Refusing to Serve

Sarah Sanders

Yesterday, Sarah Sanders was asked to leave a small restaurant where she had just stared to dine. The owner explained to Sanders "that the restaurant has certain standards that I feel it has to uphold, such as honesty, and compassion, and cooperation".

The decision was the owner's taken after consulting with her staff, which, it is worth noting, had served her as it would any other customer.  
  

As the WaPo reported: "Cole [who represented the gay couple who sued the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado for refusing to make their wedding cake because of his beliefs about same-sex marriage] disagreed [that the situations were comparable].  'When people say the gay couple in Masterpiece Cakeshop could simply go down the street to another baker, that ‘it’s no big deal,’ that could also be said for Sarah Sanders. But it is a huge indignity to be turned away from a place that is open to the public.' "

A couple of points in rebuttal:

1. The couple turned away by the Masterpiece Cakeshop were equally the subject of an indignity in a public place (even if the shop were empty at the time).  
2. Indignity is something that Sanders routinely inflicts on the White House press corp, and indirectly on thinking people everywhere.
3. As a public figure, she cannot expect the anonymity.

It is also perhaps worth considering that there may be a n economic rationale; the restaurant is in a Democratic district in a Republican state, and having Sanders as a client might have caused her local clientelle to stay away.

Negotiating tactics

After five hundred plus days, I have just realized how Trump negotiates. Take North Korea. First he escalates the situation so that the likelihood of a terrible outcome for his opponent is higher than it would otherwise have been; then he offers a deal to take things back to where they were before he inflamed the situation. A second example is immigration. He implements a new draconian policy (separating children from their parents) so that he has something to give up in negotiation.

It's an interesting tactic - make things worse so that in a subsequent negotiated settlement, you can give something up that simply returns you to your original pre-escalation position; you have conceded nothing and (hopefully) gotten something else in return. Essentially it is hostage taking. I'll deprive you of something you value and the sell it back to you.

What is as yet unclear is whether it works - it clearly has not yet in the North Korea de-neuclearization. Whether it will get him what he wants in the immigration debate is less clear - I suspect this one he will win simply because the Democrats can't afford, morally or electorally, to turn their backs on the situation Trump has created. 

Two Wrongs

Two wrongs don't make a right, the adage goes. And in James Comey's case that couldn't be more true. His first mistake was deciding to go against FBI norms and make a public statement explaining his recommendation not to recommend changes be pressed against Hilary Clinton for using her private email server for the sending of classified information.  While his fear that not to prosecute would be viewed as favouring candidate Clinton, he violated a long-standing and important FBI norm in making that statement.

That the created a problem later on, when the Weiner laptop was "discovered". Having appeared to "let Clinton off the hook" he felt obligated to put her back on it when the laptop was found to have some of her emails on it. That was a second violation - commenting on a now on-going (reopened) investigation.

The first blunder infuriated Republicans who hated Hilary with a vengeance (think "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi", as well as the emails). The second, writing to Congress to inform it that the investigation had been reopened, provided the GOP with much needed talking points and "dirt" on the eve of the election, and despite that fact that there was no "there" there, that impression wasn't correct for several days by which time votes had been cast and minds made up.  

What does China Want?

Much under-reported amidst all the media ballyhoo surrounding the Kim-Trump summit has been the question: "what does china want"? China matters because sanctions are effector only if China wants then to be. And if sanctions are what bought Kim to the summit, then China holds the cards.

China clearly doesn't want regime change in North Korea because that would likely lead to Korean unification and a non-communist regime less sympathetic to it than the DPRK. It would also provide a large potential base of operations for the projection of US military force in the Asia Pacific region.

On the other hand, China would like to see a rapprochement between the two Koreas and a formal end to the war. That would reduce the justification for the US to keep a military presents in the South. If the South were to decide that it was safer building a relationship with China than with the US, it might close its US military bases which would strengthen China's position in the region.  So China can be expected to keep up sufficient pressure on the North to force an end to the war and the expulsion of US military bases from the South, but without causing sufficient economic hardship that regime change or collapse becomes more likely.

