North Korea demanded $2 million from the US for medical care provided to Otto Warmbier, a US college student who was detained in Pyongyang, where the young man slipped into a mysterious coma from which he would never awake, the Washington Post’s Anna Fifield reports.
North Korea required the US to agree to paying the $2 million before releasing Warmbier, according to The Post, but the bill went unpaid immediately after Warmbier’s return.
North Korea sentenced Warmbier to 15 years of hard labor in the country’s notorious prison camps that harbor thousands of political prisoners. His alleged crime was trying to take a poster from a hotel. North Korea deemed this a “hostile act against the state.”
He was released in the summer of 2017 after several rounds of negotiations with the North Koreans. When Joseph Yun, the State Department’s go-to guy on North Korea at that time, and Michael Flueckiger, a doctor, arrived in the North Korean capital, they were surprised to find that negotiations were far from over as Warmbier lay unresponsive in a North Korean intensive care unit.
“I didn’t realize what a negotiation it was going to be to secure his release,” Flueckiger reportedly said, explaining that the North Koreans expected him to write a report on the care Warmbier had received. While the doctor dealt with that issue, Yun was being handed a million medical bill.
North Korea billed US million for care of Otto Warmbier
Yun called then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who called President Donald Trump. Yun was instructed to sign off on the bill, two sources told The Post.
Warmbier’s family celebrated the boy’s return, but that joy was short lived. Warmbier died shortly after returning, as doctors saw no way to save him.
North Korea claimed Warmbier contracted botulism and went into a coma after taking a pill to help him sleep, despite reports that he was tortured. At the time, doctors examining Warmbier found no evidence of physical abuse. Flueckiger reported that the Warmbier had received “really good care,” an observation the Warmbier family disputes.
“Would I have lied to get him out of there? Maybe I would have. But I didn’t have to answer that question,” he revealed.
The president previously tweeted that Otto “was tortured beyond belief by North Korea.”
Later, Trump would take Kim’s word for it that he had no knowledge of anything bad happening to Warmbier. This prompted a firey rebuke from the Warmbiers.
Fred and Cindy Warmbier, Otto’s parents, sued North Korea over their son’s untimely death. A US judge ruled in their favor, stressing that it was appropriate to punish North Korea for the “torture, hostage taking and extrajudicial killing of Otto Warmbier.”
This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.
International diplomacy between nuclear nations, like the US and North Korea, doesn’t rate as an easy task for even the most seasoned statesmen, but for some reason it’s commonly discussed in horse racing terms — carrots and sticks.
In diplomatic negotiations, a nation will offer another nation a carrot, or some kind of benefit, while threatening a stick, some kind of mobilization of leverage.
Carrots can be economic benefits or normalizing relations. Sticks can be military force or economic sanctions. Today’s diplomats still talk about North Korea in these terms, or as you would talk about training a horse.
But Christopher Lawrence of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government told Business Insider that approach could be all wrong, and hidden in the history of failed talks with North Korea could be a better way forward.
North Korea won’t trade missiles for carrots
“If the regime ever agrees to give up nuclear weapons, it will not be for fleeting rewards or written security guarantees, but for a long-term, completely different political relationship with the United States going forward,” Lawrence wrote in his new paper on North Korean diplomacy.
In other words, carrots won’t solve the crisis. Demonstrably, sticks, in the form of sanctions and military threats, haven’t solved it either.
Instead, Lawrence proposes looking back to 1994, when North Korea’s nuclear program was in its infancy and the US actually significantly rolled back its plutonium capability, which it could use to make weapons, in exchange for building light water reactors, which are used for nuclear power.
No other acts of diplomacy with North Korea ever had the same level of physical results. Instead of the US simply cutting a check and promising not to invade, a US-led consortium began building energy infrastructure, which could function as a physical bond to imply a commitment to peace.
Therefore, US carrots to North Korea “will only be meaningful if they speak credibly about the political future — and physical, real-world manifestations of a changing relationship, such as shared infrastructure investments, often speak more credibly than written words,” writes Lawrence.
Talk is cheap. Infrastructure isn’t.
Kim Jong Un apparently wants the US to guarantee his security, but “written security assurances are less than credible,” Lawrence told Business Insider. “If we get what we want out of North Korea, why would we follow through?”
North Korea seems sensitive to shifting US rhetoric, as its reaction to being compared to Libya and Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal clearly show.
(Photo by Michael Vadon)
Instead, Lawrence said the US and its allies should focus on building real infrastructure in North Korea to improve the country. The US’s carrot here would happen at a synchronized pace to North Korea taking steps to denuclearize.
