Trailer for Chase the Sun

Putting the Horse before the Cart

Trump Administration officials entered North Korea this weekend in a frantic effort to put the Trump-Kim back on track for its planned June 12 happening. One can only wonder just who these officials are and what their agenda is beyond trying to arrange the complicated administrative arrangements that must precede any such meeting.

As someone who spent 30 years of his professional life practicing diplomacy in the field and having been involved in setting up more than one high-level meeting, I can’t help but wonder just who is working on planning the substance of this meeting.

While anything that might lower the tensions on the Korean Peninsula is welcomed, one has also to consider the implications of the summit failing. The normal way these things are handled is that there are many preliminary meetings, hammering out the details and positions of both sides, so that when the leaders meet at a summit, all they have to do is bless what’s already been decided. Trump seems hell bent on doing things bass-ackwards and treating this whole thing like it’s one of his property deals. He’ll swoop in and stun his opponent with his combination of bluster, bravado and charm(?), and make the deal of a lifetime.

The problem is, international diplomacy is not like real estate. One has to have a good feel for what an opponent’s desires and objectives are, develop compromises that, to a degree, satisfy the goals of both sides, and then slowly and carefully, make the outcome public. One has also to be prepared for the talks to break down. The best time to learn this is before a summit is announced—or even planned—not after the summit itself.

Every president and his (or her) administration has a learning curve. In times of crisis or potential crisis, that curve should be steep. What I’m seeing with this administration is not an upward trending curve, but a flat line, and as in the ICU, a flat line is not a good sign.

I’m hoping this thing doesn’t blow up in Trump’s face, because if it does, we will all suffer.

The Trump-Kim Relationship: Learning Foreign Affairs the Hard Way

There is no instruction book for being President of the United States, and every new president has to learn on-the-job. Most do this in measured ways, taking, or at least considering, the advice of their senior foreign policy advisors before taking action. The incumbent, though, goes about things in a unique, and uniquely dangerous way. I call it, DITTW, or Do It the Trump Way. He blusters, threatens, demeans, and makes grandiose pronouncements, only to have, in light of subsequent events, to walk everything back into the corral.

The summit with North Korean leader Kim Jung-un is a case in point. Trump started out with a war of words, promising ‘fire and fury,’ and calling Kim ‘the little Rocket Man,’ and then, after the North Koreans finally agreed to a meeting and released three Americans they’d been holding prisoner, calling Kim, ‘honorable.’ Of course, his bombastic national security advisor, John Bolton, put his spoon in the soup, referring to the ‘Libya option’ in regard to North Korea’s nuclear program, which caused them to threaten to cancel the whole thing.

Now, with North Korea dismantling an already destroyed nuclear facility with international press witnesses, Trump has cancelled the planned June 12, meeting in Singapore with ‘regret.’

In my humble opinion, as someone who had over 30 years of experience as a diplomat, and several years working on Korean issues, both north and south, a firm date for a leader summit should never have been announced before many preparatory meetings were held, and it should have been realized from the outset that North Korea is not about to unilaterally give up the only thing it sees as protecting it from the U.S. A more stable, wise person would’ve done this analysis before making public statements and promises and would listen and heed the advice from a variety of knowledgeable people before making any decisions. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and some hard lessons are being put forth—I hesitate to say that they are being learned, because, frankly, I have my doubts. We can only hope that the current situation does not go beyond another ‘war of rhetoric.’

Life teaches hard lessons, but only for those who are willing to learn. Too often, though, it is those of us outside the classroom who suffer the consequences when the ‘students’ refuse to learn.

Trailer for the Adventures of Bass Reeves series

Facial Hair is Making a Comeback

When I retired from government service in 2012, I began growing a beard, my first facial hair since 1985, when I lived in northeast China and grew a beard to avoid having to shave in the subzero weather that exists for most of the year. My reasons in 2012 were similar. I had just returned to the U.S. from southern Africa, and when I went to buy replacement blades for my razor, I noted that prices had gone through the roof—nay, into the stratosphere. So, I reckoned, if I grow a beard, that means fewer shaves, so less money for blades. As the thing began to grow in, I came up with another rationale; now a private citizen and engaged in freelance activities (writing, art, photography, consulting, etc.), the beard contributed to the bohemian image I wanted to cultivate, or so I tell my wife, who frequently importunes me to shave it off. She’s fine with the mustache, but feels the beard makes me look sinister. So, my image makeover seems to be working.