Alienating allies

Last week Donald Trump behaved in an unprecedentedly (for a world leader) petulant manner towards the other members of the G7. He, and his minions, insulted Prime Minister Trudeau; he left early; and he refused to sign the joint communiqué.

Does this matter? After all, his counterparts must by now have gotten over the shock of his boorish behaviour and his lack of fidelity to the facts. They are grown-up enough to get past any personal feelings of (justifiable) animosity, although I doubt that any of them experted to have to exercise the same kind of restraint they need when dealing with the leaders of pariah states like Russia or North Korea when dealing with the President of the United Sates. When it comes to any call for joint action, it seems unlikely that they (Trump excepted) would let their personal feelings interfere with their rational decision making.  

But the answer to "does it matter" is a resounding: yes it does. A country's leader is not only the chief executives of its government; they are also figure-heads, with symbolic meaning for their citizens. When you insult a foreign leader, you insult that country's people. That makes cooperation with the US more politically difficult. Theresa May may have a harder time asking Parliament to go out on a limb to help the US (as for example, Tony Blair had to at the onset of the Iraq war) when MPs are facing an electorate that takes a dimmer view of the US than it did when Barack Obama was president.  That reduces America's influence on the world stage, and further paves the way for the rise of China. 

The US DPRK joint declaration - with commentary

The joint declaration, as reported by the New York Times:

"President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong-un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) held a first, historic summit in Singapore on June 12, 2018. 

President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-un conducted a comprehensive, in-depth, and sincere exchange of opinions on the issues related to the establishment of new U.S.-DPRK relations and the building of a lasting and robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK and Chairman Kim Jong-un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Convinced that the establishment of new U.S.-DPRK relations will contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and of the world, and recognizing that mutual confidence building can promote the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-un state the following.

1. The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new U.S.-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.

2. The United States and the DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.

3. Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

4. The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.

Having acknowledged that the U.S.-DPRK summit — the first in history — was an epochal event of great significance in overcoming decades of tensions and hostilities between the two countries and for the opening up of a new future, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-un commit to implement the stipulations in this joint statement fully and expeditiously. The United States and the DPRK commit to hold follow-on negotiations, led by the U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level DPRK official, at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the U.S.-DPRK summit.

President Donald J. Trump of the United States and Chairman Kim Jong-un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have committed to cooperate for the development of new U.S.-DPRK relations and for the promotion of peace, prosperity, and security of the Korean Peninsula and of the world."

Commentary

Timing

Usually, in this kind of high-stakes diplomacy, the principals only meet when the negotiation has been concluded to put their signatures on a done deal; that avoids the possibility of the appearance of failure at the highest level. Trump has chosen to reverse this order; starting the process with a top level summit and as laying the groundwork for negotiations. Some have suggested, perhaps rightly that the old way of doing things hadn't worked so why not try something new? I might be more persuaded by this were it not that I suspect Trump's motives to be slightly different; he's  less interested in the substantive terms of the deal than in being seen to have "delivered something" (whatever that something might be). And it could well be that the 'something' here is simply this communique,that nothing more will come of it. But that might be all wants running into the 2018 mid-terms to shore up the GOP base and keep the House and the Senate in GOP hands. So this is essentially about reducing the likelihood of  impeachment. 

