the disconnect

What To Do About North Korea

As the text indicates, I wrote this one about September 21. Yes, I have been preoccupied with the insanity around North Korea.

In his speech at the opening of the United Nations General Assembly on September 19, 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump stirred controversy and some concern with pronouncements on a number of issues. His remarks on North Korea were most provocative: “…if (the United States) is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.”

Leave aside the insult to the leader of North Korea. That is just a distraction; what got my attention was what Mr. Trump said just before threatening to destroy North Korea. He pointedly criticized other nations, clearly meaning China and Russia, saying “It is an outrage that some nations would not only trade with such a regime, but would arm, supply, and financially support a country that imperils the world with nuclear conflict. No nation on earth has an interest in seeing this band of criminals arm itself with nuclear weapons and missiles.”

His criticism is counterproductive, especially since both China and Russia are as averse to a nuclear-armed North Korea—on their borders—as the U.S. Note that Mr. Trump speaks as though it were possible to somehow talk North Korea into giving up its nuclear weapons and, presumably, its nuclear research programs. This is simply unrealistic. As the North Korean government has repeatedly made clear over decades, it is interested in nuclear technology for two reasons. The first is to deter U.S. aggression against the country and the second is to provide energy to generate electricity. The peaceful use of nuclear technology is often overlooked but it was a part of the 1994 Agreed Framework and deserves attention if only because  the Framework agreement aimed at treating North Korean and international concerns as comprehensively as possibly. Whatever one thinks about peaceful uses of nuclear technology, it is clear the North Koreans need non-fossil fuel energy sources.

More relevant to Mr. Trump’s remarks, North Korea said over and over in the negotiations before the 1994 agreement and in discussions since that its primary concern was to gain U.S. recognition of its right to exist as an independent nation and credible assurances that the U.S. and its allies would not attack North Korea. To date, the U.S. has not adequately addressed these North Korean concerns, although the Clinton Administration was moving in that direction when the election of George W. Bush resulted in a change in direction for U.S. policy.

Now might be a good time for the world to accept the reality that North Korea has joined the short list of nuclear-armed states and adjust policies to this new reality. What might that mean? Negotiations rather than threats, for one thing; U.S. actions to match new verbal assurances that we will not attack the North unprovoked; confidence-building steps, perhaps starting with establishing liaison offices in both Pyongyang and Washington; consultations and cooperation with China and Russia, as well as with Japan and South Korea; and to help forestall other nations that might follow the North Korean path, a renewed commitment to nuclear disarmament by the nuclear-armed nations, particularly China, Russia and the U.S.

Checks and Balances

The awarding of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and the continued progress of the Treaty to Ban Nuclear Weapons on its way to come into force as international law are hopeful developments. Even so, the refusal of the nuclear weapons states, led by the U.S., is discouraging. Furthermore, for some time now, President Trump and North Korea’s supreme leader, Kim Jong Un have been trading threats. Because both nations have atomic weapons, many people are expressing concern about nuclear war for the first time since the end of the Cold War nearly thirty years ago. One aspect that keeps being discussed, the U.S. procedure for ordering a nuclear strike, may also become a movement forward.

The current nuclear protocol puts the decision and the sole authority to launch nuclear weapons on the shoulders of the U.S. president. The president is required to talk with two high-ranking military leaders, the Pentagon’s deputy director of operations and the commander of the Strategic Command. The former runs the Pentagon operations center, also known as its war room, and the latter is at the top of the chain of command which controls the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal and the planes, missile silos and submarines from which nuclear strikes would be launched. However, the current protocol simply requires the president to speak with these two generals. They have no authority to overrule him; if they resist an order to attack, they can be dismissed on the spot and replaced with more amenable successors. The entire process enables the president to launch the U.S. nuclear arsenal in ten minutes or less. 