“I think think the main insight is we should not be thinking in terms of gifts to the regime, but points of US skin in the game,” Lawrence said.
A slow push of US investment and infrastructure in North Korea would allow Kim to control the propaganda narrative, and own the achievements as his own, rather than handouts from Trump, which could help sell the deal.
This could potentially solve the issue of North Korea opening up to the outside world too fast and becoming destabilized when its impoverished, closed-off population gets a taste of outside life.
The continuing US relationship with North Korea and the physical presence of US investment in the country provides a mechanism for keeping the talks on track. If North Korea doesn’t make good on its end, the US “can turn the lights out” on its investments, according to Lawrence.
Far from thinking about who will win or lose the upcoming summit by counting up the carrots and sticks at the end of the horse race, Lawrence offers a vision of what building a lasting peace in Korea could look like.
This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.
The Marine Corps opened its newest one to great fanfare in Quantico, Virginia, in 2006. The Air Force has had once since around 1950 and the Navy opened one in 1963.
So now, it’s the Army’s turn to get with the times.
Senior officials with the service and supporters recently broke ground on a new National Army Museum to be housed at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The museum will be free-of-charge to visitors, and is expected to open in 2019. Plans for the 185,000-square-foot facility include more than 15,000 pieces of art, 30,000 artifacts, documents and images.
It’s the first of its kind for the Army.
“This museum will remind all of us what it means to be a soldier, what it means to serve with incredible sacrifice, with incredible pride,” said Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Mark A. Milley.
“And most importantly, this museum is a tribute to those 30 million soldiers who’ve worn this distinguished uniform … and their loved ones who supported them,” he said.
Milley, Army Sec. Eric K. Fanning, other Army leaders, donors, guests and Gold Star families attended the ceremony and groundbreaking at Fort Belvoir Sept. 14.
The Army’s chief of staff said he believes the museum will offer visitors an experience that can’t be found in history books or online, and that a visit to the museum will enhance for them what they might have learned in school about both the United States and its Army, as well as “the cost and the pain of the sacrifice of war, not in dollars, but in lives.”
The National Army Museum, shown in this conceptual design, will be built at Fort Belvoir, Va., partly with funds from the Army Commemorative Coin Act signed by President Obama. (Photo from U.S. Army)
In the museum, Army weapons, uniforms, equipment, and even letters written by soldiers at war will help visitors better connect with their Army, Milley said.
The Army, Fanning said, is even older than the nation it defends, and their history has been intertwined now since the beginning.
“We’ve waited 241 years for this moment,” Fanning said of the groundbreaking for the museum. “It’s almost impossible to separate the Army’s story from this nation’s story. In so many ways, the history of the Army is the history of America.”
From the Revolutionary War to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has borne the greatest share of America’s losses, Fanning said. Fully 85 percent of all Americans who have given their lives in defense of the United States and its interests have done so while serving in the U.S. Army.
Besides fighting the nation’s wars, Fanning said, soldiers have also been pioneers for the United States. He cited as an example the efforts Army Capt. Meriwether Lewis and Army 2nd Lt. William Clark. Together, the two led a team to explore and map the Western United States — an effort that came to be known as the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
Another example of Army pioneering is the effort of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to help build the nation’s roads, railroads, canals and bridges, Fanning said.
In the 20th century, he said, it would be Army scientists that took America through new frontiers, such as aviation, creating solar cells and the launching of America’s first satellite into space.
Fanning said he’s reminded of the Army’s history and pioneering every day by a framed piece of regimental colors in his office. Those colors, he said, are what remain of the standard carried in the Civil War by the 54th Massachusetts, the Army’s first African-American regiment, he said.
That small piece of flag will be displayed in the National Army Museum, “joining thousands of artifacts that will help tell our shared story,” Fanning said. “The museum will strengthen the bonds between America’s soldiers and America’s communities.”
Retired Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, who now serves as the chairman of the Army Historical Foundation Board of Directors, said the museum is meant to “tell the comprehensive story of the Army history as it finally deserves to be told.”
That story, he said, will include all components of the Army, and will also include the story of the Continental Army, which existed even before the birth of the United States.
The museum, he said, will be a “virtual museum, without walls, having connectivity with all of the Army museums.”
Also significant, Sullivan said, is the museum’s location. The site chosen at Fort Belvoir is less than 7 miles from Mount Vernon — the home of the Continental Army’s first commander-in-chief, Gen. George Washington.
Retired Gen. William W. Hartzog, vice chairman of the Army Historical Foundation Board of Directors, said one of the first things visitors will see when they enter the museum is a series of pictures and histories of individual soldiers.
