North Korean Aggression: Reconsider Airlines in East Asia

Today, North Korea fired more than 100 artillery shells to Yeonpyeong Island, north west of South Korea. According to a Korean newspaper, 2 South Korean servicemen and 21 non-combatant residents were killed in the crossfire (“North Korea shells southern island, two fatalities reported”; Korea Joong Ang Daily; November 23, 2010). The reason for North Korean aggression is not clear at this stage. In any case, see the map below.





This is not the first time that Yeongpyeong Island is attacked by North Korea. Kim Jong Il went into a skirmish with South Korea in 1999 and 2002 near this island. If you see the map, you will find that Incheon airport (A on the map), boasting the hub of East Asia, is very close to such dangerous Yeongpyeong Island (3 on the map).

It is time that airlines in East Asia were reconsidered. The Narita-Haneda air systems, around Tokyo, must be arranged urgently, as alternative hubs to Incheon. Currently, Japanese political corridor is in a complete mess over minor scandals and partisan conflicts. Under short-lived Hatoyama administration, Land and Transport Minister then Seiji Maehara launched this ambitious plan, to restore Japanese economic strength.

Now, things have become more impending. This is not just for Japanese economy or status in the world, but for global public interest. The world needs the Narita-Haneda hub in East Asia! Act beyond petty power games in Nagata-cho!

A New Report on the Sino-Japanese Tension over Senkaku Islands

The Japan Forum on International Relations had an emergent committee meeting to discuss the Senkaku Islands Dispute between Japan and China on October 6, and has released a new report. Based on 38 articles, including mine (p.32 ~ 33), top experts talked about current Sino-Japanese relationship from two points: how to understand Chinese behavior and how to evaluate responses by the Kan administration. While liberals and libertarians advocate mutual economic dependence between two nations, the “peaceful rise” of China poses a critical security concerns to Japan. Also, this problem is associated with natural resources and national sovereignty issues.

Japan must reinforce security ties with the United States, and design new multilateral strategies in the Asia-Pacific region and around the globe. This report will be of great help to discuss how to manage the dangerous expansion of China. I am pleased that my article was included. You will find some contributions by my blog friend Dr. Cat aka Koshu Takamine, who is a policy researcher affiliated with the Liberal Democratic Party.

The Impact of Japanese Kowtow to China on the Free World

The territorial dispute between China and Japan over Senkaku Islands is beyond a bilateral clash. We need to understand this dispute from global contexts. It is a clash between autocracy and democracy, and the Japanese government bowed down Chinese pressure, as the rogue captain of Chinese fisher boat was released ("China fishing boat captain to be freed by Japan. Will it ease tensions?"; Christian Science Monitor; September 24, 2010).

One of the reasons for this kowtow is an export ban of rare earth elements to Japan imposed by China. These materials are necessary for manufacturing batteries for hybrid vehicles, appliances for mobile phones, and other high tech products. Currently, Japan relies 90% of rare earth resource demands on import from China ("China bans rare earth material export to Japan"; Fuji Sankei Business Eye; September 25, 2010). Chinese export ban inflicts critical damages on Japanese manufacturing industry. This dispute has brought us home that our free world is vulnerable to natural resource diplomacy by autocratic nations. It is quite similar to the gas dispute between Russia and Ukraine in January 2009. As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin intimidated whole Europe to close gas pipeline, Ukrainians bent over Russia. Ukraine sold its national sovereignty to Kremlin to extend the naval base deal for the Black Sea Fleet.

Natural resource diplomacy by China and Russia is combined with their expansionist ambition. Just as Russia regards Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union as its natural sphere of influence, China regards islands in East China and South China seas as the “pear necklace” for its aggressive expansionism from the Pacific to the Indian oceans ("China's High Seas Aggression"; Human Events; May 20, 2010). It is too well known that China pursues megalomaniac build up of its navy. Just as Russia acts with Czarist and Stalinist instinct in geopolitical rivalries against the West, China behaves with cefeng or Confucianism hegemony instinct when it claims its preeminence in East Asia. Throughout the history, China never admitted equal relations with any foreign countries until it was defeated by Queen Victoria’s gun boat in the Opium War. We must never forget this historical perspective, whenever China takes assertive attitude.