This concentration of power in the president is an anomaly in a political system based on an inherent distrust of concentrated power of any kind, hence the checks and balances built in to the U.S. Constitution. After the Cuban Missile Crisis, President John F. Kennedy felt the then-current launch protocols needed to be revised; the result was the procedure outlines in the previous paragraph. Since 1962, much has changed, including the nature of the threat posed by nuclear weapons, but the attack authorization process has remained the same. For these reasons, two elected officials, Representative Ted Lieu (D) of Los Angeles and Senator Edward Markey (D) of Massachusetts, introduced the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act to their respective chambers of Congress earlier this year. Although both the House and Senate versions of the bill have attracted co-sponsors, only one of the 53 House co-sponsors is a Republican. Eight Senators co-sponsoring the bill are Democrats, and the ninth Senate co-sponsor is independent Senator Bernie Sanders.

Essentially, the bill would prohibit the president from ordering a nuclear attack, except in the case of another nation already attacking the United States, without a declaration of war by Congress. The bill requires U.S. nuclear launch procedures to conform to the U.S. Constitution which specifies that Congress, not the president, has the sole power to declare war. It is a shame, then, that so few Senators and Representatives have signed on to the identical Senate and House bills. Clearly, U.S. citizens concerned about the president’s ability to launch a nuclear attack on any other nation can make a difference by asking their Representative and Senators to co-sponsor and support the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act.

North Korea, the U.S. and Nuclear Abolition

Although I have been writing new posts for the last couple of months, I haven't had time to post them here so this is a bit of catching up. I wrote this piece in July, but feel it is still worth sharing.

 

Recently, a friend sent me a political cartoon showing North Korea's Kim Chong Un and US President Donald Trump climbing into a wrestling ring, each wearing costumes that read “The Madman”. That caricature of the conflict between the two nations aptly captures a major flaw in how most Westerners view North Korea, as a rogue nation led by a family whose sanity is doubtful.

In fact, from a North Korean perspective, there is nothing irrational about the drive to acquire nuclear weapons or the apocalyptic rhetoric voiced at the United Nations and in propaganda broadcasts from Pyongyang. Although North Korea clearly watched closely as Libya and Iran gave up their nuclear weapons programs, the North Koreans have been unwavering. The government has sought a credible nuclear arsenal for decades and seem to be on the verge of developing the ability to send missiles tipped with nuclear warheads across the Pacific Ocean as well as to potential targets in Japan and South Korea. A 2016 book by former military intelligence analyst Robert Daniel Wallace, North Korea and the Science of Provocation, examines hostile words and acts by Pyongyang from the 1960s onward and tries to correlate them with various factors, including domestic tensions within the North. The only strong correlations are with political transitions in South Korea and joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises. Currently, South Korea is experiencing a long and momentous transition following the impeachment and now indictment for corruption of former President Park Geun Hye; every spring, the U.S. and South Korea hold large scale military exercises that include simulated defense against North Korean invasion and live fire exercises. The U.S. draws on military reserves and units stationed far from Northeast Asia for these exercises.

So, despite the rhetoric and the current media focus on a nuclear weapons test, there is nothing new in the current situation in Northeast Asia except for the unknown and apparently unknowable intentions of the U.S. Administration, which does not rely on experience or expertise in foreign affairs but does seem to trust retired military hardliners. Even during the Obama Administration, the U.S. “pivot” to Asia heightened tensions throughout the region, especially in Southeast Asian waters where China’s territorial claims conflicted with most of the nations of the Association of South East Asian Nations. In view of the Trump Administration’s abrupt changes in its posture, those tensions seem likely to increase, causing further security issues.

From a different perspective, throughout the reigns of the late Kim Il Sung, the late Kim Chong Il and now Kim Chong Un, the North Korean government has indicated that it believes it requires a nuclear arsenal to counter the ever-present threat, as they see it, of a U.S. attack on their country. This sort of logic is exactly what we who work for abolition of nuclear weapons fear, and it was the intention of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which first came into force in 1970, to forestall the spread  of nuclear weapons using that argument as justification. Unfortunately, the then-nuclear powers delayed, and still delay, dismantling all their nuclear weapons. In 1970, five nations possessed nuclear arsenals, today there are nine known nuclear powers. The election of a totally inexperienced and apparently unpredictable man—who has questioned why no previous president has resorted to nuclear weapons--to the U.S. presidency increases the risk of what experts euphemistically call a “nuclear exchange” and surely adds to uneasiness about the future in Pyongyang just when North Korea's decades-long effort to develop a credible nuclear capability is on the verge of success.