“We are all about soldiers,” Hartzog said.
During the groundbreaking ceremony, attendees were able to hear some of those stories for themselves.
Captain Jason Stumpf of the 92nd Civil Affairs Battalion, 95th Civil Affairs Brigade at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for instance, took the stage to talk about his wife, 1st Lt. Ashley White-Stumpf.
“She was doing what she did for a greater good and she always believed this,” he said. She was killed in Afghanistan in 2011.
“She only wanted to help and answer the call,” he continued. “Ashley would be the first to stand in the entryway and say she’s not the only one that answered the call. Many before and many after her will do the same thing.”
White-Stumpf’s story will be one of the many relayed to visitors to the new Army museum.
Another story that will be told at the museum is that of now-deceased Staff Sgt. Donald “Dutch” Hoffman, uncle to Brig. Gen. Charles N. Pede, who now serves as the assistant judge advocate general for Military Law and Operations.
Pede said his uncle got the name “Dutch” because he’d been a tough kid growing up on the streets of Erie, Pennsylvania, and was always in trouble or “in Dutch.”
Dutch enlisted at age 17, Pede said, and soon found himself in Korea. During his first firefight, Pede relayed, Dutch had admitted to being scared. Shortly after, he attacked an enemy machine gun position by himself, rescuing wounded soldiers and carrying them to safety. He earned a Silver Star for his actions there.
He’d later be wounded in battle and left for dead, Pede continued. But a “miracle-working” Army doctor brought him back to life.
Finally, now-retired Brig. Gen. Leo Brooks Jr. spoke about his late father, retired Maj. Gen. Leo A. Brooks Sr. When Brooks the senior entered the Army in 1954, his journey was filled with challenges, the junior said, as the Army had only recently become desegregated.
Brooks senior had to earn the respect of others as a leader, his son said. That he became a leader was due to the sacrifices of others before him.
Brooks junior said he and his brother, Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, who now serves as commander of U.S. Forces Korea, U.N. Command and Combined Forces Command, both looked to their father for guidance — and followed him into the Army.
We “naturally followed in his profession because we could see and feel the nobility of the Army’s core values he instilled,” Brooks junior said.
Today, the Army is the only military service without its own national museum. The National Museum of the United States Army, to be built on 80 acres of land at Fort Belvoir, will remedy that.
The new U.S. national security adviser has told Russia’s U.S. ambassador that Moscow must address U.S. concerns on election meddling, the “reckless” nerve-agent attack in Britain, and the situations in Ukraine and Syria before relations can substantially improve.
A White House statement on April 19, 2018, said John Bolton, who took over from H.R. McMaster on April 9, 2018, made the remarks in a meeting with Russia’s ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov.
“At the first meeting between the two in their current roles, they discussed the state of the relationships between the United States and Russia,” the statement said.
“Ambassador Bolton reiterated that it is in the interest of both the United States and Russia to have better relations, but that this will require addressing our concerns regarding Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, the reckless use of chemical weapons in the United Kingdom, and the situations in Ukraine and Syria,” it added.
Several global issues have raised tensions between Washington and Moscow despite President Donald Trump’s stated goal of improving relations between the two countries.
The U.S. intelligence community has accused Russia of a widespread cyberhacking-and-propaganda campaign aimed at influencing the 2016 presidential election vote.
(Photo by Gage Skidmore)
The United States and Europe have slapped sanctions on Russia for its 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea Peninsula and its support for separatists in eastern Ukraine.
The U.S. military has assailed Russia for its support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and says it holds Moscow responsible for an alleged chemical weapons attack.
Meanwhile, the United States has said it supports Britain in a dispute with Russia over the March 4, 2018 poisoning of former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, in Salisbury. Britain has blamed Russia for the attack.
Moscow has denied it interfered in the U.S. election, said it had nothing to do with the Skripal poisonings, and claimed the allegations of a chemical attack in Syria are false.
The 69-year-old Bolton, a former UN ambassador, has served as a hawkish voice in Republican foreign-policy circles for decades. Among his more controversial stands, he has advocated for preemptive military strikes against North Korea and war with Iran.
President Donald Trump approved a plan to check Beijing over its continued militarization of and actions in the South China Sea.
Over the last few years, China has ambitiously built up islands on reefs and atolls in the South China Sea and militarized them with radar outposts, military-grade runways, and shelters for missile defenses.
Military analysts believe China hopes to expand its air defense and identification zone into the western Pacific and build a blue-water navy to rival the US’s, but six other countries also lay claim to parts of the region.
In 2016, an international court at The Hague deemed China’s maritime claims unlawful and excessive, but China rejected the ruling outright and has continued to build military installations and unilaterally declare no-fly and no-sail zones.
