Category: International

Originally published on November 22nd, 2019 in The Korea Times.

As a student of history, I can’t help but look on in horror as I see President Donald Trump’s conduct of foreign affairs. He has taken his impulsive, rash approach to international relations where it is ill-suited. His actions stand in direct contrast to the wisdom shown by the men who created the postwar order which is beginning to unravel.

Following the end of World War II, America’s foreign policymakers were faced with the issue of how to construct a framework to prevent the recurrence of wars which had plagued Europe since times immemorial. They largely succeeded.

They had the foresight to construct a new inclusive world order from the ashes of WWII. Throughout his presidency, Trump has been irking American allies, shirking America’s leadership in the world and creating trade wars for seemingly no gain.

Trump has steadily withdrawn from engagement with the rest of the world since his inauguration. He has pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal which has led to the precipice of war while declining to take a lead in fighting climate change.

By withdrawing from the Iran deal with seemingly no thought of what to do other than apply maximum pressure, he has driven a rift between America and the rest of the signatories of the deal. Somehow, despite pulling out and squeezing Iran, Trump continues to insist that Iran abide by the deal regardless of American provocations. It is truly a feat of inept diplomacy when you cede the moral high ground and reasonableness to the Iranians.

Early on in his presidency, Trump signaled his intent to pull out of the Paris accords; dealing a blow to any American efforts to exert any leadership in the world. He further hampered American influence by raising objections to America joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership pact.

The pact was designed to create a giant free trade zone with the creation of standards and regulations which would help prevent Chinese economic hegemony over East Asia. Instead of pursuing it, Trump pulled out in pursuit of a more isolationist approach to economic relations with the rest of the world.

Maybe breaking up the economic partnership between China and America could be portrayed as a smart move by Trump if he weren’t also threatening tariffs with Mexico and involved in trade disputes with much of the rest of the world.

If America and China’s economies decouple, it’s likely that Mexico would be the natural replacement for increasing trade with America in China’s absence. Instead, Trump throws up the threat of barriers with Mexico in a sad attempt to solve the immigration problem.

Migration from Mexico has dropped as its economy has developed since the formation of NAFTA. Now, the current flood of immigrants are largely coming from Central America. Eliminating the source of Mexican wealth, economic union with America, is yet another horrible idea. Decoupling it from America will only raise the prospect of Mexicans joining people fleeing the Central American states heading for the U.S. It would be harmful to both nations.

I think Trump’s “instincts” are correct concerning China but his approach is so befuddled I see it more of Trump’s blabbering as actually being right for once instead of being completely off the mark.

Ideally, Trump would be preserving alliances and trading relations with partners and mobilize them against China. A free trade agreement between the EU and NAFTA would have been a wise move, creating trade standards and bringing extra economic strength to the democracies of the world.

This democratic-economic behemoth could have then been extended an FTA over to Japan and Korea, economic powerhouses sitting on China’s doorstep. Instead, relations within NAFTA are being strained as are relations between it and the EU while democratic nations of Japan and South Korea find themselves locked in a trade dispute.

Instead of throwing up a unified democratic front, anchored with the EU, NAFTA, and engagement in East Asia and the Pacific Rim with the TPP, Trump has only managed to alienate allies with nothing to show except for China benefiting from the chaos.

Trump is managing to isolate America in the world exactly when its relative position in the world is declining. Instead of working in conjunction with allies, he is seemingly throwing them under the bus.

American soldiers died in WWII, and their deaths served as the foundation of the postwar world which has proven so steady and beneficial around the world. The U.S. directed the construction of this system, and draws innumerable advantages from it.

Instead of using America’s vast economic dominance at the end of WWII to try to bully the rest of the world, American leaders rebuilt the economies of both former allies and enemies.

America’s pre-eminence at the end of WWII was a temporary aberration as the rest of the industrial centers of the world were destroyed. American leaders at the time correctly saw that American interests would be best served by rehabilitating the economies of our allies and enemies instead of trying to keep them permanently weakened.

