Taking too long? Close loading screen.
Connect with us


What Trump got right — and wrong — with North Korea, explained by a former intel official



Few people have had a front-row seat to the drama and danger of US-North Korea relations over the last four years. Markus Garlauskas is one of them.

As the national intelligence officer for North Korea on the US National Intelligence Council from July 2014 to June 2020, he briefed President Donald Trump and other top government officials on what was going on inside the secretive country. What did North Korean leader Kim Jong Un really want? Would he give up his nuclear weapons? And was Trump’s diplomatic effort yielding any results?

In his first extended, one-on-one interview since leaving government, Garlauskas paints a picture that’s a little different from the one widely accepted about Trump’s dealings with North Korea.

Yes, the risk of war increased in 2017, when Trump was threatening to rain down “fire and fury” on North Korea in response to its weapons tests, but Washington and Pyongyang had actually come closer to military conflict in previous years. Yes, Trump and Kim left Hanoi without a nuclear deal, but the fault there lies with the dictator, not the president. And yes, the US should avoid a full-scale war with North Korea, but it shouldn’t shy away from another 2017-style confrontation.

“If Kim senses that the US is more afraid of war than he is, then he has the advantage,” Garlauskas said.

Garlauskas laid out a game plan for whoever occupies the White House next year: Get North Korea to stop testing missiles and nuclear bombs, and then develop a policy to convince Pyongyang to part with its weapons. Halting those tests will give the US the space to develop the right mix of pressure and persuasion. “Otherwise you’re just reacting to them — and then you’re in another really, really tough spot,” Garlauskas said.

Our interview, edited for length and clarity, is below.

Alex Ward

North Korea just held a parade in which it unveiled new advanced weapons, including an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that could potentially reach all of the US. What does this tell us about Trump’s diplomatic efforts toward North Korea over the last four years?

Markus Garlauskas

What it tells us is exactly what Kim said at the end of his speech, which is that time is on North Korea’s side, not on America’s side. The parade also demonstrated the ability of North Korea to continue advancing its weapons programs despite international sanctions, despite pressure. It really showed the progress they’re continuing to make in terms of their capabilities.

Alex Ward

That portends a pretty rough upcoming four years, regardless of who is in the White House.

Markus Garlauskas

We’re in a very tough situation, so I think the the first step is essentially do a triage and stop the bleeding. We need to focus our efforts on preventing these new weapons systems displayed during the parade from actually being tested.

If the North Koreans are not convinced to maintain at least some restraint on weapons testing, regardless of which administration is in office next year, it will basically destroy any chance for diplomacy on favorable terms. It will be very, very difficult to say that we’re containing the threat or having any sort of a negotiation that’s advantageous to us.

Once you get past that point, if you can get North Korea to halt its testing of the more advanced systems, then it becomes possible to talk about having a different type of negotiation with North Korea. But you have to deal with it early and prevent the North Koreans from launching a new provocative test, otherwise you’re just reacting to them — and then you’re in another really, really tough spot.

Alex Ward

Trump, of course, claims his efforts with North Korea have been successful. One of his main arguments is that he stopped a war from happening, and that if weren’t in charge the US would be in World War III.

Is there any truth to that?

Markus Garlauskas

This is a wickedly hard problem — across administrations, across parties — that has no easy answers. Sometimes the best you can do is avoid the situation from spinning out of control. So I think there is some validity to the idea that it could have been a lot worse during the Trump years.

However, I will tell you that I think we got much closer to war in 1994, in 2010, and in 2015 than we did in 2017. There was a very large gap between the rhetoric and the activity in 2017. And if you say we almost went to war in 2017, then you’re essentially saying the US almost started the war, because there was no sign Kim Jong Un was interested in going to war — he was testing weapons. He wasn’t striking South Korea or sinking ships.