When a country makes an excessive naval claim, the US Navy challenges it by sailing its ships, usually destroyers, close to the disputed territory or through the disputed waters as a way of ensuring freedom of navigation for all. In 2016, the US challenged the excessive claims of 22 nations — China’s claims in the South China Sea, through which $5 trillion in annual shipping passes, were the most prominent.
China has responded forcefully to US incursions into the region, telling the US the moves were provocative and that they must ask permission, which doesn’t align with international law or UN conventions.
“China’s military will resolutely safeguard national sovereignty, security, and regional peace and stability,” China’s Foreign Ministry said in response to US bombers flying in the region.
Under former US President Barack Obama, the US suspended freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea from 2012 to 2015. In 2016, the US made just three such challenges. So far, under Trump, the US has made three challenges already.
“You have a definite return to normal,” said chief Pentagon spokesperson Dana White
“This administration has definitely given the authority back to the people who are in the best position to execute those authorities, so it’s a return to normal,” she said.
Freedom of navigation operations work best when they’re routine in nature and don’t make news.
They serve to help the US establish the facts in the water, but in the South China Sea, those facts all indicate Chinese control.
When Chinese military jets fly armed over head, when Chinese navy ships patrol the waters, and when Chinese construction crews lay down the framework for a network of military bases in the South China Sea, the US’s allies in the region notice.
An increased US Navy presence in the area won’t turn back time and unpave runways, but it could send a message to allies that the US has their back and won’t back away from checking Beijing.
The Korean Demilitarized Zone is probably the most watched, most ironically named 250 kilometers found anywhere in the world. Despite the unprecedented brutality of the Korean War and the sporadic violence between the two, people still routinely try to get through the DMZ, often even going the hard way – going right through the most heavily defended strip of land in the world.
Commando raids, spies, and even axe murderers have all tried to cross the DMZ in some way. In just 25 years after the Korean Armistice was signed, more than 200 incursion attempts were made across the area. There had to be a better way.
This is how they did it in 1969. Surely by 2019, we could do better.
Enter Samsung, the South Korean multinational conglomerate best known for making exploding mobile phones, which makes so many other products. They have an aerospace division, as well as divisions to make textiles, chemicals, and even automated sentry guns that kill the hell out of anyone who doesn’t know the password – the Samsung SGR-A1.
The defense system is a highly-classified, first-of-its-kind unit that incorporates surveillance, tracking, firing, and voice recognition technology to keep the humans in South Korea’s military free to operate elsewhere while still being massively outnumbered.
Gun-toting death robots is the perfect solution.
While other sentry guns have been developed and deployed elsewhere, this is the grand stage. The Korean Peninsula is the Carnegie Hall of weapons testing, where chances are good the weapon will likely get used in an operational capacity sooner rather than later. Failure is not an option. That’s why each 0,000 sentry gun comes equipped with a laser rangefinder, thermographic camera, IR illuminator, a K3 LMG machine gun with 1,000 rounds of ammo, and a Mikor MGL 40mm multiple grenade launcher that doesn’t give a damn about the ethical issues surrounding autonomous killing machines.
If this thing had legs, it would be a Terminator-Predator hybrid.
The only controversy surrounding these weapons, now deployed in the DMZ, is whether or not they truly need a human in the loop to do their job. The system could conceivably be automated to kill or capture anyone who happened upon them in the area, regardless of their affiliation. To the robot, if you’re in the DMZ for any reason, you are the enemy. And you must be stopped.
“Human soldiers can easily fall asleep or allow for the depreciation of their concentration over time,” Huh Kwang-hak, a spokesman for Samsung Techwin, told Stars and Stripes. “But these robots have automatic surveillance, which doesn’t leave room for anything resembling human laziness. They also won’t have any fear (of) enemy attackers on the front lines.”
South Korea’s sports minister, Do Jong-hwan, suggested that North Korea host some events at the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympic games in an attempt to engage Kim Jong Un and promote peace, the Guardian reports.
The idea reflects a larger effort by South Korea’s newly elected President Moon Jae-in, who seeks to revive the old “sunshine policy” whereby South Korea makes overtures of friendship and unity to the North to ease military tensions.
Moon has also pushed for both Koreas to host the 2030 World Cup, saying “if the neighboring countries in north-east Asia, including North and South Korea, can host the World Cup together, it would help to create peace.”
North Korean athletes have made limited appearances at global sporting events like the World Cup and the Olympics, with two gold medals in Rio’s 2016 games. In soccer, the North Koreans haven’t fared as well.
