 Ah, and welcome to Figments on Reality, season one, episode three. God, that sounds so official. It is a third episode of this apolitical and hopefully not vitriolic commentary show that I do every other week here on Think Peck Hawaii. And I do it not because I know it all, but because I think about things a lot, have some views I'd like to share as food for thought. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'd like you to find areas of interest here that you'll examine further. And again, from a non-political perspective, I do a lot of preparation for these shows and frankly, I'm pretty nervous at the start. I think that's a good thing. I do it because, well, it helps me sound like I know what I'm talking about. Keeps me from, I hope, saying something I'll regret because once it's on the web, it's there forever. We should all be as thoughtful before we send that nasty text message or a hateful email reply to something that irritates us. So I think I'm prepared today to talk about diplomacy and the rule of law, two separate topics, not unrelated. I'll also talk a bit about the Juneteenth holiday, which we just celebrated for the first official time as a nation. And share some news on North Korea because as many of you know, that's one of my obsessions North Korea. So first, let's start with a quick look at what I mean by apolitical and the avoidance of vitriol. Politics permeate everything. And as you can see in the definition here, I try to show no interest or endorsement in political affairs in my commentary because all that does is feed the fires of vitriol that seem to be engulfing our nation. And I don't wanna add to that. Furthermore, if I put a political twist in implied or actual endorsement to a party, a candidate or a position to my commentary, then you're going to be less likely to listen to what I have to say. So some people take issue with my lack of a political approach, but that's how I do it. And that's my show. I'm not getting paid for it. So I'll do what I want and hopefully have some influence on your thinking in terms of just giving you food for thought. So my first topic today is going to be about diplomacy and the role of U.S. ambassadors. And I'd like to give credit to my wife, Alejandra, who she didn't suggest this topic, but she brought something up that made me think about it. She's from Chile and there hasn't been a U.S. ambassador filling that post in Santiago for a couple of years. And she asked if that means that the U.S. isn't interested in Chile. And that's not the case. But this is a matter of governing competence that does our government govern competently. And this is not, absolutely not a political indictment. The fact that 95 of 189 ambassador posts are vacant worldwide because both parties have failed here over recent years, quite a long time, frankly. 95 of 189 posts vacant. There are nominees for 10 of those 95, but the rest we haven't even nominated anybody yet. And again, this failure has been achieved made by both parties. So it's not a political indictment. These are really important points. I'm not a diplomat, nobody would ever mistake me for a diplomat, but as a senior military officer in the Pacific, I saw how important those ambassadors are. We can't have an influential foreign policy that emanates only from Washington, D.C. And the ambassadors are the focal point for our global diplomacy. They are the most important practitioners of that diplomacy and of US influence in a region. And that's important whether we're talking about a treaty ally, a friend, a relatively neutral nation, or even those we have issues with. The ambassador is the focal point for diplomacy. And if I were elected president, fortunately, there's no danger of that ever happening. But if I were elected president, I think that might be my number one priority is filling diplomatic posts worldwide at the outset. Our ambassadors represent the United States every day in the countries they're assigned to. And they don't just do it ceremonially, that's important, but also practically. And they represent US citizens who happen to be in those countries. As somebody spent a lot of time overseas, if there were ever some major problem that I were involved in, I certainly would want an ambassador there. Now, we have stand-ins, if you will, charge aid affairs who are career diplomats generally, and they assume the responsibilities of the ambassadors, but they can't replace the significance of that title and the position. It's not easy to get an ambassador into a post. They have to be nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate, accepted by the host nation. But it's work that has to be done. As I said, they represent us every day. And more importantly, perhaps their presence or absence is taken by each country and each organization as a measure of interest. Does the US care about name a country or organization? And if we don't have an ambassador in a post, especially for a long time, that creates a diplomatic vacuum. And diplomacy, like nature, abhors a vacuum. Somebody will fill that vacuum. And it will be contrasted to how other companies are represented in the country. And if China has an ambassador and country X and we don't, then we're losing our influence. And I think our influence is important, not just to the United States, but to the world. So 95 of 189 ambassador posts. I have a list right here, thanks to the website you see on the slide there. You ought to look at it for a couple of reasons. One, you'd be surprised at some of the organizations that have, where we have committed to have ambassadorial level representation. And then you'd be shocked by the countries where we don't currently and don't have a nominee. For example, and I'm working in alphabetical order here from my list, Afghanistan. Well, is anything important happening in Afghanistan right now? Yes. Now there are workarounds. There are deputy assistant secretaries and other officials in the Department of State that can represent us, but not like an ambassador. So Afghanistan, ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. It's hugely important in our competition with China. Australia, a treaty ally, important partner. Chile, okay, have to mention that for Alejandro. But an important South American country that is significantly tied to China economically in a place where we should have influence. Canada, they kind of matter because they're our neighbor. And speaking of neighbors, let me skip down the list alphabetically and see that we don't have an ambassador nominated or present for Mexico. With the border crisis, again, not political counter, but that's a pretty important place to leave vacant. Some of