The Senkaku conflict is more serious than the Takeshima conflict. In the latter, South Korea has neither ambition nor power to tower over Japan, even though Koreans often launch anti-Japanese campaign on history. But China has cefeng ambition throughout East Asia, and explores to make Japan bend over, as Russia did to Ukraine. Therefore, autocratic China is far more dangerous than democratic South Korea.

In the old cold war, autocratic great powers were out of our system, and they had a tiny portion of share in global economic transaction. But in the new cold war, they use our global economy to impose their will on others. In an NHK’s TV program, “Japan at the Crossroads” on March 12, 2010, commentators and the public discussed the US-Japanese alliance and Japanese national security. In this debate, when a conservative opinion leader Yoshiko Sakurai stressed closer US-Japanese security ties to manage Chinese threat as both nations did against Cold War Soviet threat, Professor Kang Sang-jung of Tokyo University argued against her that China today was more incorporated into the global economy than the old Soviet Union. Kang said that China was no threat to Japan, because of such deeply founded mutual interdependence. If he understood the peril of natural resource diplomacy by autocratic states, he would change his viewpoints.

Will Japan succumb to China as Ukraine did to Russia? Current debates on this conflict utterly dismiss the fundamental structure global politics, which is the clash between democracy and autocracy as Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, argues in his book “The Return of history and the End of Dreams”. Further Japanese kowtow to China will embolden autocratic states around the world.

On Iranian Nuclear Bombs, Can We Really Trust China?

In a previous post, I mentioned the Anglo-Chinese talk on Iran. I said that China was reluctant to impose sanctions on Iran, because the Beijing government needs to satisfy voracious demand for oil to pursue continual economic expansion. Shortly after the meeting, the Chinese government decided to join Western powers to denounce Iranian adherence to the nuclear enrichment program. However, China’s commitment to stop Iranian nuclear project is quite doubtful. Let me review recent news briefly.

China has overturned its long time reluctance to punish Iran, and begun to join talks on sanctions against nuclear proliferation at UN Security Council. A White House Spokesman Bill Burton takes it a positive sign toward real progress (“Beijing agrees to talks on sanctions for Iran”; Financial Times, April 1, 2010). US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told that China agreed to work closely with the United States, France, Germany, and Russia to impose tougher sanctions on Iran. Meanwhile, Iran sent a nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili to Beijing to ease international pressure. The negotiation for the sanction will take a few months, as Russia and China prefer softer measures than those insisted by the West (“Iran envoy in China as sanctions push builds”; Washington Post; April 1, 2010).

In reply to Western request, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said "China opposes Iran possessing nuclear weapons, but at the same time we believe that, as a sovereign state, Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy in a peaceful way" (“World powers discuss sanctions on Iran, no consensus yet”; Xinhua; March 31, 2010).

President Barack Obama emphasized importance of unified pressure on Iran, but China still expresses reluctance for tough measures. Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said, "Negotiations should be conducted with logic, not with pressure. If negotiations and pressure occur at the same time there's no way these negotiations can go forward" (“Obama urges China to back Iran nuclear sanctions”; Guardian; 2 April 2010). President Obama will host the Nuclear Security Summit on April 12 and 13, and discuss this issue with President Hu Jintao of China (“China Visit Suggests Thaw Over Iran, Yuan”; Wall Street Journal; April 2, 2010).

Though China and Russia are not willing to accept the demand for earlier sanctions by the United States, Britain, France, and Germany, Obama is confident of broad international consensus for pressuring Iran (“Obama confident of securing broad support for more U.N. sanctions against Iran”; Washington Post; April 3, 2010).

