to the US to air Britain’s dirty laundry or Putin to do the same in the US against Russia.

It also allows for journalists to paint country X with any brush they choose.  This helps some countries as the press will like some allies, but can obviously hurts or diminish countries for which popular sentiment doesn’t exist.

In the end, what it does is allow for a type of international superiority by enhancing nationalistic feelings.  When only reviewing other countries’ by hand picking policies, self-selecting cultural attributes, last recent controversy, crazy politicians, one can get the opinion of their general greatness over all those “other” people.

Lastly, and in my opinion, the most unfortunate consequence of this misinformation, is our inability to actually analyze international issues.  In between these simplistic news stories real trade-offs on the international stage are being made and constantly simplified.  From a high-level view the policy might appear to be utterly wrong, but in reality  might not be so.  It might simply be the least bad of all the bad options.  & it might really be the policy itself which is wrong.

For real analysis however, historical context, actions taken versus realistic options available, trends, and a number of other data points are required.  Without honest sourced information cost/benefit analysis simply isn’t possible.

Mark this as reason #6358, why most media outlets prove my point that “journalist” is becoming a pejorative term.

What happened?

Former President Bill Clinton, and a entourage of former Clinton advisers, went to North Korea in order to seek release of two American journalists who were sentenced to 12 years hard labor for allegedly  crossing the border (here & here)

North Korean dictator, and all around worthless despot, released the two women into the former President’s hands (here).

The President, with the two journalists held a joint press conference as soon as the plane landed (here).

What is the current media speculation?

Well, of course it differs by source.  The left leaning sites tend to applaud the former & current Presidents, while those leaning towards the right wonder what damage this might have done.

This is true, not just of blogs known for their inability to think critically such as The Daily Kos or The Free Republic, but also main stream news outlets.

From the WSJ:

…But the important question going forward is whether Mr. Clinton’s visit was merely the down payment Kim extracted from the Obama Administration for a potentially larger set of American concessions….

& even if it was a private meeting without input from the current administration:

…Yet Mr. Clinton’s visit is a message unto itself. It will bolster Kim’s bid to dissolve the six-party negotiations in favor of the direct talks with the U.S. he has long sought. It will also dismay some in South Korea and Japan, which have their own hostages in North Korea and will wonder why Mr. Clinton couldn’t obtain their release as well.

If it turns out that if a new nuclear negotiation really was begun during Mr. Clinton’s visit, it will also send the signal to North Korea that the worse its behavior, the more it stands to gain from the U.S. And it will mean that Kim’s price will be even higher to spring the next American hostages….

& from former experts, John Bolton in the Washington Post (here):

…Former president Clinton was met at Pyongyang’s airport by notables led by Kim Kye Gwan, the North’s long-time chief nuclear negotiator, an unmistakable symbol of linkage. In Pyongyang’s view, the two reporters are pawns in the larger game of enhancing the regime’s legitimacy and gaining direct access to important U.S. figures…

What do we really know?

Well, it is highly unlikely that the Obama administration and the State Department did not know before hand that this was happening.

The NK dictator himself has been housing the two journalists in a guest house, instead of the prison labor camp where they were sentenced.  Additionally, in order to travel to North Korea, State Department approval is required.

Based on those two facts, it appears that everyone knew what was happening and what the trip was for.

Beyond conjecture though, many news outlets have moved further to suggest that we have somehow weakened our bargaining position with North Korea for extending the visit from the former President.  Additionally, since the first person to great Mr. Clinton was met by  Kim Kye-gwan, North Korea’s top nuclear negotiator, there must be more to the story.

While it is certainly true that North Korea sees a high level visit from even a former President as a victory,  Kim Kye-gwan was likely there as a fluent English speaker to serve as a translator.

His being there could potentially mean something more, but it’s unlikely it does mean more.  Even if Mr. Clinton knew foreign policy topics would be up for discussion,  there isn’t any reason to believe he would be allowed to actually negotiate any agreement.

It should also be clear that while Kim Jung Ill is a worthless tyrant, he is not irrational and therefore is aware of this as well.

Lastly, we know the US is seeking to negotiate with North Korea very differently than we have in the past.  Our goal for some time now has been to force NK to the negotiating table to sign a treaty which will not be implemented in phases, but an all-or-nothing approach to minimize North Korea’s ability to get something, only to renege later.

North Korea on the other hand, wants diplomatic status in the international community and value even the appearance of high level talks as this leads them in that direction.

To demonstrate just how high the place perception on the value scale, see no further than the current head of the Special Envoy to NK.  Nominated by President Obama,  Stephen Bosworth is maintaining not only his new government job, but also retaining his university position as well.

To Kim Jung Ill, having a part-time diplomat trying to negotiate with his world power status country that is NK, is insulting.

So from all appearances and known facts with minor conjecture, it doesn’t seem as if anything was wrong with Obama’s approach.

North Korea received their high level visit, while the Obama administration can deny any linkage between Clinton & their administration.  Two journalists who were going to face 12 years of potentially fatal hell, have been released to their families.

& this is a potential sign, though more information is needed, that back channel negotiations can start again, to hopefully minimize the nuclear threat NK can pose to the region.

This is how foreign policy works with “terrorist” regimes.  While the US, under all Presidents claim they will never negotiate, we always do, as we have to deal with anyone capable of hurting the global economy and our allies.

If the journalists don’t like this because it runs counter to their current understanding of reality, I suggest they rethink their view of reality rather than put the Obama administration into a preassigned hole of being weak on foreign policy.