From its first steps toward developing nuclear weapons, North Korea has consistently demanded two things of the U.S.: assurances there will be no U.S.-led or condoned attack on them and recognition of The People's Republic of Chosun, North Korea's official name, as an independent nation. Although there have been times when the U.S. has seemed inclined to move toward recognition of North Korea, nothing has ever come of such moments. Instead, the two countries have lurched forward locked in an impasse which has grown more tense and potentially more dangerous as the threat of nuclear war has increased. Surely, now is the time for the United States to give North Korea the recognition and acknowledgment it craves in return for mutual nuclear disarmament as part of a global drive to abolish nuclear weapons. Such a move could lead to renewed dialogue in Northeast Asia and give needed impetus to the current global effort to abolish nuclear arms once and for all.

North Korea Again

The morning of April 28, 2017, I woke up to the voice of U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson saying that the U.S. is open to direct talks with North Korea to end the latter's nuclear weapons program. Initially, I was surprised by this apparent change in direction and what I misheard as a call for one-on-one negotiations. That is not what Secretary Tillerson offered, he offered direct talks, which could mean one-on-one or could mean multilateral negotiations. The U.S. has had direct talks with North Korea in the past along with other interested parties like China, Japan and South Korea (see the chronology in the previous hyperlink). The North Koreans, for their part, have often called for one-on-one talks with the U.S. While it is good that the Trump Administration wants to negotiate an end to the nuclear dilemma on the Korean peninsula, I heard the Secretary make several other statements that, in my view, offer more hope than his willingness to negotiate.

The first and most significant is his statement that “we do not seek regime change. We do not seek a collapse of the regime. We do not seek an accelerated reunification of the peninsula.” These three declarative sentences begin to address the long-standing North Korean desire for guarantees that the U.S. will not attack their country. I do not recall a similarly clear, unequivocal public statement from any previous administration. So there is some hope for progress on the issue in Secretary Tillerson's words, especially if they are repeated by him or other senior U.S. officials.

He also spoke of the goal of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula: “I would quickly add, you know, we did our part. We took our nuclear weapons out of the Korean Peninsula. It's time for North Korea to take their weapons out as well.” That is only the second time that a senior U.S. official has affirmed that there are no U.S. nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula. (The previous instance was an announcement by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 that seemed a response to the end of the Cold War and to the demands of the people of South Korea.) Our long-standing policy which has lasted across generations as well as party affiliations is not to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons in any location.

Finally, the Secretary of State said “A denuclearized Korean Peninsula. It's very clear. That's China's stated policy. It has been our stated policy. It's been the stated policy of our allies in the region.” Again, nothing new perhaps but I do not recall previous U.S. administrations being so clear. That he mentioned China, Japan and South Korea also emphasized, and hinted at, close coordination and agreement among North Korea's neighbors.

At the United Nations Security Council meeting later that same day, China's Ambassador affirmed that the issue of North Korea's nuclear weapons program required negotiations among a group of nations interested in the issue. The press play in the U.S. struck me as contrasting China's call for multi-national involvement against Secretary Tillerson's call for direct talks on the nuclear problem. As I indicated in the first paragraph, there doesn't seem to be any difference between the U.S. and China here.

Which leads to an interesting question: Why is the U.S. press playing the North Korean program as a clear and present danger and highlighting the country's nuclear program and missile tests but seemingly ignoring the Secretary of State's crystal clear signals? I can think of several possibilities but all are pure speculation on my part. Instead, consider this article, written a few days before Secretary Tillerson's NPR interview.

North Korea, the U.S. and Nuclear Abolition

The following is adapted from a brief piece I wrote for Pax Christi International. The original may be available on their website: www.paxchristi.net.

Recently, a friend sent me a political cartoon showing North Korea's Kim Chong Un and US President Donald Trump climbing into a wrestling ring, each wearing costumes that read “The Madman”. That caricature of the conflict between the two nations aptly captures a major flaw in how most Westerners view North Korea, as a rogue nation led by a family whose sanity is doubtful.