On May 19, 2018, I think she finally decided to leave my beard alone. Like millions of other people around the globe, she was glued to the TV, watching the wedding of Britain’s Prince Harry to American actress, Meghan Markle. I glanced at the screen occasionally on my way to replenish my water bottle, and have to say, the bride was absolutely beautiful, but what caught my eye, and what just might have changed my wife’s attitude, was the groom. Harry’s a handsome lad, and he cut a fine figure in his military uniform (he’s an Afghan combat vet, by the way, and a helicopter pilot), but what really struck me was the neatly-trimmed, russet colored hair on his chin. That’s right, folks, young Prince Harry sports a beard, and does it quite well, too. In the audience, I also spotted actor George Clooney with his facial adornment, and George, like me, has more salt than pepper in his chin covering.

Well, the day just went on. It seems that every time I went to get water—my doctor has advised me to drink nearly a gallon a day—there would be a commercial, and at least a third of them had a spokesman with a beard. From the guy touting the ‘speak to your remote’ streaming service to the home improvement guru, all had beards.

Wisely, I said nothing about this to the wife, but I think she gets the message. For whatever reason, facial hair is making a comeback. I’d like to think that this is one fashion trend that I was in the leading wave of.

Congressional Statement on Zimbabwe After Mugabe

(Transcript of my statement to the Africa Subcommittee of the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs)

Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am honored to be able to appear before you today to discuss the path forward in US-Zimbabwe relations. I served as U.S. Ambassador to Zimbabwe from 2009 to 2012, during the period of the ZANU-PF/MDC coalition government, a time of relative peace and economic stability, but, unfortunately, also a time of lost opportunities to put Zimbabwe on the path of truly representative government and a prosperous economy.

Most American today know very little about Zimbabwe, but for a brief time in November 2017, it was again prominent in the American mass media. After several weeks of increasing political turmoil, primarily within Mugabe’s ruling ZANU-PF party, the first vice president, Emmerson D. Mnangagwa was accused of disloyalty and sacked. He then fled to South Africa, claiming that his life was in danger. Around this same time, Mugabe’s wife, Grace, began to appear more and more in public, making statements that she should be the one to succeed the aging leader, pronouncements that Mugabe did nothing to deny. In an unprecedented—for Zimbabwe—move, Constantine Chiwenga, chief of the Zimbabwe Defense Staff, made a public statement that the military would not stand idly by and allow liberation figures to be removed from government or the party. Shortly thereafter the military made its move. It took control of key installations in Harare, and placed Mugabe and his family under effective house arrest—although, it was quick to publicly announce that what it was doing was not a coup. As one opposition figure said, though, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. It was a palace coup, with the army moving against elements of its own party, but make no mistake about it, it was a coup d’état. Relatively nonviolent, and done in a most unusual way; Mugabe was allowed to meet the press, to phone the South African president, to meet with the coup leader in what on the surface appeared a cordial encounter, and even to call a cabinet meeting; it was still a change of government initiated by force of arms rather than the ballot box.

How the military’s actions will be dealt with is something for Zimbabweans to decide. For the rest of the world, and the United States in particular, the key questions are; where does Zimbabwe go from here, and what role should we play in that journey?

We should start with a bit of background on Zimbabwe’s new ruler, Emmerson Mnangagwa. The question on many minds is, will he be any different from Mugabe? He is, after all, someone who worked closely with Mugabe for more than 37 years after the country’s independence, who served as an intelligence officer during the war for independence, and who, because of his actions in support the crackdown on Ndebele political opposition in the 1980s, and MDC supporters in the 1990s, has earned the nickname, ‘Crocodile.’ Prior to being appointed to the first vice president position, Mnangagwa served as defense minister and justice minister. Though he lacks Mugabe’s charisma, he enjoys the support of most senior military officials. Moving forward, his first priority will be to reassert control over ZANU-PF, a party that has fractured along generational lines, with many of those in their 40s and 50s, known as the G-40, supporting Grace Mugabe against the older liberation-era party members. A united ZANU-PF is essential if the party is to retain power. This won’t be an easy task for Mnangagwa, as the rift between the two demographics was worsened by some of the actions and rhetoric during September-November of last year. The issue is further complicated by the presence of former ZANU-PF number two, Joice Mujuru’s Zimbabwe People First (ZIM-PF) Party. Mujuru, until Grace Mugabe engineered her ouster, was first vice president, and at the time was in competition with Mnangagwa, a successor to Mugabe. A veteran of the liberation struggle, as a fighter with a fierce reputation, she also enjoys some military support, although probably not as much as Mnangagwa. Mnangagwa’s second priority, I believe, will be to ensure ZANU-PF’s continued control of the reins of power in the country. If he can somehow pull all the ZANU factions together, and overcome the possible threat from Mujuru, he will have to decide whether or not to proceed with elections in July 2018. He has indicated that he will do so. While violence and chicanery are still possibilities that can’t be cavalierly dismissed, a united ZANU-PF is likely to be able to do well against the current opposition party lineup. The Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) is still split between the faction led by Morgan Tsvangirai and the one led by Welshman Ncube. As the parties that pose the greatest challenge to ZANU-PF in the urban areas, if they were united, they might do well, but it is unlikely that they will merge. The remainder of the opposition parties, with the exception of ZIM-PF, will only take votes away from MDC, which is to ZANU-PF’s advantage. In the rural areas, ZANU-PF has, in the past at least, had an advantage, and Mnangagwa is sure to capitalize on this.