Commitments and actions

1. "President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK and Chairman Kim Jong-Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula".  The term security guarantees is fairly vague and open to braod interpretation, so there is little committed to by the US here, but the DBRK has "committed" to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula which will not be fulfilled until the US removes its capabilities from South Korea; that's a strategy since it leaves Japan and the South less protected, and reduces the US presence in Asia at a time when China is becoming more bellicose and territorial. 
2. Of the four enumerated points,the first two are feel-good fluff and meaningless. The third deals with the "complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula", as noted above. And the fourth dealing with POW/MIA remains is a small concession by the DPRK (but a big deal to the families involved) that does not affect its strategic nuclear deterrence.  
3. Finally the declaration notes "The United States and the DPRK commit to hold follow-on negotiations, led by the U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level DPRK official, at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the U.S.-DPRK summit". which simply means that there will be more meetings to follow up on the undertakings in the declaration, some easy fixes, some highly problematic.

Reversibility

Some US concessions are probably easily reversible; the lifting and re-imposition of sanctions may be one (though their effectiveness may depend in part in the US' relations with its allies). So might be the suspension of joint military exercises with South Korea. Others may be more difficult to reintroduce. For example, bringing the war to a formal end might lead to South Korea deciding to remove US military bases from its soil. That would have adverse national security implication for the US and its regional allies; but those allies might consider they are better off making peace with China and North Korea than relying on the US for protection. 

Time will tell, but this feels like a staged reality-TV event, contrived for domestic political ends in both countries.  

'Beg your pardon?

Yesterday, Donald Trump used his pardon power to void the convictions of Dinesh D’Souza, who illegally and knowingly circumvented campaign finance laws by promising to reimburse individuals who made individual political donations to Wendy Long's Senate 2012 Senate election campaign. Trump is reportedly considering pardoning Martha Stewart, convicted of insider trading, and commuting the sentence of Rob Blagojevich, convicted for trying to barter his choice of successor to President-elect Obama's soon to be vacant seat in the Senate.

Trumps acts and statements are revealing. First the common threads; all three, D’Souza, Blagojevich and Stewart were guilty of violating both the law and the public trust for personal gain, demonstrating clearly how little regard Trump has for either the rule of law, his level of comfort with self-serving greed as a guiding principle, and his contempt for the optic (and reality) of violating societal norms. Second, it reveals who he thinks matters - all are well known "celebrities". This could reflect, as CNN seems to be suggesting, a preoccupation with fame and notoriety. But a more likely explanation is that he see this as  a way of achieving four goals; the boosting of some high-profile Obama critics and vocal Trump supporters; a signal to those who might be ready to testify against him that if they have his back he will have theirs; a further jab to undermine public confidence in the judicial system; and a signal that he is above partisanship (Blagojevich being a Democrat).

That he is commuting Blagojevich's sentence isn't simply about Trump showing generosity to the opposition. Rather, it could be interpreted as an indication that he considers both parties' platforms inconsequential, mired as they are in what they see as political and economic reality and he sees as needless quagmire; he is untethered to the past, to precedent, or the norms that have governed Washington for decades; the only voices he listens to are his own and Fox and Friends.

The country is at an inflection point; the Obama years steered the country gently in a more compassionate, centrist direction. Lots of folk, particularly the whites in the red states, feeling let down by decades of unfulfilled promises and a feeling that the political system was paying too much attention to fringe groups (like climate scientists) and minorities, decided to "stick it to the system" by electing a crude, misogynistic, racists, ignorant, dishonest, vain, paranoid, greedy, materialistic, self-serving huckster. Whatever the economic and security gains are made, on trade and in the international order,
that choice will resonate down the ages, a choice the unintended (and some intended) consequences of which we will be living with at least until after I'm long gone.

The question is: how does the country respond; and the signs aren't good. The left, rising to the bait with each insult spewing from the White house on a daily basis, is blinded by such anger and contempt that they seem unable  to focus on the issues the country faces. The right sees that as a direct attack on their (lack of) values and responds with nonsensical "what-aboutisms", distortions and lies with increasing impunity. Increasingly divided, siloed by social and cable media, the opportunity for seeing common ground is fast disappearing. If the next few years are filled with the same degree of division and disdain for "the other", many will turn away to focus on the daily grind, leaving public policy in the hands of those arguably least suited act in the interests of those they are supposed to represent.