In fact, from a North Korean perspective, there is nothing irrational about the drive to acquire nuclear weapons or the apocalyptic rhetoric voiced at the United Nations and in propaganda broadcasts from Pyongyang. Although North Korea clearly watched closely as Libya and Iran gave up their nuclear weapons programs, the North Koreans have been unwavering. The government has sought a credible nuclear arsenal for decades and seem to be on the verge of developing the ability to send missiles tipped with nuclear warheads across the Pacific Ocean as well as to potential targets in Japan and South Korea. A 2016 book by former military intelligence analyst Robert Daniel Wallace, North Korea and the Science of Provocation, examines hostile words and acts by Pyongyang from the 1960s onward and tries to correlate them with various factors, including domestic tensions within the North. The only strong correlations are with political transitions in South Korea and joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises. Currently, South Korea is experiencing a long and momentous transition following the impeachment and now indictment for corruption of former President Park Geun Hye; every spring, the U.S. and South Korea hold large scale military exercises that include simulated defense against North Korean invasion and live fire exercises. The U.S. draws on military reserves and units stationed far from Northeast Asia for these exercises.

So, despite the rhetoric and the current media focus on a nuclear weapons test, there is nothing new in the current situation in Northeast Asia except for the unknown and apparently unknowable intentions of the U.S. Administration, which does not rely on experience or expertise in foreign affairs but does seem to trust retired military hardliners. Even during the Obama Administration, the U.S. “pivot” to Asia heightened tensions throughout the region, especially in Southeast Asian waters where China’s territorial claims conflicted with most of the nations of the Association of South East Asian Nations. In view of the Trump Administration’s abrupt changes in its posture, those tensions seem likely to increase, causing further security issues.

From a different perspective, throughout the reigns of the late Kim Il Sung, the late Kim Chong Il and now Kim Chong Un, the North Korean government has indicated that it believes it requires a nuclear arsenal to counter the ever-present threat, as they see it, of a U.S. attack on their country. This sort of logic is exactly what we who work for abolition of nuclear weapons fear, and it was the intention of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which came into force in 1970, to forestall the spread  of nuclear weapons using that argument as justification. Unfortunately, the then-nuclear powers delayed, and still delay, dismantling all their nuclear weapons. In 1970, five nations possessed nuclear arsenals, today there are nine known nuclear powers. The election of a totally inexperienced and apparently unpredictable man—who has said different things about nuclear weapons--to the U.S. presidency increases the risk of what experts euphemistically call a “nuclear exchange” and surely adds to uneasiness about the future in Pyongyang just when North Korea's decades-long effort to develop a credible nuclear capability is on the verge of success.

From its first steps toward developing nuclear weapons, North Korea has consistently demanded two things of the U.S.: assurances there will be no U.S.-led or condoned attack on them and recognition of The People's Republic of Chosun, North Korea's official name, as an independent nation. Although there have been times when the U.S. has seemed inclined to move toward recognition of North Korea, nothing has ever come of such moments. Instead, the two countries have lurched forward locked in an impasse which has grown more tense and potentially more dangerous as the threat of nuclear war has increased. Surely, now is the time for the United States to give North Korea the recognition and acknowledgment it craves in return for mutual nuclear disarmament as part of a global drive to abolish nuclear weapons. Such a move could lead to renewed dialogue in Northeast Asia and give needed impetus to the current global effort to abolish nuclear arms once and for all.

 

Anonymous Sources

While observing the ongoing controversy over anonymous leaks and journalists not naming sources, it occurred to me that some perspective might help. I worked as a press spokesman for many years, so here is my perspective.

Some believe that people who speak anonymously are doing so for self-serving, possibly nefarious, reasons but there are many reasons for not allowing oneself to be identified by name and position. A good reason to speak anonymously, for example, is to test public reaction to an action under consideration. Another reason may be fear of reprisal if the source is revealing information the public needs or wants to know; this applies whether the source works in government or other sectors of society. Sometimes the information given to journalists may confirm facts the journalist has already unearthed and may not need to name another source.

Assume that the journalists have good intentions: They want to report the news as accurately as they can. Remember also that their work will go through several layers of redaction before publication, so allow for possible misunderstandings and changes by editors. Finally, the most accurate version of the news does not always serve the source's interests, because those who speak with journalists usually want to put a particular interpretation of the facts before the public. 