Do said the Winter Games could go down as the “peace Olympics,” and help to “thaw lingering tensions” between the North and South, according to the Korea Herald.
But building stadiums and holding games in North Korea would raise two major questions: How sound is investment in a nation that continues to threaten its neighbors and enemies with an ever-evolving nuclear missile program, and would international travelers feel at ease visiting the country that just released a US detainee in a coma?
China has one aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, that’s designated as a training vessel and has never been on a combat deployment, but new photos suggest that they want to build a true, US-style aircraft carrier.
Right now, China’s aircraft carrier uses a ski-jump design, where planes hit a ramp to launch of the ship. This greatly limits the maximum weight of the planes, meaning they can’t carry as much fuel or ordnance as land-launched variants can.
Only the US and France operate true flat tops, or aircraft carriers that use either catapults or steam powered launchers that grip and throw the planes off board with such force that no ramp is needed. Therefore, US and French planes launching from carriers can carry much more substantial loads of fuel and bombs for better range and efficacy on missions.
But now photos surfaced in Yeo’s piece suggest that China is trying to imitate these flat top carriers. Here’s a photo of a J-15 with additional nose landing gear (this is what the catapult couples with during launches).
Below we see Huangdicun Airbase, where it looks like China has tried to emulate a steam catapult, which the US Nimitz class carriers have, and an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launching System (EMALS), which the US plans to deploy on the coming Ford class carriers.
Aircraft carriers provide several advantages over land bases, chief among them the fact that aircraft carries allow nations to project power around the globe.
Following a successful surprise meeting on Nov. 8, 2018, Beijing and Canberra want to be friends again.
That’s good, but it won’t change the fact that, for the Chinese people, Australia has made “probably the worst” impression out of all Western nations, The Global Times has noted in a strongly worded opinion piece.
Despite a reportedly warm first encounter on Nov. 8, 2018, between Australia’s newly enlisted foreign affairs minister Marise Payne and Chinese state councilor and foreign affairs minister Wang Yi (王毅 ) in Beijing, the strident Chinese tabloid had some tough truths to share for those hoping for a thaw in the frosty bilateral relationship.
In a typically withering opinion piece titled “It will be more difficult for China and Australia to repair people-to-people relations than to restore political relations,” the publication compared Australia unfavorably with US President Donald Trump.
At least when Trump was openly hostile toward China, people could understand why, the paper suggested.
“Trump has launched an unprecedented trade war with China, but the Chinese people can at least understand the rationale of the US. But Chinese people do not get why Australia is so hostile to China (in the last two years),” the opinion piece reads.
United States President Donald Trump.
In fact, the resumption of high-level meetings between China and Australia will come a lot easier than rediscovery of the once mutually admirative and friendly feelings between the two peoples, the paper observed.
Making the enemy less of an enemy
“Due to its performance in the past two years, Australia has left a bad impression on the Chinese people, probably the worst of all Western countries,” the opinion column said.
It continued: “The Chinese people understand that we must make friends with the outside world and try our best to make the enemy less than the enemy. Therefore, it is acceptable to improve the relationship between China and Australia rationally. However, people’s understanding of the Australian position in recent years is difficult to change in a short time.
For almost a decade really, Australia has been caught in a bit of a slow motion PR trainwreck in China.
Emerging of a once-in-a-generation trading boom that peaked around 2007, relations ironically began to sour around the same time the Mandarin speaking China expert Kevin Rudd was voted into office the same year.
We don’t want to talk about Kevin
The rot really began when Rudd famously delivered an unanticipated dressing-down of China in a speech at Beijing University, using a little-known and controversial word ‘Zheng you’ to describe a friend who is unafraid to tell it like it is.
Unsurprisingly the ensuing blunt assessment of China’s various faults in fluent Mandarin before an audience of hyped-up, patriotically infused, pre-Beijing Olympic students has never been forgotten, or forgiven.
What has followed has been a shopping list of insults, perceived or real, that have stretched the relationship to a breaking point.
Chinese public opinion can grasp that Australia is economically close to China, but politically and strategically attached to the US, the Times noted.
“But Australia has taken the lead in boycotting China’s so-called “infiltration” of the South China Seas … Australia also took the lead among Western countries to exclude Huawei from participating in 5G construction.”
Salt on the wound
“This is to say that salt was sprinkled on the wounds (伤口上的盐) of China-Australia relations.”
This position stands in contrast to the broad reporting of events in Beijing on Nov. 8, 2018, where foreign minister Wang Yi indicated that the two sides had found “an important common understanding.”
