Welcome to the club

Bradley K. Martin asks: do North Korea’s latest nuclear shenanigans mean it’s high time to give South Korea and Japan a green light to go down the same road? Martin says it’s a good question. The DPRK has nuclear weapons now. So, why shouldn’t US allies South Korea and Japan? But Martin concludes, the answer is no. And Robert Gates agrees. The defense secretary is just repeating longstanding US policy of including South Korea and Japan under the US nuclear umbrella. But that policy – along with the whole global nuclear non-proliferation system, for that matter – is being challenged like never before with North Korea going nuclear. Kim Jong-il has crossed red line after red line. Barack Obama is at least the third US president to have to deal with a North Korean nuclear headache. And it’s still not clear what the best remedy is.

Pesky North Korea

Here’s your North Korea reading for tonight, over at ForeignPolicy.com. Experts weigh in on what to do about North Korea’s second nuclear test and latest missile firings. And breifly, this is what they’re saying:

Donald Gross wants Barack Obama just needs to remain calm.

Stephen Walt tells everybody to chill out.

David Rothkopf wishes the UN (and Obama too, by the way) would grow a pair.

Philip Zelikow laments the failure of worthy multi-lateral diplomacy and calls for punitive action (which he says amounts to a dry run for Iran).

Siegfried Hecker is worried about North Korean-Iranian cooperation.

Daniel Drezner sees no good options, except for getting China to help with tightening sanctions (but he doesn’t explain how to pull that one off).

Cheney’s false choice

Here’s the new iteration of an old argument, from the text of Cheney’s speech today:

… Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.

So we’re left to draw one of two conclusions – and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event – coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.

Or, you might draw an all-together different conclusion about some of the Bush-Cheney policies that are being so hotly debated now.

American Influence Podcast, Episode 19

What’s in the latest podcast?

A look at the first meeting between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu. We opened the show on Monday of this week with a short interview with yours truly and host Lisa Mullins about that which divides the American president and Israeli prime minister. It’s followed by an interview with Israeli journalist, Akiva Eldar of Haaretz, focused on what’s at stake politically for Netanyahu as he begins his second go-around as prime minister.

Next, president Obama’s decision to revive the military commissions system for some detainees at Guantanmo isn’t going over well with some his own supporters. Experts say the issue is likely to go – again – to the Supreme Court.

Finally, thanks to the folks at War News Radio at Swarthmore College. They wrap up the podcast this week with a report on Iraqi refugees.

Get the RSS feed: 

Become a fan on Facebook: 

Subscribe on iTunes: 

And if you’re a Twitterer: 

Obama – Netanyahu uncut

Here’s a transcript at Jerusalem Post of today’s on-camera Q&A with Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu. And here’s a breakdown of points for and against from Spencer Ackerman at the Washington Independent.

Another president, another prime minister, lots to do

Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu met one-on-one and ran about 30 minutes over schedule. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs speculated (something he does with militant infrequency) that this meant they were having a productive conversation. In any case, I didn’t get to hear what the president and prime minister had to say to pool reporters until about 2:30 this afternoon. So, it was a bit of a rush into the studio to record this short interview with Lisa Mullins about what they had to say. As expected, there wasn’t any whopping news here, but whatever these two leaders have to say – at this time – and about these issues – (Palestine, Iran, Hamas, Israeli-Arab relations, and so on) is interesting.

We followed up with an interview focused on what’s at stake for Isreal’s new (but he’s been PM before) prime minister, Netanyahu. Lisa spoke with Israeli journalist Akiva Eldar.

Gibbs on Netanyahu visit

Obama’s meetings with Netanyahu were scheduled to run from about 10:30 through lunch. They went an hour longer than that. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says that might be a sign that the meetings were productive.

Is there any possible reason for optimism about the Israeli – Palestinian “peace process,” Gibbs was asked?

“The president would tell you that no one expected this would be easy,” Gibbs said. “The president believes the conversations (with Netanyahu) were a good start.”

It’s noteworthy that Obama, at one point in the 30 minute or so appearance he made with Netanyahu, hinted at a very flexible timetable on. He mentioned, “the days, weeks and months” ahead.

What does it mean when Netanyahu says the Palestinians have to recognize Israel as a “Jewish state”? Does that mean they have to give up the right of return for refugees?

Gibbs said he’d look into it.

What’s at stake for Netanyahu

I did a short conversation with our host, Lisa Mullins today about the Obama-Netanyahu meetings. This was followed up with a great interview with Akiva Eldar, reporter for the Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz.  I’ll post links to the sequence later, but here’s a piece from Eldar in today’s paper.

A quick note on the Oval Office appearance by Obama and Netanyahu. Stephen Walt (though he wasn’t the only one with this prediction) was right, there wasn’t a whole lot of substance or surprise in their comments. Walt’s dream statements didn’t materialize either, for what it’s worth.

More on the Netanyahu side of the summit here, from Ori Nir at Americans for Peace Now. And here, from The Altantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg.

Obama re-boots military commissions

The president issued a three paragraph statement today on re-starting the military commissions system created by the Bush administration. Liberals, lawyers and advocates for human rights and civil liberties are not happy about Obama’s decision to keep these military tribunals going, even with his proposed changes to give terrorist suspects expanded rights. They’re characterizing this move as a reversal.

The two voices in my radio story today (besides White House spokesman Robert Gibbs): one is retired admiral and former US Navy Judge Advocate General, John Hutson. The other is Eugene Fidell, professor at Yale Law School and president of the National Institute of Military Justice.

Why not US courts?

The system of military commissions that Barack Obama says he will start revamping and reviving is likely to be used on just 20 or so of the terrorist suspects at Guantanamo on trial. And this would include the so-called “high value” Al Qaeda suspects like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh. The big question on my mind is, why not put all of these guys on trial in US federal courts? Here’s an answer from un-named US officials as characterized by William Glaberson of the NY Times:

Officials said the decision to proceed with military commissions came partly as a result of concerns that some detainees might not be successfully prosecuted in federal courts. They said lawyers reviewing the cases worried that, among a host of issues, federal courts procedures might be too cumbersome to protect classified evidence that is likely to be central to many cases.

They also said questions surrounding the brutal treatment of some detainees had become an obstacle. Though some detainees did give so-called “clean” confessions to participating in terrorist activities in 2007, they were not given the warnings against self-incrimination that are standard law enforcement practice because of constitutional protections.