From these realities flow some commonly-held guidelines for interacting with the press:

First, avoid an adversarial relationship with the press. The most important reason is that all players in a democracy need access to the media as a way to reach the public and as a reliable source of information. More pragmatically, the media always, ALWAYS, get the last word. Social media may seem to be changing that, but please consider who will write President Trump's obituary—it won't be him or any member of his family or entourage.

Think before speaking or judging. What information or opinions does the source want to convey, and how does she do so? Not just the most appropriate media outlet, also what words describe an event or policy and whether the source's name and position can safely be identified.

People use terms like “on background” and “off the record”, but these are vague and mutable. If one wishes to remain anonymous, one should specify attribution to a reporter; at one extreme “do not name any source, just use this information as context for your story” and at the other, “use my name”. Often there is some phrase that establishes the source's credibility without clearly identifying him,like "a senior marketing official of X corporation".  A reporter who wishes to attach a name to a remark will ask to use the source's name, and will negotiate as specific a description of her source as possible.

A spokesperson or official who condemns unnamed sources has almost certainly spoken to reporters anonymously. Attacks on unnamed sources and on journalists, no matter how forcibly they argue damage has been done to the national interest, are detrimental to our system, which mandates a free press but not an orderly, obedient one. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On A Free Press

Ben Shahn Mural, 'The First Amendment" at Woodhaven Post Office, Woodhaven, New York

 

No finger pointing, but the current insanity behooves me to write a few words here about the First Amendment and the Fourth Estate.

Some of the Administration's statements about the press remind me of an incident that occurred more than thirty years ago in Jakarta, Indonesia. Charles Wick, the then director of the U.S. Information Agency (for which I worked during almost all of my career in the foreign service), was visiting Indonesia and paid a courtesy call on the Indonesian Minister of Information, who asked Mr. Wick for advice and help to train local journalists to report the news in a “responsible” manner. (I use the quotes because this was code for "in a manner that hewed to the government version of the facts".) Mr. Wick responded in words somewhat like these, “Well, Mr. Minister, I regret to tell you that I cannot help you teach the press to be responsible because in the United States we believe it is more important that journalists be free to report and write their stories than it is for them to be responsible. That doesn't always make government officials comfortable or happy, but we see it as one of the foundations of our freedom.”

That's perhaps not as authoritative a source as Thomas Jefferson, whom President Trump cited in a Tweet about the press, but it is the reality of the American system that we value freedom of expression over the comfort of those who follow or are followed in the news media. That freedom extends to alt.right media as well as to the establishment or mainstream news organizations, with one exception for all, hate speech. Of course, news items should and can be checked whenever one suspects a story is less than accurate, but discomfort at the content of a news story, whether accurate or not, is no grounds for banning reporters from events or calling the press “the enemy of the people.”

In fact, a better known quote about the press from Thomas Jefferson is this one: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” A free press may sometimes disseminate inaccuracies or even falsehoods, but a free and irresponsible press is not the enemy of the people though it may cause presidents and other elected or appointed officials some frustration. Suppression of journalism is the enemy of democracy. Here's a concluding quote from Jefferson:

“Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.”

Truths about Refugees and Immigrants

This is longer than usual but I think the facts need to be stated:

A non-immigrant visa issued at a U.S. embassy or consulate does not guarantee entry into the United States. The customs and immigration control officials at the point of entry have the right to refuse entry to anyone on their own authority and at the direction of higher authority. That is, President Trump acted within his legal authority in signing the ban, at least for non-immigrants. In view of the challenges brought to federal courts, it will be up to the judiciary to decide whether the terms of the ban violate the Constitution, perhaps under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Refugees have been thoroughly investigated before they receive permission to travel here. (Even people applying for non-immigrant visas, say to sight see or do business in the U.S., must convince the visa-issuing consular office that they are not criminals, terrorists, or likely to stay in the U.S. beyond the number of days their visa allows. All visa applicants have their names checked for criminal and/or terrorist connections before they can obtain a visa.) In the case of refugees, first the United Nations High Commission for Refugees investigates their claim to be a refugee; if the United States government then agrees to consider their application for refuge here, a number of federal agencies--including the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the intelligence agencies and the Department of State--investigate the refugee. Anytime new information about the refugee comes to light, the process restarts in order to confirm and evaluate the new information. The process takes a minimum of one to two years, including the U.N. Investigation, but it can take much longer.