The flashpoint of Nov. 8, 2018’s discussions this time centered on the South Pacific, after Australia’s prime minister announced a surprise multibillion economic, diplomatic and security dollar fund to counter China’s rising influence in the region.
Beijing and Canberra should work together in the South Pacific and not wake up one day as strategic rivals, the State Councilor and former Ambassador to Japan said on Nov. 8, 2018.
“Australia and China are not competitors, not rivals but cooperation partners and we have agreed to combine and capitalize on our respective strengths to carry out trilateral cooperation involving Pacific island states.”
Australian prime minister Scott John Morrison.
An important extended thread in China’s 21st century Maritime Silk Road, the redrawing and rebuilding of trade routes, sea lanes and infrastructures, Wang said that China would prefer to be Australia’s partner in driving infrastructure in the Pacific.
Wang spoke of forming a “tripartite cooperative” with Pacific nations after Morrison announced a rebooting of Australia’s engagement with its neglected “backyard,” of which the centrepiece is a billion infrastructure fund to potentially lure island states away from the maritime leg of China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
All well and good for the islands, the Times said, “but it is uncertain whether (people to people ties) will recover.”
“Let Australia pay the price …”
On Nov. 6, 2018, Australia flagged concerns at the United Nations Human Rights Council review in Geneva on the Communist Party’s aggressive expansion of “reeducation” camps directed against local Muslim populations in western China’s Xinjiang province.
“In an interview, Payne said that she would ‘talk about human rights’ in Beijing. This information shows that China-Australia relations will not be too calm in the future,” the Times cautioned.”
The example of Australia tells us that cooperation does not necessarily mean that each other is a friend … of course, we have to build leverage to harness (the advantages) of a complex relationship.”
“Australia said a few words of disrespect to China, but if it does actions that harm China’s actual interests … then we should respond, let Australia pay the price, and steer mutual cooperation through struggle.”
However, foreign minister Wang said that since taking office, the newly elected Australian government (this one is about two months old, and it’s not elected) has made “positive gestures” toward developing China-Australia relations on many occasions.
According to the state council news agency Xinhua, both sides also vowed to “promote bilateral ties on the basis of mutual trust and win-win results.”
“We stand ready to strengthen communication and coordination with Australia in multilateral mechanisms, as a way of jointly safeguarding multilateralism and free trade,” Wang added, in a clear nod to China’s need to shore up multilateral support as the damaging trade war with the US continues to impact the economy.
A country, yes, but also a kind of sandbox for experimentation
Xinhua noted that Payne acknowledged Australia does not regard China as a military threat and that a prosperous China is a positive and significant outcome for the entire world, as is custom on these occassions.
Meanwhile, the Times closed it out like this.
“Australia is a middle-power Western country not far from China. It is important to say that Australia is important to China. It doesn’t matter if it is not important. China should regard relations with Australia as a sandbox (一块沙盘) for experimenting with the relationship between China and the West.”
This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.
As a career-driven military spouse — who has relocated to six different bases in eight years — I’ve been on my fair share of job interviews.
Having been a hiring manager, I’ve also been on the other side of the table more times than I can count. Job interviews can be nerve wracking and might rank up there next to root canals and cleaning your toilet in terms of enjoyment. But like anything else, the anxiety leading up to it can be the worst part! However, some research and thought on the front-end can ensure you walk in prepared and ready to knock their socks off.
Be prepared to answer the following “military-ish” questions…
A military spouse resume typically looks different than the norm. An astute hiring manager may quickly notice 1) your geographical location changed frequently, and apparently randomly, 2) diversity in job type or industry and 3) there are sometimes time gaps between jobs. I typically recommend that you be prepared to answer the following questions in a succinct and confident manner:
Why did you move so much? This is the inevitable question we all dread, and connects back to the age old milspouse question of “to tell or not to tell” that your spouse is in the military. That is your personal decision, but regardless of what you decide, you need to have a clear answer and stick to it.
I have been upfront about my husband being in the military in every job interview, but always immediately proactively highlight why hiring a military spouse is to their advantage — military spouses are adaptable, resilient, independent, and wonderful at juggling multiple priorities! If you do share that your spouse is in the military, do not be apologetic about it! Be proud, as they should be proud to support our military by hiring YOU! Also remember that many civilian jobs require frequent relocation too, so while it sometimes feel like we are major outliers, we aren’t that different from those spouses in this regard. Also, if you do share your military truth, be prepared to answer the next question.
How long will you be here? Again, how you answer this question is up to you, but be clear, concise, and stick to your answer in the interview and once you’re hired. Like most of us, you may not know the answer! Don’t feel like you must overshare, volunteer extra information about the military, or educate them on how the detailing process works. You don’t want to talk yourself out of the job. They don’t need to know that the military could change your orders tomorrow if they really wanted to!