Relatives of sailors missing in 2010 after the sinking of the South Korean naval ship Cheonan clash with soldiers during a briefing on a rescue operation, at a naval base in Pyeongtaek, south of Seoul.
Jung Yeon-je/AFP via Getty Images

Alex Ward

That’s a pretty provocative statement you just made, because there was a widespread sentiment at the time in 2017 that the possibility of the US going to war with North Korea was maybe not likely, but at least much likelier than in recent years.

Markus Garlauskas

I’m not saying that the rhetoric was completely insignificant, but I am saying the “fire and fury” rhetoric was exaggerated in its significance in comparison to the actual, tangible actions being taken in 2017. What was more important is you saw the US exercise a great deal of restraint in terms of our military posturing.

You didn’t see the evacuation of civilians from South Korea. You didn’t see activities actually penetrating into North Korea. You didn’t see military strikes. You didn’t see a lot of things that could have been done or that would have increased the risk of a strong North Korean reaction.

I just had a conversation with retired Army Gen. Vincent Brooks, who until recently commanded US and UN troops in South Korea. It was his argument, and one that rings true to me, that some degree of military posturing was necessary to show North Korea we were serious, and that we were not going to indefinitely tolerate this level of activity.

In the end, what we did was very limited, very prudent, and it showed the North Koreans that despite what the president was saying, the US wasn’t gearing up for an attack or major regime-change operation.

Alex Ward

But both you and I recall the reports of a considered “bloody nose” strike, and Bob Woodward’s new book features a section about the US military updating operational war plans for a fight with North Korea. These and other accounts seem to back the notion that the potential for war in 2017 really was higher than it needed to be.

Markus Garlauskas

There is no question that there was a heightened level of activity and preparation. But updating war plans is a very normal activity that you do on a regular basis, particularly when there are heightened tensions. It’s natural to focus on dusting those off.

The activities described in the book, in terms of what actually took place, I think those were very limited and very normal sorts of things to do when you’re dealing with a country like North Korea that, among other things, was accelerating its violations of UN Security Council resolutions.

Alex Ward

Why, then, do you think there was so much fear of a war in 2017? I recall it feeling quite scary.

A 2017 picture released from North Korea’s official news agency shows leader Kim Jong Un delivering a statement insulting President Donald Trump.
AFP via Getty Images

Markus Garlauskas

One major element is that it comes from indefinite extrapolation. If you were to just have North Korea continue on the path that it was on indefinitely, and not show any restraint — which it did in 2018 when it pivoted to diplomacy — Pyongyang was traveling along a path of escalation. And we were traveling along essentially a collision course, trying to convince the North Koreans that if they stayed on that path it was going to end in war.

I don’t want anyone to take away the idea that the risk of war was not significant. A war on the Korean Peninsula would have a very high chance of going nuclear with catastrophic consequences. There would be an unimaginable number of deaths and destruction of the international order. That would be taking place on China’s doorstep, potentially pulling Beijing into the situation.

Even a small increase in the probability of that happening was definitely a significant risk that’s worth paying attention to. But still, the chances of that happening were a very low probability.

Alex Ward

I want to turn to the Hanoi summit, where Trump and Kim walked away without a nuclear deal. The diplomatic effort never recovered from that event, and I’m wondering, as someone who helped prepare the president for that meeting, why you think everything went off the rails in Hanoi? As you know, many people consider that summit a failure.

Markus Garlauskas

The failure rests, number one, on Kim Jong Un’s shoulders. He came to the table with a deal for the dismantling of a major nuclear site in exchange for near-complete sanctions relief that, objectively speaking, was a bad deal [for the US].

The president was very well informed, in part through my and my colleagues’ efforts, about what the situation was and what North Korea had and didn’t have. The president made an informed decision to refuse that deal, and Kim could not adjust and did not adjust to propose anything to entice the US. Kim came away very dissatisfied because he went in overconfident he could make the deal he wanted to make.

I think even Kim recognizes he missed an opportunity, even more than the US missed an opportunity, in Hanoi.

Alex Ward

So you’re saying if Kim had been willing to consider anything other than his offer — perhaps offering more denuclearization or less sanctions relief — Trump and Kim might have made a deal in Hanoi?