So, while it’s too early to predict that the 2018 elections will be free, fair and nonviolent, let us assume, for the moment that they will be. Where do we go from that point?

During my time as US Ambassador to Zimbabwe, one of the most frequent topics of conversation was US sanctions. Put in place in response to the violent land seizures and electoral violence of the late 1990s, the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act was enacted in December 2001, and a presidential executive order, targeting individuals and entities involved in the violence and antidemocratic acts was issued in March 2003. Both actions were intended to encourage a return to democracy, something that had not happened by the time of my arrival in 2009. After the MDC won the 2008 elections, although without the necessary 51% majority, there was more violence, but under South African pressure, a coalition government was formed. That government, with the MDC in a subordinate position to ZANU-PF, lasted until the 2014 elections, in which ZANU-PF got the required majority and subsequently formed a government without MDC. The sanctions, in my view, were clearly not having the desired effect, and Mugabe’s party hardliners were using their existence as an excuse for all of the country’s ills. My response to the many queries of, ‘when will sanctions be lifted/’, was, ‘when there is a return to nonviolent elections and democracy. In fact, during one of my final media interviews before my departure in 2012, at the end of my tour, I said, “Sanctions were a response to a violent electoral process. A credible electoral process, free of violence, would make our current policies irrelevant.”

If this year’s elections are head, they are determined to be credible, and there is no violence, the ball will be in our court. If we truly want to see Zimbabwe develop to its potential, we must be prepared to work with the winner of a credible, nonviolent election, regardless of the political party. Even if the election is credible and nonviolent, any new government is almost certain to contain officials who bring a lot of historical baggage with them to the positions they occupy. I firmly believe, however, that we should, in such a situation, put the past behind us and focus on the policy statement in the introduction of the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001; ‘it is the policy of the United States to support the people of Zimbabwe in their struggle to effect peaceful, democratic change, achieve broad-based and equitable economic growth, and restore the rule of law.”

I leave development of the precise modalities of our actions to the policy makers and the professionals in the Foreign and Civil services of our foreign affairs agencies, primarily State and USAID, but I would offer a few suggestions on the way forward. First, we should instruct our embassy in Harare to establish contact with Mnangagwa and his current government to reiterate our policy regarding sanctions, and to inform him that, if upcoming elections are credible and nonviolent, we are prepared to recognize and work with the new government. While we should continue to monitor the human rights situation, our initial focus should be on actions to reinvigorate the country’s economy and empower the private sector to revitalize the agricultural sector, and rebuild stagnant industries, with a view to creating meaningful employment and broad economic security. We should encourage the new government to develop an investor-friendly climate, and take steps to curb corruption, while at the same time, encouraging American business to explore opportunities to increase two-way trade and investment.

During my time as ambassador, we experimented with a local economic development program modeled on an Asian village financing scheme. Women in a few poor rural villages were taught to organize local savings clubs, in which deposits were loaned out to members at low interest rates for income-producing ventures. These programs, though known to the government, were outside government control, and within months of establishment, totally self-reliant. Consideration should be given to implementing such a program in rural and suburban communities country-wide. People who are economically self-sufficient are less vulnerable to political exploitation. The elephant in the room, which can’t be entirely ignored, is the Zimbabwean military. Existing laws and regulations will limit what we can do with the military, but for the long term, peaceful development of Zimbabwe, at some point we will have to figure out a way to work with this institution.