Is it likely to inflict critical impacts on Iran? An Israeli paper casts doubt on a joint pressure endorsed by UN Security Council. As China and Russia oppose hard sanctions, Iranian overseas assets, shipping service, and oil and gas exports remain unaffected. (“International push for Iran sanctions is too little, too late”; Haaretz; April 2, 2010)

James Phillips, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, says that it is unlikely for the Security Council to pass sanctions against Iran, in view of Chinese and Russian foot dragging. He argues that halfway measures acceptable to Russia and China hardly impose effects on the Tehran theocracy. Therefore, Phillips insists on adopting hard measures with European allies, such as cutting oil exports from Iran. Phillips points out that French President Nicolas Sarkozy suggested tougher approaches with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and German Chancellor Angela Merkel beyond Russian and Chinese approval, when he talked with President Obama in Washington (“Iran Economic Sanctions at the U.N. Security Council: The Incredible Shrinking Resolution”; Heritage Web Memo; April 2, 2010).

In any case, I do not believe it helpful to spend a long time to wait for Chinese and Russian approval. Particularly, China is not willing to sacrifice its economic growth for the sake of global public interest, as shown in COP Copenhagen Conference. Current regime of Iran is associated with terrorists in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and that is trying to develop nuclear weapons. President Obama needs to reconsider his engagement policy, and Iran is a vital case.

The Chinese Hurdle to Stop Iranian Nuclear Ambition

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband visits China from Sunday, March 14. Further sanction against Iranian nuclear project is the top agenda on this trip. Secretary Miliband meets Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao. Oil hungry China is reluctant to impose more sanctions proposed by the United States and EU3. Meanwhile, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates traveled Gulf States to ask their support for tougher sanctions against Iran, in order to overcome Russian and Chinese opposition (“Britain says China won't risk isolation over Iran”; Reuters; March 12, 2010).

Prior to Secretary Miliband’s visit to China, Kerry Brown, Senior Fellow at Chatham House, talked of Iranian oil in the Chinese economy at the interview on February 22. See the Video below. Brown says that China is in a unique position because it keeps friendly relations with all nations in the Middle East including Iran, as a good customer of oil. However, he says that it is not China’s interest to confront the United States and its European allies over Iran. On the other hand, China is behaving increasingly assertive these days, which makes it harder to reconcile Chinese and Western interests.





In his latest article, Brown explores Chinese standpoint between energy resource and nuclear non-proliferation. Currently, economic prosperity is the top priority for China, and the Communist Party will lose legitimacy if it fails to achieve high growth rate continually. This is an important point mentioned by Brown, and it is the vital reason why China is eager to reach oil import deals so voraciously, regardless of the reputation of exporters. As shown in the Copenhagen COP negotiation, China is obsessed with its economic growth, and gives little consideration to the environment. It blames the West for denying growth opportunities for rising economies like China. Quoting a data of US State Department, Brown points out that a quarter of the air pollution in California comes from China.

It is not only these irresponsible behaviors that hurdles non-proliferation efforts. China is at odds with the United States on arms sale to Taiwan and Dalai Lama’s visit to Washington. Current US-Chinese relations are in a gloomy atmosphere.

Despite hunger for oil and unfavorable relations with the United States, China regards non-proliferation as a vital national interest. However reluctantly, China will support to strengthen sanctions, according to Brown. But Kerry Brown asks a critical question, “And most worrying of all, how long will it be before countries like Iran start looking towards China not just for economic backing, but for diplomatic support, in their clashes with the US?”, at the end of this article（”China, Iran and the United States”; World Today; March 2010). Recent growth of self assertive nationalism in China could provoke this country to stand against the West, at all costs. A possible axis of outsiders of the liberal world order between authoritarian China and theocratic Iran will be a substantial threat to free nations.

The Iran case is a critical test whether China will be a qualified stakeholder to manage the globe or not. President Barack Obama remarked that he would welcome the rise of China at the Singapore APEC Summit. This was too hasty. What China has in mind is just to maintain current repressive regime under the Communist Party rule, and impose its narrow sighted national interests, without serious consideration to global public interest.