the other key areas, the European Union. After the summit recently, I didn't think that would be a place we represented. France, Germany, and NATO all have vacant and vast area posts. And by the way, this is current as of May 24th. So anything's changed, I missed it. India and Indonesia, looking at the eyes on the list, two most populous Muslim nations on the planet, believe it or not, and both important partners economically in insecurity matters, vacant. Japan, another treaty ally. The Philippines, a lot of Southeast Asia unrepresented here, Singapore, South Korea, Northeast Asia. We're gonna address the North Korea matters. We ought to have an ambassador there. Thailand, the United Kingdom. And Vietnam has a nominee, but doesn't have an ambassador present. I personally view our relationship with Vietnam as one of the most important bilateral relationships the country has. And here's one of the organizations where I think we absolutely should put priority on having an ambassador of the United Nations Human Rights Council. We have to put our diplomats where our mouth is. And if we think it's important, we have to find the right people to serve, get them nominated and confirmed. Once again, not an indictment of this administration it's observation that the United States has not done well at filling these key diplomatic posts for some time. And it is, it's a risk we're taking because the void will be filled. Okay, so let's talk a little bit about Juneteenth, our newest holiday, the 19th of June, celebrated officially on Friday. And I was frankly kind of surprised how quickly this became a holiday. All right, that's bad on me. Shame on me for thinking that. It's been under discussion for a long time including in the last administration, but finally it's a holiday. And quickly is not the word because it only took 156 years for this to be established from the event that it celebrates the final end of slavery in the United States. By the way, it's first new US holiday since Martin Luther King Day was established back in 1983. And that means our past two national holidays have addressed the issue of race in the United States. And I hope that's something that will help continue to heal our nation because we need that to heal. There has been some debate, should it be a holiday? Do we need another holiday, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera? But let me just say this. When I think about slavery, man, I've got a newspaper clipping here, Negroes for sale. Can you imagine being sold as property? I can't. It's incredibly tragic. And the end of that should be something that we do celebrate. So happy Juneteenth. Next year I'll be better prepared for it. And I hope we'll, as a nation, celebrate this holiday with the significance it deserves. Right. Quick break as always to plug my next figments, the power of imagination coming up in a week at 2 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time on Think Tech Hawaii. Honey, I bought a race car. I'm really looking forward to this. High school friend of mine did exactly that in his mid fifties. It's a great story. And it's really an interesting study of following your dream and making your figment reality. And he's got some tremendous anecdotes from buying a race car, which he did. So onto the rule of law. I think a lot about the law and what a legalistic society we've become Juneteenth, in fact, became a holiday via the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act, an act of law, and that's how you make holidays. But the concept of rule of law, I think is one of the most important ideas in the world. And certainly in the United States because it is the principle, as you see, that people and institutions are subject to an accountable to law that's fairly applied and it's government by law. There's a contrasting principle that we find in some countries around the world. And that's rule by law, where a government or a ruling body or party or dictator uses laws to control the people, but is not equally held accountable to those laws. And that's really a huge difference in something that the US has promoted broadly in the Indo-Asia Pacific. When we talk about a free and open Indo-Asia Pacific, we talk about the rule of law. And so I think it's a great principle, but I also think we have too many laws and that we have become overly legalistic. The proliferation of legal regulation of issues, big and small, I think fuels the divide in the United States, the societal disharmony, if you will. We just have too many laws. And I don't know how you wanna do that. Okay, folks, I'd like to propose a solution, but kind of hard to un-make a law. It's hard to repeal a law. The regulations are sometimes repealed by executive order at the federal level and then reinstated or repealed, et cetera. And once you get all these laws, you're kind of stuck with them. And I think there are a couple of problems to that. One is that these laws are often at the wrong level and we need better discipline in our legislative bodies regardless of political party. But is this a matter that should fall under the purview of the state government, the local government or the federal government? And not speaking politically, but speaking little sort of philosophically, there should be a fairly conservative approach to crossing those boundaries. There's a reason for the separation of powers between local state and federal governments. And that's something to allow people of localities to live by their rules within reason when the matter being addressed is local in nature. So I think we've crossed those boundaries a lot. And I think we've made too many laws and because we've made too many laws, everything becomes litigation. When all forms of behavior are legally governed, then the only way to solve a disagreement is through litigation, through the courts. And let's say if you're going to the courts, that means you're taking sides, you have to take sides. There's a plaintiff and a defendant and when we get to micro legal regulation, we absolve ourselves of our own personal responsibility to address and solve disagreements on a personal level and give it to the courts. And again, I think this is something that is fueling the disharmony in the United States. And if you've got a solution, please drop me a line at info at phase-1.com. Info at phase-1.com. I don't have a solution, but I think it's a problem and I'd really appreciate your thoughts. Next, a little bit about North Korea. As you know, I'm obsessed with North Korea and North Korea matters. And there was some good news today. I got that good news from nknews.org and not a plug for them, but well, I guess it is. Very good website. They