Markus Garlauskas

Let’s do the counterfactual: If Kim had asked for less, or if Kim had offered more, there’s a possibility that there would’ve been an interim deal in Hanoi. But it would have required Kim to reaffirm that North Korea’s denuclearization was the end goal, which he hasn’t yet done on paper.

Alex Ward

What’s the main takeaway for Trump or Biden from the last four years, and how should they apply it to the next four years of US-North Korea relations if president?

Markus Garlauskas

The number one thing is to try and replicate what we had in 2018 in terms of the halt on weapons testing. If engaging in diplomacy is the price we have to pay for that, so be it.

Center for Strategic and International Studies

The longer-term issue is having to develop a narrative and approach to denuclearization that doesn’t put the US in a position where we have unrealistic, unreasonable expectations about how quickly progress can be made. It also shouldn’t put the North Koreans in a situation where they prefer to wait until the next election cycle and see how it goes.

If we are intending to see North Korea give up its entire nuclear and missile programs lock, stock, and barrel before the four years are out, then we’re basically creating a situation where it puts the onus of time on us and not on the North Koreans. They know if that’s if that’s the goal, they can keep us from getting there and hang on for a few more years.

But in the end, you don’t have much time to think about any of this, you’re just in reaction mode as long as North Korea is continuing to advance its programs with rapid testing. So if you can get a halt to the testing, then you can buy time to have that policy dialogue. If you don’t, then North Korea is driving the train, not you.

Alex Ward

Is there something Trump got right that could be applied in another presidential term?

Markus Garlauskas

We have to be willing to go back to a 2017 level of confrontation. If Kim senses that the US is more afraid of war than he is, then he has the advantage.

North Korea, no matter how many weapons advances it makes, is never going to get to the point where it has the capability to win a war against the United States of America.

As long as you proceed from the premise that Kim is not crazy or suicidal — which of course I don’t proceed from because he’s a rational, cunning, intelligent man who’s really learned a lot about how to deal with the United States and how to lead this country — as long as that’s the basis, then you have to be comfortable with the idea of confronting Kim and convincing him there are military options the United States has and could use.

If we get to a point where we feel sanctions and war can’t work, then that basically puts Kim in the position where he can dictate terms, and I don’t think that’s going to get us where we need to be.

There has to be a willingness to confront Kim militarily — not to initiate war, not to do a bloody nose strike, but basically to make it clear to him that there are limits to what we will tolerate. And we need to make clear that if he crosses into initiating a war, the outcome will be the end of him and his regime. That’s one of the things President Trump said differently than I would have said it, but it needed to be said, frankly, in 2017.

Help keep Vox free for all

Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what’s happening in the news, from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is, quite possibly, the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work. If you have already contributed, thank you. If you haven’t, please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world: Contribute today from as little as $3.


Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Trump’s misleading tweet about changing your vote, briefly explained



Open Sourced logo

Searches for changing one’s vote did not trend following the recent presidential debate, and just a few states appear to have processes for changing an early vote. But that didn’t stop President Trump from wrongly saying otherwise on Tuesday.

In early morning posts, the president falsely claimed on Twitter and Facebook that many people had Googled “Can I change my vote?” after the second presidential debate and said those searching wanted to change their vote over to him. Trump also wrongly claimed that most states have a mechanism for changing one’s vote. Actually, just a few states appear to have the ability, and it’s rarely used.

Twitter did not attach a label to Trump’s recent tweet.

Trump’s claim about what was trending on Google after the debate doesn’t hold up. Searches for changing one’s vote were not among Google’s top trending searches for the day of the debate (October 22) or the day after. Searches for “Can I change my vote?” did increase slightly around the time of the debate, but there is no way to know whether the bump was related to the debate or whether the people searching were doing so in support of Trump.

It was only after Trump’s posts that searches about changing your vote spiked significantly. It’s worth noting that people were also searching for “Can I change my vote?” during a similar period before the 2016 presidential election.

Google declined to comment on the accuracy of Trump’s post.