A troublesome China, along with Russia, is a product of the Clintonian dream which is the end of nation state clashes after the Cold War. If Foreign Secretary Miliband does not reach a meaningful agreement on sanctions against Iran during his visit to China, we need to think of nation state conflicts in the era of “The Return of History and the End of Dreams”. Nationalism in China and Russia makes both country increasingly dangerous.

LSE Questionnaire on China

The London School of Economics will launch the 5th LSE Asia Forum in Beijing on March 26 this year. Themed “China and the World: the Challenges of Change”, the Forum will bring together leading LSE academics, policymakers and business leaders to debate key challenges facing China and the world.

Prior to the event, the LSE conducts this survey. Please take this questionnaire through this link, even if you are neither alumni nor faculty members.

Can China Dominate the World?

The Chinese Dragon shows robust economic growth, and some experts say that its GDP will surpass that of Japan next year, which will make this country the 2nd largest economy after the United States. Also, China is building up its military capability rapidly these days. The Chinese authority frequently defies the American, or more broadly, the Western world order. But how strong is China?

The media and opinion leaders often fail to think of this vital question when they talk about Chinese influence on global political economy in this century. Mixing Pei, Adjunct Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, casts doubt to overvaluation of Chinese power and its leadership role on the global stage (“Why China Won't Rule the World”; News Week; December 8, 2009). Let me review his recent article on Chinese strength.

In view of stagnant economy in industrialized capitalist nations since the global financial crisis, opinion leaders in the West praise that China overcomes the crisis very well. Some leaders in emerging and developing economies, who are disillusioned with Western-styled free market capitalism associated with democracy, are charmed by authoritarian Red capitalism in China.

However, Pei points out some negative aspects in overheated Chinese economy. The Chinese authority worried over lending by private banks and overinvestment by State Owned Enterprises to real estates and stock markets. While China produces more TVs, cars, and toys, Chinese consumers do not buy them. China’s attempts to secure natural resource supplies from the developing world face vehement resist by Western governments, multinational corporations, and local communities. If Pei is right, China cannot dominate global natural resource market as the Major does in oil.

The debate on Chinese production and financial power will be endless, because the Chinese economy is coincided with robust growth and uncertainties. In my view, the most important point is whether China has gained structural power to manage the world or not. In other words, can China exert influence on making the global system and framework, along with the West?

Susan Strange who was Professor Emeritus at the London School of Economics, says that power in global political economy is classified into relational power and structural power. “Relational power is the power of A to get B to do something they would not otherwise do”, while “structural power confers the power to decide how things shall be done” (States and Markets; p.24~29). China may have gained relational power through rapid growth in industrial production, but has the Dragon acquired structural power?

Pei asks a critical question, “If China is so strong, why doesn't it show more leadership in addressing global problems?” He points out that China has been obsessed with its self interest in international conferences from G20 London Summit to COP 15 in Copenhagen.

Certainly, China poses significant challenges to the American world order, and shows increasing defiance to Western systems and ideology. However, China is neither prepared for nor capable of setting global agendas and sharing burden of decision making to manage the world. Therefore, it is a dangerous idea to expect China to supplant the United States as the hegemony. Chinese leaders shall never provide global public goods of peace and stability embedded liberalism.

Was Preemptive Attack Necessary against North Korea?: A Review of Robert Kagan Comments in 2003

Shortly after the Iraq War, a Japanese freelance journalist Kazuki Ohno interviewed Robert Kagan, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. This interview was on neoconservatism and American foreign policy, and it was published in a Japanese political journal, entitled SAPIO on June 25, 2003.

In this interview, Kagan talked about North Korea, the most critical threat to the security of North East Asia. He stressed that no diplomatic negotiations and economic incentives have made any progress in nuclear non-proliferation, because North Korea was a totalitarian regime. Kagan also said it was quite unlikely that Japan could normalize the relationship with North Korea.

Since then, it has turned out that what Robert Kagan said in the interviews is right. North Korea simply got rewards without abiding by international obligations. Regrettably, North Korea has acquired the bomb. As Kagan said in this interview, military attack was the last resort to stop nuclear proliferation into a rouge state.

