From diplomacy to politics
and current affairs
Photo of Himalayas from Tibet
Part 1: The Hermit Kingdom In April 2000 I embarked on a train journey from Beijing to Pyongyang, capital of the hermit kingdom, North Korea. The journey took 23 hours and I shared a compartment with a North Korean who did not speak a word of English and whose sparse knowledge of Mandarin, like my own, was not good enough for conversation.
I took a taxi to the main station in Beijing. It was Saturday and, with ticket and diplomatic passport in hand, and a thoughtful note from my secretary written in Chinese characters requesting assistance in helping me find the right train compartment, in case I got into difficulty, I was excited to be on my way at last. The diplomats at the North Korean embassy in Beijing and their colleagues in Pyongyang had been very supportive and helpful in planning and arranging my official visit. They wanted to open an Embassy in South Africa and obviously expected to build on whatever co-operation and good feeling came out of my visit. There was a much larger crowd at the station than I expected to see, but given that it was Saturday and people were arriving from out of town I should not have been surprised. As I pushed through the mass of people, I felt reasonably sure I would need to use my secretary’s note. I was wrong. The train was quite clearly marked, Pyongyang, in English. I had been forewarned that the last two coaches were reserved for foreigners and North Korean nationals and that the windows of those cars were sealed. Fortunately, as I soon discovered, the windows could be opened. The Chinese platform official spoke enough English to be able to assure me I was at the right coach, which I boarded without delay. The compartment was better than I expected, certainly a lot better than the Indian trains I had seen in a few old movies, my benchmark for unacceptable levels of train discomfort whenever I needed to consider travelling by rail. This was also my first train journey in China. My reserved compartment contained a single North Korean soldier. He did not speak English. There was a lot of hustle and bustle in the corridor as more passengers climbed aboard. Another soldier entered the compartment. The two soldiers had a short conversation and then both of them left. I was just getting used to my solitude, when another North Korean entered the compartment. He was not a military man. He dragged two large suitcases into the compartment and stashed one on the top bunk and pushed the other one under the lower bunk. He also had some plastic carry bags that he left on the lower bunk next to where he was sitting. My travelling companion and I communicated intermittently in sign language. We had both packed food and drink for the journey and we shared a few biscuits and some fruit I had brought along. He offered to share some of his food, but I had visions of starving North Koreans and declined. Eventually, the train started moving slowly out of the station …. ……… That evening, at the Koryo hotel, something very strange happened. My room was on one of the upper floors and when I got into the elevator to go to the ground floor it stopped suddenly and a door behind me opened. This was not the same door I had used to enter. Curious, I got out, and the door closed behind me. I found myself in a gloomy unlit corridor that appeared to be an unfinished part of the hotel. Men were walking back and forth past me, carrying equipment and sacks on their shoulders. They did not say anything, or speak to one another, but they looked surprised to see me. I realised that I was in a place where I could disappear without trace. I turned to get back into the elevator, and was relieved to see a button to press. I pressed it and waited for what seemed several minutes, but was probably only a few seconds. The door opened. Out of the gloom three men walking stooped over in single file were approaching, carrying sacks. I got into the elevator and continued to the ground floor. I asked one or two hotel people about the passage, but they did not seem to know what I was talking about. The following day, a Tuesday, I was taken to the Mangyongdae ancestral home of the Great Leader, Kim il Sung. Mangyongdae is situated above the small Konyu island of the Taedong River that flows through Pyongyang. The relatively humble home is located within what is now a national park and is kept in pristine condition, as befits a national shrine. It receives thousands of visitors each year from all parts of North Korea as well as visitors from abroad. Mr Ri and Mr Jo walked with me to a viewing spot that looked down on the Taedong River. Mr Ri pointed down at the river and said, “that is where the American pirate ship, the Sharman, was sunk by the Great Leader’s grandfather in 1866. The Americans were all killed.” I said I had not heard that story before, but it was interesting. I asked him to spell the name of the vessel that had been sunk. He did so and I said: “That’s the Sherman you’re referring to. The sinking would have taken place soon after the Civil War. I wonder what …. Best regards, Duke Kent-Brown p.s. My up-coming book “Diplomatic Notes" will be launched soon. If you want early notification with a special EARLY BIRD offer, contact me and request this via my Contact Form.