Now, America continues to have the world’s largest economy but it is no longer unrivalled. At this moment, Trump is attempting to flex America’s economic muscles decades after they were no longer unrivalled. Trump has realized that governing requires concessions and compromises which are abilities he lacks.

His actions concerning foreign affairs clearly don’t come from a particularly sharp or even a seemingly sound mind. Trump’s tariffs and threats of tariffs are the only thing he can do to lash out. Everywhere else he finds himself stymied. In the House, Democrats refuse to bend to him while major foreign economies now have the heft to push back against American economic pressure.

His vaunted deal-making skills further exposed as hollow, as he unsuccessfully claimed he could negotiate an improved version of the Iranian deal he pulled out of. Despite their personal warmth, a breakthrough with North Korea has proved elusive. So, he just uses a sledgehammer in the form of tariffs.

America’s relations with its allies are weakening and the Trump presidency is vacating American leadership in the world. There could not be a more inopportune time as China steps to the forefront of world affairs and Russia chips away at the established norms of the current system.

The system America created from the rubble of WWII still holds today, largely in peace but it is under siege. The system was built up on the death of American soldiers in WWII and Korea. It is being thrown away without a fight, a spit in the face to the many dead who died to build a peaceful prosperous future which has stood since 1945.

One could make the case that the system isn’t worth expending blood over, that ultimately it would die anyway. However, it is certainly worth defending through other means rather than simply disrupting it from the inside and hastening its demise. It is an international dereliction of duty.

In ancient Italy, the highest humiliation for a beaten army was to “passum sub iugum” or, pass under the yoke.  During the Social Wars, the Samnites trapped a Roman army in a defile. The army, facing starvation was forced to pass under a yoke comprised of spears in a sort of ritual humiliation.  This was the highest form of humiliation a defeated army could face. However, passing under the yoke could also be passed under as a means of making amends or atoning for some wrong.  

Now you may be thinking, what has that got to do with today?  I couldn’t help but think of the convoys departing from Syria last week with their flags flying high.  To my mind, the American convoys leaving Syria should have been flying their flags at half mast because the withdrawal from Syria was not a defeat, but it certainly wasn’t done on a basis of strength and the flags at half mast would be modern day symbolic gesture of atonement to the Kurds.

I don’t mean this as any disrespect to the soldiers themselves who did a hell of a job keeping the Turks and Kurds from coming to blows.  The failure of leadership lies with President Trump, who true to his nature, threw the Kurds under the bus. The Kurds lost over 11,000 lives in defeating ISIS while America lost less than 20.  As the NYT put it, America essentially outsourced the fighting and deaths in the battle against ISIS to the Kurds. How did America repay them? By abandoning them to their 

The minute ISIS is nearly broken and destroyed, President Trump arbitrarily decides to pull out leaving the Kurds at the mercy of the Turks.  Keep in mind, American soldiers lived, fought and bled since 2014 with the Kurds. In an effort to keep the Americans in place, the Kurds agreed to destroy fortifications, supplies and make other concessions in an effort to placate the Turks and remove any reason for them to feel threatened from The Kurds.

This withdrawal was not American soldiers leaving from a position of strength, but rather a scattershot withdrawal and its showed.  F15s were required to bomb a base in order to destroy its usefulness since departing soldiers were in such haste they couldn’t do the job themselves,  Furthermore, there are suspicions that the Turks deliberately fired artillery at outposts manned by Americans . This withdrawal wasn’t America leaving on its own terms and conditions in a planned fashion but a pullout like a whipped dog.

Despite being thrown under the proverbial bus, the Kurds, despite having every reason to have their hearts filled with hatred, even assisted in the withdrawal of the Americans.  The Kurds, gave more assistance than any country in identifying, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS and creating the conditions necessary for his successful elimination.

What Trump did to the Kurds was a stain on American honor.  All Americans should pass under the yoke to atone for the wrongs done to these people.  