Initially, I believe the primary focus should be on inculcating in the military establishment an ethos of service to the nation as a whole rather than identification with a specific political party. In my limited contact with senior military officials when I was ambassador, I was convinced that there exists within the military establishment a cadre of people who would like to professionalize and depoliticize the institution. The challenge will be to identify those individuals, and develop effective ways of working with them. One possibility might be to establish a working relationship with the SADC Peacekeeping Academy, which is located in Harare, and allowing Zimbabwean military participation in courses of instruction on military professionalism. I leave it to State and Defense, working with the congress, to determine just how such a program would be implemented.

While I have, in making these recommendations, assumed that elections will be held in July 2018, and that they will be credible and nonviolent, I must make clear at this point that I am not making a prediction. I do believe that if everyone approaches the coming months with an earnest desire to see Zimbabwe pull itself out of the doldrums and take its rightful place in the region and the world, it can happen. If it does happen, if everyone then puts the past behind them and focuses on the future, a new and more vibrant Zimbabwe can arise Phoenix-like from the ashes.

Amb. (ret) Charles Ray (r) and Rep. Chris Smith, subcommittee chair, talk after the hearing.

Forum on the State of American Democracy

Ambassador (ret) Steve McCann, founder and CEO of The Stevenson Group, was the keynote speaker at a Forum on the State of American Democracy, held at Virginia International University, Fairfax, VA on May 18, 2018.

Panels discussing the state of democracy in the U.S.

The forum consisted of two panels of academics, journalists, and business people who spoke on the state of democracy both in the United States and internationally before a audience of faculty of the university. The first panel discussed the disturbing trend of backtracking on democratic reforms internationally and the trend globally toward autocracy, and the lessons that can be learned here in the U.S. in light of the outcome of the 2016 presidential elections. The second panel then looked at the state of democracy in the United States, emphasizing the fact that political polarization is at its highest since the Reconstruction era following the Civil War, and the trend of closed electoral primaries resulting in mostly extreme candidates in general elections. It was pointed out that while the US has a business climate that is favorable to small and medium-sized enterprises (ranked third in the world), in terms of inequality of income, the US ranks as one of the worst when compared with other developed economies, outperforming only countries like Burundi, El Salvador, and Iran.

McCann delivers keynote address

In his keynote address, McCann acknowledged that the challenges to democracy are great, but stated that as long as the populace remains alert and active, and we continue to abide by the Constitution and honor the rule of law, there is no danger of the U.S. becoming an autocratic state.

A New Phone Sales Technique: I'm not Buying

Modern life, with all the electronic assistance available, is convenient, but at the same time, annoying. Telemarketers, using robo-calling, interrupt naps and mealtimes with their inane, totally inappropriate pitches, and getting to the desired site online is hampered by all the pop-up ads that are inserted in the hopes that you’ll be foolish, or distracted enough to click on. All these things annoy me to no end.  But, recently I encountered what has to be the most annoying modern innovation of all. A combination of pop-up advertising and robot-centric telephony.

I called the service department of a company (for legal reasons I won’t name the organization) and got the usual phone message; ‘press 1 if you’re bored, press 2 if you don’t care,’ or something along those lines, delivered by a soothing female voice. I didn’t want what they were trying to sell, I just wanted some technical help, so when I was given the option of pressing the # key in order not to answer, I kept being sent around in a circle, with yet another offer. I’m no great fan of the vanilla music they play when you’re put on hold but have decided after my encounter with this hard sell technique that the music is preferable. I mean, not only did this woman’s voice keep coming back, but when I refused to ‘press 1’ for the third time, her tone became strident. Remember, this was a recording, not a live person, so the darn thing was programmed to do that with people who didn’t follow instructions. Now, I can take a lot from computers, but being chided because I’m not interested in getting a free prepaid card, or whatever the heck it was they were touting, was over the line.

I finally gave up and went on line, where I had to wait (in silence) until a tech came on to help me, but from that point things went smoothly.

A piece of advice to companies; if you want to get new customers, or keep your existing customers happy, don’t install this system. If you already have it, please, oh please, get rid of it. You’re not making any friends with this technique.

Uvi Poznansky: Bargain&Free

Uvi Poznansky: Bargain&Free: ��   Please double-check prices before downloading  ��   Easy Innocence ...