In those days, criticism to the US-led Iraq War was rampant, which led to substantial inflow of Al Qaeda terrorists to Iraq. The media reported anything inconvenient on Iraq so happily, and global leftists were emboldened to hear those news. Terrorists were overjoyed with such trends, until they were defeated in the big surge.

Such globally agitated pacifism is one of the reasons why the Bush administration hesitated to conduct a necessary attack against North Korea. We all know the result of it. The uproar of global leftists was so immense that the United States missed the vital opportunity to destroy one of the worst regimes in the world. Never forget this, those who argue against Pax Americana!

A Criticism to a “Peaceful Rise” of China

Some innocent believers in the global economy welcome a “peaceful rise” of China. Such naïve people in America and Europe insist that China will contribute to global economic growth, and they are happy to accept China as a “responsible stake holder”. In addition, the incoming Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama remarked that Japan work closely with China to found the East Asian Community, in his controversial article to the New York Times, “A Path for New Japan” on August 27.

However, as I have been arguing on this blog, China, along with Russia, poses a critical challenge to the liberal order of global political economy founded by the West. Quite importantly, the market economy has developed side by side with democracy in Eastern Europe, while it has given rise to cult nationalism in China and Russia, which is more dangerous than communism. Actually, the ambition of Chinese leaders is not so “peaceful” as they say. They are exploring to make their reminbi an alternative reserve currency to US dollar, and ultimately, destroy the Bretton Woods System, as I mentioned in the post on the Yekaterinburg summit this year. The Chinese authority shows increasingly pushy attitude to the West.

Charles Grant, Director at the Centre for European Reform, has released an insightful briefing note, entitled “Liberalism Retreats in China” in July this year. Although China has introduced the market economy, the Communist Party still holds a tight grip on politics, and the party imposes ideological constraints on the citizens. Let me review his commentary on China’s economic nationalism and assertive behavior to the West.

Economic nationalism in China has been accentuated dramatically after the global economic crisis. The government restricts foreign direct investment in strategic sectors such as heavy chemical, energy, aerospace, and high-tech industries, and place them under a rigid state control. In trade, China keeps the exchange rate of the renminbi artificially low against the dollar to make Chinese exports competitive in the global market. I would like to stress that China free rides Western-led liberal economy, while violating the global code of conduct.

More problematic issue is an increasingly assertive foreign policy. China sponsors repressive regimes in Burma, Sudan, and North Korea. The Beijing authority demonstrates military might around the South China and the East China seas. The clash on human rights, such as Tibet, Tiananmen, and Xinjiang, is a critical issue between China and the West. Quite interestingly, China is tougher to Europe than to the United States. This is because the United States is the superpower, capable of imposing substantial damages on China, but Europe is not. Moreover, Chinese media are reluctant to report American leaders criticize China, while willing to bash such comments by Europeans.

For example, when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton blamed bloodshed at the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre this year, the Chinese government decided not to report this speech. Chinese people are unaware of bitter attitude by American leaders. On the other hand, when European leaders denounced Chinese brutalism in Tibet, Chinese media magnified it.

This is an important lesson for Japan. When the counterpart is strong, China acts modestly. On the other hand, when the counterpart is weak, China shows no hesitation to confront. Beware of it, Mr. Hatoyama! It is no interest for Japanese people to live in a “Common Asian House” with the Beijing regime.

Although the Chinese authority manipulates nationalist sentiments among the public as shown in the case of Japanese embassy attack (“Youth Attack Japan's Embassy in China” Washington Post; April 10, 2005), grassroots emotions often drives the government to challenge the West as witnessed in the case of Tibet and Uighur. Martin Jacques, Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics, points out that the Chinese public regards Western support for such minorities as a plot to dissemble China, in his latest book, “When China rules the world: the rise of the Middle Kingdom and the end of the Western world”. Growing state control on the economy, particularly after the global economic crisis, will be a hurdle to develop business with the West, and this will damage long term relations between China and the rest of the world.