By Alex Gratzek – Originally published in The Korea Times

In the past and even today, some have been making the argument for smaller government along the lines of libertarianism.

This may have been fine in centuries past, however, in the world today, the case for a more robust government is stronger than for an administration that is retreating from involvement in its citizens’ lives. At least it appears so to this writer judging from a quick glance at Korean and American society.

In Korea, the need for government is increasing as traditional Confucianism fades away. In the past, the family could be expected to provide a safety net for elder members of the community. In recent years, this understanding between the generations has been faltering.

Today’s parents, squeezed between paying for their children’s education (private academies) and ever more expensive housing, are not in the position to provide their parents with money or a home to stay in, as their parents provided for their own before them.

That is not to say that no children care for their parents, but to point out that it is happening with less frequency and with greater hardship than in previous generations.

According to an article written by Kim Jae-won in the Nikkei Asian Review, the average pensioner in Korea receives 250,000 ($206) won a month; while nearly half of South Koreans over 65 live in poverty. It is unfathomable to me that such a small pension could be sufficient to live on, let alone in a comfortable manner.

What entity has the ability to care for the elderly? Companies are shirking from providing adequate pensions while families are being squeezed by the costs of modern living. Only governments have the power and authority to step up to the plate. It is especially galling that the generation which built Korea into an economic powerhouse is now struggling to survive on the margins of society.

In the U.S., there has always been a strong libertarian streak focusing on personal responsibility and minimal government. This may have been acceptable during the nation’s early days when communities were small and isolated while local businesses served the community within which they were located. Personal relationships and reputations served as a check on any chicanery or gross violations in the standards of decency.

Nowadays, corporations are behemoths with supply chains spanning the globe, subsidiary corporations and opaque structures.

The sheer size of these entities, when coupled with their profits allows them to buy the best lawyers, curry influence in countries across the globe, and identify ways to keep individuals continually using their products. It means that people cannot easily fight against corporations on an equal footing.

For example, how many times a day do you check your smartphone or tablet? Too many to count I would imagine. App developers and phone makers intentionally use bright colors and other psychological tricks to keep users continually using their services. You may say, well that may be so but it’s largely harmless so what’s the issue?

Take a look at cigarettes. Decades ago, cigarette corporations were able to muddy the waters concerning the health hazards of cigarette smoking by financing studies favorable to their cause. It took decades to overcome this obfuscation on their part with the resultant untold numbers of dead and sick.

Today, the same battle is being played out with sugary drinks. Despite knowing they are unhealthy and should be consumed in very limited amounts, companies like Coca Cola and other manufacturers frame the debate not over whether sugary drinks are healthy, but as a matter of personal choice. Who is the government to dictate what people can and can’t drink?

In this light, you would be hard pressed to find a person in favor of such governmental powers but the thing to remain focused on is the individual consumer versus the corporation. Sure, if it’s an even playing field then the consumer should be free to do whatever they wish. However, the playing field is never level between consumer and corporation.

Going back to cigarettes, in the days of my youth, cartoon mascots were used to hawk cigarettes to the adolescents of the day. Kids and cartoons going together, who would of thought it? Today, there has been a push to package all cigarettes in uniform boxes with no brand names or other markings.

This would level the playing field for consumers by undercutting some of the psychological tricks played by the cigarette companies, but the movement has largely been beaten back because of ardent opposition from the companies whose bottom lines would suffer.

In the past, a hands-off libertarian approach to government may have proved workable. The family unit was stronger allowing for the aged and infirm to be taken care of while any shady local business would quickly lose the trust of the surrounding community and go out of business.

The problem is that in today’s world, the family unit has weakened as corporate power has grown, but governments have yet to stand up to corporations and put some limits on their excesses.

The issue with corporations is that their only focus is on selling their goods and services to consumers by any means necessary. Today, there is a need for a stronger larger government to deal with the complexities of modern living more than ever before.