That is another truth about refugees: each individual or family must have institutional and individual sponsors to help them resettle in the United States. Many religious groups, churches, mosques and synagogues, sponsor refugees. They are not simply released into our society to drift with random currents.

The border wall will be prohibitively expensive and no wall will stop people determined to get here. Somewhere between twenty-five to forty percent of undocumented immigrants, moreover, are people who arrived here with valid visas and then overstayed their visa for any number of reasons, including lack of awareness that they needed to change the type of visa they used to enter.

Historically, waves of immigration produced waves of innovation and growth in the United States. Alexander Graham Bell, Enrico Fermi, Nicola Tesla were all immigrants; Thomas Edison, Tesla's rival, was the son of an immigrant. The list goes on. Chinese, German and Irish immigrants built the transcontinental railroad, which opened vast lands to settlement and development, to the detriment of the only true Native Americans. Unless you are a full-blooded Native American, you are an immigrant or the descendant of immigrants. 

 

 

Immigration and the Zero-Sum Vision

President Trump and his supporters view immigration, as they view all things, in terms of their zero-sum belief. If someone comes to this country, she or he is a) taking jobs from American citizens; b) sucking up my tax dollars in food stamps, welfare payments and government-funded medical care; or c) a criminal preying on solid citizens like me. These assertions are not new, and only the last contains even a smidgen of truth, in that immigrants seem to commit crimes at the same rate as American citizens. If, however, one sees the world as a place of limited resources and options and therefore a place of constant brutal competition, these non-facts about immigrants justify eliminating millions of fellow human beings from the competition for goods.

Not surprisingly, this approach to life must view refugees as threats—potential competitors for scarce goods—and, because they are fleeing their homes, losers rather than victims. Because life is ceaseless competition, there is no room for irony or even knowledge of history, so the ban on immigrants was promulgated on Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Furthermore, it seems the seven countries whose citizens are banned from entry into the U.S. seem to share one common criterion: There are no Trump business contacts in them. Citizens of other nations known to be way stations if not supporters of terrorism are not banned but, then, the Trumps have business dealings with some of them, like Saudi Arabia. I am waiting for the Republican-majority Congress to address the ethical and moral problems raised by President Trump's ban on immigrants. I suggest we write to our elected representatives and ask them where they stand on these issues and what they plan to do about them.

 

Alternate Visions

The first few days of the Trump Administration set traditional and new media buzzing about “fake news” and “alternate facts”, but as important as the issues of empirical truth and press freedom are, there are larger issues which have been largely overlooked yet again as the two sides carp at each other about whether or not it rained in Washington, DC, on January 20, 2017.

In his inaugural address, President Trump offered this vision of the contemporary United States:

Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities, rusted out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation. An education system flush with cash but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge.

And the crime and the gangs and the drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential. This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.

Contrast this dystopian landscape with the human landscape evident the following day across the country in the women's marches: caring, courageous, diverse, empowered and hope-filled. Oh, yes, also self-deprecating and witty.

President Trump's speech, even when he veers dangerously close to statesman-like language, consistently assumes that our world in all its endeavors and aspects is a large, zero-sum game. If we gain, others lose. All those who marched--walked--walk in a world where everyone can win if all collaborate and cooperate.

As a US diplomat in training during the Cold War, I participated in a nuclear negotiation game in which the zero-sum philosophy repeatedly led to nuclear annihilation while the belief that there is always an outcome which benefits all players to some extent led to survival, i.e., winning the game for all. Although I see the world as a mixture of zero-sum and non-zero sum games, I much prefer to work toward a world that is a non-zero-sum game, one in which every human being—in Russia, China, Togo or here--has an opportunity to live and to live with dignity, as a winner (to use one of President Trump's terms).

To that end, I have been and will continue to work to build an America that turns from militarism, racism, sexism and injustice at home and abroad. Please stay with us if you already are doing the same, and if not, please join us in advocacy, service to the vulnerable, and speaking truth to the powerful.