Trump also claimed that these results indicate that most of the people who were searching for how to change their vote support him. But the Google Trends tool for the searches he mentioned does not provide that specific information.

Perhaps the most egregiously false claim in Trump’s recent posts is about “most states” having processes for changing your early vote. In fact, only a few states have such processes, and they can come with certain conditions. For instance, in Michigan, voters who vote absentee can ask for a new ballot by mail or in person until the day before the election.

The Center for Election Innovation’s David Becker told the Associated Press that changing one’s vote is “extremely rare.” Becker explained, “It’s hard enough to get people to vote once — it’s highly unlikely anybody will go through this process twice.”

Trump’s post on Facebook was accompanied by a link to Facebook’s Voting Information Center.

At the time of publication, Trump’s false claims had drawn about 84,000 and 187,000 “Likes” on Twitter and Facebook, respectively. Trump’s posts accelerated searches about changing your vote in places like the swing state of Florida, where changing one’s vote after casting it is not possible. Those numbers are a reminder of the president’s capacity to spread misinformation quickly.

On Facebook, the president’s post came with a label directing people to Facebook’s Voting Information Center, but no fact-checking label. Twitter had no annotation on the president’s post. Neither company responded to a request for comment.

That Trump is willing to spread misinformation to benefit himself and his campaign isn’t a surprise. He does that a lot. Still, just days before a presidential election in which millions have already voted, this latest episode demonstrates that the president has no qualms about using false claims about voting to cause confusion and sow doubt in the electoral process.

Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.

Will you help keep Vox free for all?

The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes. It’s essential that all Americans are able to access clear, concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives, and the lives of their families and communities. That is our mission at Vox. But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work. If you have already contributed, thank you. If you haven’t, please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election: Contribute today from as little as $3.


Continue Reading


Nearly 6,000 civilian casualties in Afghanistan so far this year



From January to September, 5,939 civilians – 2,117 people killed and 3,822 wounded – were casualties of the fighting, the UN says.

Nearly 6,000 Afghan civilians were killed or wounded in the first nine months of the year as heavy fighting between government forces and Taliban fighters rages on despite efforts to find peace, the United Nations has said.

From January to September, there were 5,939 civilian casualties in the fighting – 2,117 people killed and 3,822 wounded, the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) said in a quarterly report on Tuesday.

“High levels of violence continue with a devastating impact on civilians, with Afghanistan remaining among the deadliest places in the world to be a civilian,” the report said.

Civilian casualties were 30 percent lower than in the same period last year but UNAMA said violence has failed to slow since the beginning of talks between government negotiators and the Taliban that began in Qatar’s capital, Doha, last month.

An injured girl receives treatment at a hospital after an attack in Khost province [Anwarullah/Reuters]

The Taliban was responsible for 45 percent of civilian casualties while government troops caused 23 percent, it said. United States-led international forces were responsible for two percent.

Most of the remainder occurred in crossfire, or were caused by ISIL (ISIS) or “undetermined” anti-government or pro-government elements, according to the report.

Ground fighting caused the most casualties followed by suicide and roadside bomb attacks, targeted killings by the Taliban and air raids by Afghan troops, the UN mission said.

Fighting has sharply increased in several parts of the country in recent weeks as government negotiators and the Taliban have failed to make progress in the peace talks.

At least 24 people , mostly teens, were killed in a suicide bomb attack at an education centre in Kabul [Mohammad Ismail/Reuters]

The Taliban has been fighting the Afghan government since it was toppled from power in a US-led invasion in 2001.

Washington blamed the then-Taliban rulers for harbouring al-Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaeda was accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks.

Calls for urgent reduction of violence

Meanwhile, the US envoy for Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, said on Tuesday that the level of violence in the country was still too high and the Kabul government and Taliban fighters must work harder towards forging a ceasefire at the Doha talks.

Khalilzad made the comments before heading to the Qatari capital to hold meetings with the two sides.