By Alex Gratzek

One of the major reasons for Trump’s success in being elected to the presidency was his insistence that a wall would be constructed along the southern border and it would be paid for by Mexico. It became a rallying cry at his rallies, helping to propel him to the presidency.

Despite his comparison that wheels are old and still work, so therefore walls must also still be effective, a quick glance through history will show this to not be the case. Instead, money intended for a wall could be used much more wisely in the pursuit of ending illegal immigration.

Trump’s desire to build a Great Wall of America underscores a certain ignorance of the “success” of the original Great Wall in China.

The Great Wall was constructed with the aim of protecting China from the nomadic tribes of the Steppes such as the Mongols, Manchus, and others. Despite the construction of the wall through the enormous expenditure of treasure and sweat, China found itself repeatedly overrun by Steppes peoples at various times throughout its history.

China was often better off when it traded with or bought the non-aggression of such tribes’ tribute. The Steppes could not provide all the grains, luxuries and manufactured goods needed by its peoples which could only be obtained from China; either through trade and tribute or plunder.

Such trade was skewed in favor of the Steppes peoples as they produced very little China actually needed, but it allowed the leaders of tribes to maintain their authority and prestige to curtail raiding. Often times, the termination of trade rights and the subsequent stoppage of goods flowing to the Steppes would lead to open warfare.

A part of America’s border with Mexico is along the Rio Grande. The river serves as a natural barrier which Trump wishes to supplement by fortifying it with fencing or a wall which lessons from history show is just another half-baked idea. It has been tried before and failed.

The Roman Empire, after the annihilation of Varus’s legions in A.D. 9, ceased its efforts at expansion in Germany and instead chose to consolidate and defend its holdings. The borders it came to rely on were the mighty rivers of Europe, the Rhine and the Danube.

Although its borders came to rest on these rivers, the rivers were supplemented with military rivercraft to discourage crossings and fortified cities at key points. All this never proved sufficient to prevent a plethora of peoples from periodically crossing the Rhine or the Danube, eventually culminating in the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire.

The mass migrations which created a domino effect leading to the fall of Rome can be traced back to the Goths attempting to flee from the Huns to the relative safety of the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire was safer when it paid “tribute” to these peoples beyond the rivers as it solidified the position of local rulers. They would in turn dissipate gold and other luxuries which cemented their status as the provider of such goods.
When Rome cut this ‘tribute” the authority of the local ruler would be undercut and war-bands would splinter off to take by force what was no longer being provided by the local ruler whose authority was no longer unquestionable.

Trump’s infatuation with building a wall to prevent illegal immigration is not one that is grounded in reality. There are countless examples of migration throughout history of people overcoming obstacles, both manmade and natural. The untold billions being bandied about for a building a wall and its upkeep would undoubtedly be better spent on economic assistance to Central America.

In our countries recent past, the aftermath of World War II saw Europe devastated and countless refugees flocking to the safety and prosperity of America. With the advent of the Marshall Plan and the reconstruction of Europe, the flood of refugees to America turned to a trickle and in present day the number of immigrants from Europe is very small.

Now, the majority of immigrants coming to America are from “shithole countries” Trump seems to despise so much. If he wants to curtail this, the wall is perhaps the worst approach but the one that is most appealing to his vanity.

As time progresses and the ability to forestall climate changes lessens, the current trickle of refugees to America from Central America will turn into a flood. Climate change will be most felt by the poorer countries of the world which lack the resources to alleviate the coming crisis.

Some citizens of these nations are now fleeing gang violence and a lack of opportunities, but with climate change, a mass migration is not inconceivable as people will be seeking their very survival.

People from Africa are currently risking their lives to cross the Mediterranean to reach Europe. An entirely natural occurring sea is surely a stronger deterrent than a wall and yet this has proven to be an inadequate deterrent to migration to Europe.

If Trump is genuine in his concern to prevent such migration, it’s better to act now and to provide aid to the countries in Central America so they are able to develop themselves and take care of their people’s needs rather than throwing up obstacles which history has repeatedly shown to be ineffective in the face of human determination.