Grant mentions some optimistic aspects as well, such as common interests in nuclear non-proliferation and economic partnership. However, politics and the economy in China are becoming less and less liberal. Its foreign policy is driven by cult nationalism, whether led by the government or provoked by the grassroots. Its economy is becoming increasingly state-controlled. The clash between China and the West will evolve more and more serious. Mr. Hatoyama, keep this in mind when you assume prime ministership on September 16.

The Yekaterinburg Summit and the Failure of the Clintonian Attempt to Tame Russia and China

Watch the above video broadcasted by a new TV network founded in Russia in the post Soviet era (Mega-deals and security to link China and Russia”; Russia Today; June 17, 2009). This company, named Russia Today, provides Russian viewpoints in English for the global public, just as Al Jazeera presents Arab standpoints.

At the BRICs Summit at Yekaterinburg, Russia and China praised unprecedentedly good bilateral relations these days, and signed trade deals to expand economic cooperation. Quite importantly, they insisted that their dependence on the dollar be lowered, and more national currencies be used in international business. Clearly, Russia and China expressed their solid determination to confront the West in the economy.

The joint press conference by President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia and President Hu Jing Tao of China illustrates that Clintonian attempt to incorporate both new capitalist nations has ended in failure. Instead of becoming good citizens of Western-led liberal framework of global political economy, Russia and China decided to challenge us and establish their own order in their economic zone.

The dollar standard is founded on the trust to political and military power of the United States, and this is beyond economic rationalism. Both Russia and China are building up their armed forces rapidly to rival against the West, and expand their influence in their neighborhood. Such dangerous opponents are posing another challenge to us. What’s next?

At this stage, Russia and China cannot afford to make their currencies alternatives to US dollar. According to US Department of Treasury, both giants are dependent on the fortunes of US dollar debt (“Alternatives to the Dollar? Not So Fast”; Reuters Blog Commentaries; June 15, 2009).

Also, BRICs nations have mutual disagreements from the economy to security (“BRIC plotters stage a farce”; Asia Times; June 20, 2009). Apparently, Brazil and India are not interested in defying our regime, and they do not build up their military power so rapidly as Russia and China do.

Powerful enough or not, Russia and China declared their desire to dissemble an Anglo-American liberal order of the Bretton Woods System, and transform the global economy into a regime that reflects their authoritarian statist ideology. Economists are liable to talk of their emergence solely in terms of the market economy, and dismiss political threats posed by their ambition. But any economic policy is politically designed. Therefore, I regard their will to challenge us critical to global security.

The Yekaterinburg Summit is a landmark to show that the Clintonian attempt to incorporate Russia and China into our global economy was shattered. How can we deal with their ambition to challenge our preeminence in the world? What happens if we appease them? They may not be strong enough at this stage, but it is their will to overturn our preeminence that matters.　History has not ended, but it has started again.

North Korean Nuclear Crisis: A Test for President Obama + Japan and South Korea

Remember that Vice President Joseph Biden warned "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama.” Kim Jong Il did it. North Korean nuclear bomb test raises a serious concern over the Obama administration’s competence. Despite widely accepted understanding that multilateral sanctions by the global community are necessary, experts doubt China’s commitment to contain North Korea. Let me review commentaries and analysis by leading security experts.

Dan Blumenthal, Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and Robert Kagan, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, points out that the Bush administration did not accept recommendation by former Secretary of Defense William Perry and current Under Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter ("If Necessary, Strike and Destroy"; Washington Post; June 22, 2006), to attack missile facilities in North Korea. Their idea sounds right, as Israel bombed a nuclear power plant construction site in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. However, as Blumenthal and Kagan say, the Obama administration is more reluctant to take this approach. Also, China wants to keep relations with North Korea, despite rhetorical denounce to the nuclear test. Instead of current six-party talk, both authors argue that the United States negotiate with North Korea, in close consultation with Japan and South Korea. They say that current negotiation process allows China to to set the political agenda while quietly increasing its leverage over the North. It is quite regretful that President Obama is cutting missile defense system, although Kagan and Blumenthal argue enhancing this system as the first option against this rogue regime (“What to Do About North Korea”; Washington Post; May 26, 2009). Come to think of it, Ronald Reagan defeated the Evil Soviet Empire with the SDI program. North Korea tests nuclear bombs whoever the US President is. But missile defense system would deter North Korea to fire its nuclear missiles, because this rogue state would ruin them if they were intercepted. Had Senator John McCain been elected, he could have managed this crisis through Reaganite diplomacy. How unfortunate that Barack Carter Obama assumes presidency now.