“I return to the region disappointed that despite commitments to lower violence, it has not happened. The window to achieve a political settlement will not stay open forever,” he said in a tweet.

There needs to be “an agreement on a reduction of violence leading to a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire”, added Khalilzad.

A deal in February between the US and the Taliban paved the way for foreign forces to leave Afghanistan by May 2021 in exchange for counterterrorism guarantees from the Taliban, which agreed to sit with the Afghan government to negotiate a permanent ceasefire and a power-sharing formula.

But progress at the intra-Afghan talks has been slow since their start in mid-September and diplomats and officials have warned that rising violence back home is sapping trust.


Continue Reading


Classic toy tie-up: Etch A Sketch maker to acquire Rubik’s Cube



Spin Master Corp., the company behind the Etch A Sketch and Paw Patrol brands, has agreed to acquire Rubik’s Brand Ltd. for about $50 million, tying together two of the world’s most iconic toy brands.

The merger comes at a boom time for classic toymakers, as parents turn to familiar products to entertain kids stuck in lockdown. Like sales of Uno, Monopoly and Barbie dolls, Rubik’s Cube purchases have spiked during the pandemic, according to the puzzle maker’s chief executive officer, Christoph Bettin. He expects sales to jump 15% to 20% in 2020, compared with a normal year, when people purchase between 5 million and 10 million cubes.

By acquiring Rubik’s, Toronto-based Spin Master can better compete with its larger rivals, Hasbro Inc. and Mattel Inc. All three companies have pivoted to become less reliant on actual product sales, diversifying into television shows, films and broader entertainment properties based on their toys. Spin Master CEO Anton Rabie said he wouldn’t rule out films or TV shows based on Rubik’s Cubes, but he was focused for now on creating more cube-solving competitions and crossmarketing it with the company’s other products, like the Perplexus.

“Whoever you are, it really has a broad appeal from a consumer standpoint,” Rabie said in an interview. “It’s actually going to become the crown jewel; it will be the most important part of our portfolio worldwide.”

Hungarian inventor Erno Rubik created the Rubik’s Cube in 1974, a solid block featuring squares with colored stickers that users could twist and turn without it falling apart. It gained popularity in the 1980s and has remained one of the best-selling toys of all time, spawning spinoff versions, international competitions of puzzle solvers, books and documentaries.

The toy has been particularly well-suited to pandemic conditions. During lockdowns, parents have sought to give kids puzzles that boost problem-solving skills useful in math and science careers. Normally, toys tied to major film franchises are among the most popular products headed into the holidays, but studios have delayed the release of major new movies because of coronavirus. So classic products are experiencing a mini-renaissance.

“The whole pandemic has really increased games and puzzles,” Rabie said. “But whether the pandemic existed or didn’t exist, we’d still buy Rubik’s. It’s had such steady sales for decades.”

Rubik’s CEO Bettin said it was the right time to sell the company, with the founding families behind it ready to move on. London-based Rubik’s Brand was formed out of a partnership between Erno Rubik and the late entrepreneur Tom Kremer, while private equity firm Bancroft Investment holds a minority stake in the company.

Early on, Bettin felt Spin Master was the right home for the puzzle toy, he said. Spin Master, which was started by a group of three friends in 1994, has expanded through the purchase of well-known brands, including Erector sets and Etch A Sketch. Rabie says he works to honor the “legacy” of those products, which Bettin cited as a key reason to sell the brand to Spin Master over larger companies that were interested.

“It was important for us to not be lost in the crowd, and to be sufficiently important and cared for,” Bettin said. “And there’s a balance between being with someone large enough to invest, and agile enough to ensure you are key part of their plans.”

Spin Master won’t own Rubik’s Cubes in time for the holiday season – the transaction is expected to close on Jan. 4. At that time, the company will move Rubik’s operations from a small office in London’s Notting Hill neighborhood to Spin Master’s new games operations center in Long Island.

Some of Rubik’s Brand’s 10 employees will be part of the transition, but they won’t stay permanently, Bettin said.


Continue Reading