4 Comments
It’s in the best interests of South Africans to know who will be the next President of the United States (POTUS)? A lot of people seem to believe it will be Hillary Clinton, former First Lady, former Senator and former Secretary of State. Donald Trump, of course, seems an unlikely POTUS to many, mainly because of his brash, often rude, persona. However, observers should be careful not to choose the most likely winner on the basis of whom they would prefer. In the real world, individual likes and dislikes are small potatoes. What really counts is what American voters decide on the second Tuesday in November 2016. So, at this time, nobody knows with certainty who will win. Current opinion polls cannot accurately predict the winner in November. There is also a process that must run its course. Will the Republican Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, later this month, confirm Donald Trump as its official presidential choice? 150 years ago, the Republican Party, the Grand Old Party (GOP), chose Abraham Lincoln as its contender for the US presidency. However, times have changed. The GOP has never been so divided. This is not a good sign. The Democratic convention will take place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and is expected to choose Hillary Clinton as its official candidate. Of course, some Trump supporters hope she’ll be in prison before November. However, despite the seriousness of her alleged breeches of national security, I don’t believe she’ll be indicted or imprisoned. This year’s US presidential contest is complicated enough already. Following official confirmation of the Republican and Democratic contenders, their choices of vice presidential running mates, and a series of nationally televised debates, most voters will start to lean toward Clinton or Trump. The many prospective voters who do not like either candidate will either not vote, choose to support a third party (possibly the Libertarians) or deliver a write-in vote, in which they may write the name of their preferred presidential choice, which could include names like Lady Gaga or Mitt Romney. In 2012 there were three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate. The number of presidential debates and vice presidential debates scheduled for the coming months, as well as their respective venues, would need to be agreed to beforehand by Clinton and Trump. In the debates both Clinton and Trump can be expected to focus on showing up the failures and character flaws of their opponent, as well as explaining their own policies to cynical journalists and a deeply polarized electorate. No doubt the vice presidential debate or debates will be equally entertaining and informative, although we do not yet know who those candidates will be. There has been speculation that Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is politically to the left of Clinton, will be her running mate. Although there is as yet no obvious vice presidential running mate for Donald Trump, by far the most newsworthy and effective choice for the Trump campaign would seem to be Congresswoman Mia Love, an African-American from Utah. However, Trump is giving nothing away, so we’ll have to wait until the GOP convention to find out the name of Trump’s vice presidential running mate. For American voters, 2016 is a particularly unique election year. Donald Trump is not a politician; he is exclusively a businessman with no previous political experience. Therefore, he has no political record of failures and successes that Clinton can exploit. His business record is, of course, another story entirely, and includes successes and failures. Nonetheless, he could become the first non-politician to run for the office of POTUS since 1952 when Dwight Eisenhower, a career soldier, won the presidential election for the Republican Party. Hillary Clinton is certainly a politician, but she is also likely to become America’s first female presidential contender. As a politician she has a record of many serious political failures that Trump will undoubtedly exploit. She has also reportedly engaged in some questionable business deals. From well documented reports and a few books written by unsympathetic authors, both Trump and Clinton also have some serious character flaws. Other important and rather unique characteristics applicable to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are that Trump, despite his brash politically incorrect comments, is a “liberal” who aspires to lead a conservative political party, the Republican Party; and Hillary Clinton seems likely to be the most “conservative” Democrat to lead the Democratic Party for many decades. Both appear to display elements of political realism in their respective world views. Trump aspires to a world of American leadership and American power, founded on American rules and a strategy for putting American interests above all others; he appears to be more of an isolationist than a globalist and is likely to annoy US rivals and irritate US allies. He could