In the past, I have shared that “we currently have three-year orders, but there might also be the opportunity to extend.” I also usually try and switch the conversation away from that three-year time period to focus on my willingness and desire to transfer with the company when that day comes, either in another office location or in a remote capacity. That ensures that they understand that I am looking for an organization where I can continue to grow and advance my career despite the mobile nature of my husband’s career!
Other interview tips
Once you’ve gotten past the military elephant in the room, consider these general interview recommendations.
Watch your body language. People usually obsess over what they’re going to wear to an interview but then overlook their body language. Make sure your body language exudes confidence, from when you walk in the door, shake their hand, and as you sit at the table. Also, note what you do with your hands when you’re talking. Do a mock interview with a friend or spouse and have them pay special attention to your hands.
For years, I didn’t notice how much I played with my hair when I was nervous. You’d think I was in a shampoo commercial the number of times I touched it and flipped it in a conversation! However, after this was brought to my attention in a mock interview, I started always wearing my hair back in a ponytail during presentations and interviews. I look better with my hair down with a fresh blowout, but if a ponytail means I am setting myself up for more success with my body language, I’ll do it!
Demonstrate you did research — but don’t be a creep! Be prepared with questions to ask at the close of the interview that demonstrate your understanding of the organization, its products, and the industry. However, do not ask questions that demonstrate that you researched the actual person interviewing you — even if you did! I recently interviewed a candidate that was qualified for the role but made comments and asked questions that so obviously demonstrated he had researched me that I felt like I needed to go close the shades to my office! In a nutshell: researching the company = good. Researching the interviewer = creepy.
Avoid words like “fault” or “blame.” I am sure most hiring managers could fill a small dictionary with words that make them cringe during interviews. Personally, my biggest pet peeve is when individuals use words like “fault” or “blame,” which give the impression that they lack personal responsibility. Hiring managers don’t want finger pointers on their team, but rather people that work through challenges and find creative solutions to them. This also goes hand in hand with the next recommendation which is….
Don’t talk bad about your boss or prior coworkers. Nobody wants drama on their team! Even if you left your old job because your boss was a total jerk, that’s not a good thing to share in your interview! Find a kind and respectful way to share that you and your peers had creative differences, or you were looking for a more collaborative or positive work culture, but again, don’t point fingers. Consider the old saying, “Every time you point a finger at someone, remember that 3 are point back at you!”
Ask for contact information to send thank you email. Written thank you notes may be old-fashioned, but politeness never goes out of style. While I don’t snail-mail a thank you anymore, I do send a thank you email to any person who interviews me 12-16 hours post-conversation. As the interviewer, I also appreciate receiving a thank you email as it demonstrates attention to detail and gives me a glimpse into how they will interact with our customers. However, in order to do so, you must remember to ask them for their business card or contact information at the close of the interview.
This article originally appeared on Military Spouse. Follow @MilSpouseMag on Twitter.
Major League Baseball is “America’s Pastime.” Regardless of what public opinion suggests, baseball is still king of American sports in the eyes of literally billions around the world.
Its reputation as America’s game is aided, no doubt, by the fact that many of the game’s greatest legends also share a legacy of service throughout various conflicts in American history.
Take a quick glance at any top-25 list and you’ll see that a lot of the game’s greatest players, at one point or another, wore a much different uniform.
Color barrier = SMASHED
(Photo via Desiring God)
Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in Major League Baseball. That alone is enough to be noteworthy in most historical canons. Add to that the fact that Jackie Robinson was also one helluva player, winning Rookie of the Year, an eventual MVP, and becoming a perennial All-Star and you’ve got yourself a formula for retired jerseys.
“The Say Hey Kid”
(Photo by MLB/Louis Requena)
“The Say Hey Kid” was an All-Star every year of his career, including the two seasons he missed while serving his country. After winning Rookie of the Year in 1951, he went on to serve during the Korean War from 1952-53.
He retired third on the all-time home run charts, though he’s fallen two spots with the rise of modern sluggers. Still, being a top-five home run king and All-Star stalwart are hallmarks of a great career.
One of the best ever.
(Photo via Sports Illustrated)
Yogi Berra served in the US Navy during the Second World War, leaving service with a Purple Heart following participation in D-Day just a year before beginning his MLB career.
Thankfully, his injury didn’t hinder his career very much. He went on to make the All-Star game 18 of his 19 years in the league.