have a great podcast. I believe I've mentioned it on other shows and I encourage you to take a look and to listen to what they put out because it's quite diverse in covering North Korea and provides insight that I haven't found anywhere else. So the news is that the son Kim our North Korea policy representative has said that the US is willing to meet with North Korea anywhere, anytime. Wow, without precondition. Wow, let me read this. We hope, here's a follow-on to his statement. We continue to hope that the DPRK will positively respond to our outreach and are offered to meet anywhere, anytime without preconditions. Son Kim said he was at a meeting with his South Korean and Japanese counterparts. I think that's great. This is a festering problem that has festered far too long to the US and Japan and South Korea's peril on a security sense and the human peril of the common North Korean people. So it's great, but guess what folks? It is absolutely not enough. It isn't enough to simply say we'll meet because we've said that before. In fact, Son Kim who fulfilled this current role previously said much the same before. The problem is North Korea has enacted upon that and they're unlikely to respond in any way productive to this outreach. The United States has to do something innovative and aggressive in a diplomacy sense if we're going to make any progress in solving the North Korea problem. And I've written extensively about it. Many of you may have seen some of the articles, papers and interviews I've done on it, but the United States has to find something that isn't transactional, isn't a concession or a negotiation and give a reason to meet. Now the previous president, President Trump did that and it's arguable the effect of that but he did actually engage with North Korea. I'm not suggesting that that approach is something that President Biden is likely to take or even that he should take. But I think that the United States has to take some action that will inspire dialogue and get us out of this stalemate that has gone on since 1953. What kind of actions would I suggest? I'd say we should pursue an end to the war, a war ending agreement. And currently we're under an armistice so this war is technically still there and we should address that. That's not easy, none of this is easy but we have to take some initiative. I'd also suggest as I have in the past that the US and South Korea take joint action to relook the maritime boundaries of North Korea. Now this would benefit North Korea, it would. If their maritime boundaries were normalized, they would benefit from it. But the current boundaries are not in sync with any of the law of the sea approaches taken elsewhere. The United States has promoted the law of the sea and the Uncloss Treaty, the UN Convention on Law of the Sea even though we haven't ratified it. Other question of government competence but it is what it is. We still believe in the principles of it and have made it a matter of policy through multiple administrations but that does not seem to apply to North Korea. That needs to be fixed. If we're going to be credible as a nation touting the rule of law at sea then we must apply universally and not make a North Korea exception. I still believe it's very important to make our long-term goal denuclearization of North Korea. We can't simply accept the fact that they have nuclear weapons. One because that's quite dangerous but it's more dangerous than just with regard to North Korea. Accepting the North Korea as a nuclear state would mean we stop caring about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, one of the most important treaties in my lifetime. And we can't walk away from that. We can't say it's okay to leave the treaty as North Korea did. Since the treaty was enacted, four states have gotten nuclear weapons. The other three, Israel, India and Pakistan were not signatories, North Korea was. And we simply can't afford to say that's fine, that's fine. That treaty doesn't matter that much. So focus on keep our long-term strategic focus on denuclearization of North Korea. But at the same time, let's find something to talk about. And we have to entice North Korea to talk because they're not going to do it on their own volition. One other area that I suggested is in an interview with Asia Global Online is providing vaccines to North Korea. And now that we've made a huge pledge of vaccines for global distribution, that's one place we should consider. But we can't just say we're willing to meet anywhere, anytime and think that anything will come of that. So that's what I think about North Korea today. I usually start in the previous two episodes, that's usual, with, come on man, in the news where I find something totally ridiculous in the news and put it forward like they do on NFL pregame shows. I have some bad news folks, two weeks of looking and I came up empty. Now, does that mean that there isn't anything ridiculous in the news? No, the problem is everything that was ridiculous had a political undertones to it and both sides of the political spectrum, by the way. But we need the media to come up with other ridiculous stories that have nothing to do with politics. If I'm going to keep doing, come on, man, in the news. So that is everything I wanted to talk about today. Remember, next week we'll have figments, the power of imagination. If you missed my last episode, last Monday, you can find it on the playlist. It was with Lieutenant Colonel Slick Geary. Boy, I thought it was a great episode and not because of me, he's a great guy. And he's a Vietnam veteran. He was an F-15 pilot, friend of mine in the F-15 world who's flown everything, but his description of being a 19-year-old Huey, aircraft commander in combat in Vietnam was riveting and thoughtful and encourage you to take a look at the playlist and do that. So let me close with what would fig do. Fig would think about diplomacy and look at where our ambassadors are and encourage our government through letters, however you'd like to do it, to fill those important posts. It's at our peril if we don't. So thanks for watching. Remember, Think Tech Hawaii makes figments on reality and figments the power of imagination possible is a 501-3C. I think I get the numbers in letters, right? Non-profit corporation entirely dependent on your generous contributions. And if you go to their website, you'll see they have content that's extraordinarily diverse, interesting, funny. It's a great connection for the community. So please support Think Tech Hawaii. I'll see you next week and figments the power of imagination in two more weeks. We'll bring back more reality and hopefully a new come on, man. Aloha.