also severely curtail aid and partnership programmes, particularly with African countries that do not enthusiastically support America diplomatically or assist effectively in anti-terrorism objectives. If Trump becomes POTUS, South Africa should take prompt steps toward building a good relationship with his administration. It would be foolish and irresponsible for any of South Africa’s leaders to comment disparagingly about Clinton or Trump at this stage, as the repercussions could prove diplomatically expensive. In contrast, Clinton is probably not as vengeful as Trump, but aid packages and partnerships emanating from her administration are likely to be very selective and dictated by US domestic needs. Clinton also aims to pursue US interests through like-minded willing alliances, the advancement of international law, demonstrated diplomatic strength and addressing American interests through diplomatic means backed by military strength. Nonetheless, Clinton is hawkish and more likely to lead America into another war than Trump. So does the US electorate have any idea who would make a better POTUS? Not yet. Donald Trump has apparently successfully annoyed the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community, Hispanics, women, African-Americans, Muslims, the Scots and a couple of world leaders. However, Clinton has annoyed the National Rifle Association (NRA) (almost 100 million Americans own guns), coal miners, her husband’s sexual victims and their supporters, the Christian fundamentalist community, the anti-Wall Street community, some trade unions and the energy community. There are little more than 130 days before Americans vote for a new POTUS. I hope our diplomats in the US are keeping close ties with officials, representatives, politicians, political analysts, journalists and academics in both camps and that they are not only listening to Clinton’s supporters. That could be a big miscalculation. Remember Brexit! The US presidential election still has a way to go. Well, that’s my view. Let me know yours. Best regards, Duke Kent-Brown p.s. Want a sample of the first 4 chapters of my new book “Hail to the Chief”? Contact me and request the sample via my Contact Form. I saw an article a few days ago, written by Michelle De Freese, for The World Post. The article reminds us that the African Union (AU) and its member states intend to implement a Visa-Free policy by 2018.
The intentions behind this policy are to promote intra-regional trade, economic development and regional integration; also to “encourage incentives through the removal of trade barriers, increased tourism …., investment opportunities and job creation”, no doubt following the lead of the European Union (EU) which was almost 70 years in the making and remains a work in progress. The AU began its stumbling journey in 2002. Although it has identified some worthy goals, I remain unconvinced. The envisaged “visa-free” policy is not absolutely visa-free, because visas will be issued upon arrival in destination countries. By 2018 citizens of African countries will receive a minimum 30-day visa. By 2020 a single African passport is the AU goal. African states have collectively turned the EU’s initial roadmap on its head by seeking to implement a visa-free policy in order to facilitate or promote integration. The European experience demonstrates very clearly that many of its key policies were implemented only after individual states had earned the right to be part of a greater Union, which they qualified for through the existence of a number of factors that made integration feasible and viable. For example, intra-state travel and tourism, intra-state communication (telephonic and mail traffic), common interests, values and goals, strategic interests, historical alliances and intra-state trade were factors that made an envisaged Union of European states both desirable and necessary. Africa is therefore effectively putting the cart before the horse. In effect, whereas Europe decided that 2 + 2 = 4, Africa has decided that 4 = 2 + 2, a view that fails to note some alternative choices such as 4 = 3 + 1. or 4 = 5-1 or a whole range of other possibilities. Okay, this is only an analogy, but you get the point. Africa’s intention to implement a visa-free possibility, as with the implementation of other AU policies, is fraught with difficulty and some obvious dangers. For example, what impact will a visa-free policy have on employment in African countries of destination, where high employment exists, or countries of origin where there are skills shortages? What about medical tourism that would deprive citizens of countries like South Africa of easy access to their own public health resources? What about the many relatively poor and unskilled visitors who would come to seek a better life, drawn like moths to the lights of South African cities, and who might then become illegal immigrants? Should Africa not first create the infrastructure to facilitate intra-African trade and tourism (roads and rail links) before