Ted Williams was a literal hero
(Photo via National Baseball Hall of Fame)
Ted Williams, the original “The Kid,” was drafted to the Boston Red Sox at 19 years old. Instead of donning a jersey after being picked up by the team, he put on a uniform and enlisted as an aviator in the US Navy during World War II. He actually returned to service during the Korean War in 1952.
To date, he is the last player to bat over .400 for an entire season. His career showcased such amazing hitting prowess that one of his nicknames is “The Greatest Hitter That Ever Lived.”
He was a Yankee, a veteran, and once dated Marilyn Monroe
Joe DiMaggio was one of the biggest stars of his time and in all of baseball history. He was the Mike Trout of his day, which says so much about Trout’s game and his skill ceiling — but I digress. How famous was he? Well, had enough clout to find himself as part of a power couple with Marilyn Monroe. Not bad.
To top it al off, he served two years in the US Army right smack in the middle of his career.
The man was so great on the field that his trade created 80-plus-year curse and one of sports all-time most heated rivalries
Just as with Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky and their respective sports, Babe Ruth’s name has long been tied to America’s Pastime.
His trade from the Boston Red Sox to the New York Yankees marked the beginning of an 86-year long ‘curse.’ It also sparked a still-standing fiery rivalry between the two teams.
Babe Ruth was drafted into service during World War I, and found a place in the Army National Guard.
North Korea’s new show of force follows an ICBM test launch in July and a powerful thermonuclear test blast in September.
Officials in the U.S., Japan, and South Korea confirmed that North Korea launched the new missile, called Hwasong-15, from Sain Ni, North Korea. Its payload soared about 2,800 miles into space before falling back to Earth, ultimately landing in the Sea of Japan some 53 minutes later and about 620 miles away from the launch pad.
Launching a missile nearly straight up and so high may seem strange, if not unbelievable. For reference, the International Space Station orbits Earth from about 250 miles above the planet’s surface.
But David Wright, a physicist and missile expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said this arc avoids flying over Japan and other nearby nations — limiting political fallout — and represents a “very impressive” feat.
This is because the new missile, if tilted toward the U.S. during launch, could achieve a top speed of more than 17,000 mph — and a target radius of roughly 8,100 miles.
“This missile could reach all of the United States,” Wright told Business Insider, adding a critical caveat: “But it doesn’t mean much without considering the payload.”
ICBM nuclear threat
The intended payload for North Korea’s ICBM program is a nuclear warhead (although chemical weapons like VX nerve agent, which the nation allegedly possesses and has used, are another option).
Wright said ICBMs burn rocket fuel for about three to five minutes before deploying a warhead on top. The warhead continues coasting through space for another 30 minutes or so, falling toward Earth under the force of gravity until it reenters the atmosphere, reaches its target, and detonates.
This alarms North Korea’s adversaries because the nation recently detonated a thermonuclear device that yielded the energy of perhaps 300 kilotons of TNT — about 20 times as much as the bomb the U.S. detonated over Hiroshima in 1945.
But Wright doubts such a weapon, also known as a hydrogen bomb, will be miniaturized into a missile-ready warhead by North Korea anytime soon. Rather, he thinks the first type of warhead North Korea may be capable of launching is a less powerful, Hiroshima-style atomic weapon.
Being able to deliver such firepower “is still a big deal,” he said, but is by no means a proven capability.
“There’s a big debate going on in the technical community that works on these things, and it’s exactly about how heavy the warhead would be that North Korea could build, and what capabilities they can get out of their rocket engines,” he said.
‘This is not a fluke’
For now, experts such as Wright assume North Korea’s recent ICBM launched with a very lightweight dummy payload to give the missile alarming show of range. An actual warhead built by North Korea might weigh “several hundred kilograms,” or more than 600 pounds.
“That’s going to significantly reduce the distance,” Wright said, likely enough to keep an armed missile payload from striking American cities.
What’s more, the current estimated accuracy of North Korea’s weapons may be as poor as six to 12 miles. (U.S. and Russian missiles can hit a target within a couple of hundred feet.) If North Korea targeted San Francisco, for example, there’s a chance the bomb could miss the city entirely and detonate over the Pacific Ocean.
“It’s kind of like throwing a baseball,” Wright said. “The farther away your target is, the harder it is to hit. If the speed or aim is off by a tiny amount, those small errors add up to big distances over intercontinental ranges.”
Wright said the Nov. 28 test launch is an incremental step for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, but emphasized that it’s important not to dismiss.
“It shows this is not a fluke, that they’re continuing this progress toward something more and more capable,” Wright said. “If things continue along they way they’re going, I think there’s little doubt North Korea will eventually have the capability to hit targets in the U.S. with nuclear weapons.”