impulsively, impatiently and foolishly pursuing goals that create more problems than solutions at this relatively early stage of AU development? Please do not mistake my intent. I am not against the African Union or the concept of African integration, despite obvious divisive factors such as religion, language, ethnicity, governmental structures and political ideology. History teaches us that impulsive and quick fixes have little or no chance of success. The best policies are those that consider both potential advantages and likely disadvantages. Also take note that good fortune usually favours those who pursue their objectives with grim determination; and not those who merely assume they deserve to be successful. The example of the tortoise and the hare is a good one, because in the well-known children’s tale about a race between these two unlikely competitors, the plodding and tenaciously focused tortoise ultimately beat the over-confident hare. African Union decision makers require a range of alternatives for effective decision making and policy implementation. They also need to exercise patience. Effective decision making cannot take place in the absence of proper well-considered preparation for success. The EU took seven decades to get this far and is still an imperfect Union as recently demonstrated by “Brexit” and Switzerland’s decision to withdraw its application for membership. In addition, Turkey, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), has been waiting a very long time for EU membership. Economic growth and security from terrorism are critical requirements for African states in the current climate of international economic fragility and the real possibility of further terrorist attacks on African soil, Therefore, Africa needs to re-think its priorities and the timing of the policies it wants to implement. That’s my view and whether you agree or disagree, please let me know what you think. I’d be glad to hear from you. Best regards, Duke Kent-Brown p.s. Want a sample of the first 4 chapters of my new book “Hail to the Chief”? Contact me and request the sample via my Contact Form. FROM DEMOCRACY TO DUMBOCRACYThe theme of this and other related posts, is the title of my soon to be released book "Hail to the Chief". I would really appreciate your comments, whether you agree or not or if you have some stimulating perspectives and ideas. PROLOGUEVery few people will ever have the opportunity to be South Africa’s President; even fewer will actually become President. Yet many might want to be President, if only to change their own lives for the better. However, being President in a democracy is not supposed to be for personal gain; it is a public office, publicly monitored and intended to serve the public interest.
The President of South Africa is the country’s supreme public servant and an important part of his or her service to the people is to lead them in the right direction, toward greater individual wealth, greater personal security, and greater individual freedom; confined only by the limitations of just laws and universally accepted norms of morality and responsibility. Perhaps this is not the way things are, but it is certainly the way things ought to be. Dumbocracy? I use this term to explain that after politicians, particularly the President, Deputy President and Cabinet Ministers, behave foolishly or take damaging and poorly conceived decisions, and are still left in their positions of responsibility, either by the voters re-electing them or by the President refusing to replace them, then we are effectively on the way to dumbocracy in South Africa. It does not matter which presidents of South Africa inspired my new “How to” book, called “Hailing The Chief”. It is certainly not directed exclusively at any individual. After all, South Africa has had very few leaders, since union in 1910, who could be considered truly outstanding. However, a select few have been much admired. Therefore, perhaps current leaders and their successors can benefit from advice freely given. I therefore trust they will read this essay with open minds. I might hope too that somewhere in South Africa a young South African will read this book and use it as a guide that will lead him or her to one day occupy the country’s most powerful office for the greater good of all South Africans. And I hope those who disagree with what I write will at least counter my arguments and ideas by producing better ideas so that we can all benefit; so that the President of South Africa, now and in the future, governs wisely and for the greater good of all our country’s citizens. Duke Kent-Brown D.Admin., MPA, Hons (Strategic Studies), Hons (International Politics) "Hail to the Chief" is soon to be published online. Thanks for reading thus far. Please comment and participate in this discussion and stay tuned via my blog for further posts. Want a sample of the first 4 chapters of my new book “Hail to the Chief”? Contact me and request the sample via my Contact Form. |
Archives
December 2017
Categories
All
|