In view of this, William Kristol urges Republicans and conservatives who are obsessed with resisting Obama’s big government to focus more on national security as Former Vice President Dick Cheney has drawn public attention with his bitter criticism to President Barack Obama (“Who Will Confront Obama? Cheney, Gingrich and...?”; Washington Post; May 25, 2009). I agree with Kristol. It is not only a man named Barack Obama but whole America is tested now. This is why I strongly disagree with K.T. McFarland who belittled the threat of North Korea in an interview with FOX News.

Jamie Fly, Executive Director at the Foreign Policy Initiative, argues that a sea blockade combined with Chinese pressure will screen out illicit trade with North Korea and send a strong message to Kim Jong Il (“Making Pyongyang Pay”; Weekly Standard Blog; May 28, 2009). The Cuba Crisis in 1962 was resolved in this way. The problem is, China is not willing to use strong pressure. As Fly insists in the blog post, the Congress needs to pressure the Obama administration to take a steadfast action.

Douglas Paal, Vice President at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and National Security Council staff of the Reagan and the Bush Sr. administrations, told the current administration not to rush back to negotiation because it would appear a reward for wanton behavior by the rogue regime (“North Korea's Move Tests International Will on Nuclear Issues”; PBS Jim Lehrer News Hour; May 25, 2009).

In Japan, Yoshiko Sakurai, a conservative journalist and the founder of the Japan Institute for National Fundamentals, announced an urgent policy proposal to manage the crisis of North Korean nuclear test on May 29. She and her proponents declared a four point recommendation, whose fundamental viewpoints are in common with American experts. The following points were declared.

1. Close trilateral partnership of the United States, Japan, and South Korea. Re-inclusion of North Korea into the terrorists list of US State Department.
2. China should stop aid to and trade with North Korea. Chinese banks must be sanctioned, if they continue illicit business with North Korea.
3. Impose a sea blockade to stop technology transfer to Iran and Syria, thereby cut North Korea’s source of revenue.
4. Permit Japanese Self Defense Forces to attack enemy if necessary. Japan should found a defense policy framework beyond postwar pacifism.

I agree to this proposal.

On the other hand, Motoaki Kamiura, a military analyst and the Director of Japan Research Center of Military Affairs, presents an interesting analysis in Hyakka Saiho which is the online journal that took up some of my previous blog posts. Kamiura says that Kim Jong Il may have lost control over radical generals in the military (“UN Security Council Explores Further Sanctions against North Korea”; Hyakka Saiho; May 29, 2009).

It is time that we understood current negotiation process would not work. Further sanctions and blockades are not enough. I strongly agree with Jamie Fly that we sponsor democratic uprising against the Kim regime. We can learn good lessons from brilliant success of President Ronald Reagan who liberated people in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. The rogue tiger tests Barack Obama plus Japan and South Korea. But the wanton dictator must be defeated by all means.

The North Korean Challenge: Missile Crisis, Rivalry against the Sino-Russian Axis, and the Successor

The Iraq Gap has not resolved in the North Korean Crisis. China and Russia are reluctant to impose a binding declaration against this rogue regime. During the Iraq War, the global media bitterly criticized the Bush administration’s unilateralism to advocate UN led peace enforcement. The Obama administration has shown conciliatory attitudes to challengers to the West. Prior to G20 Summit in London, President Barack Obama talked with President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia on nuclear disarmament, and both presidents agreed that there was no Cold War rivalry again between the United States and Russia.

Unlike Iraq, the United States needs Chinese and Russian involvement in North Korea. Any bilateral talk with Pyongyang will be interpreted that the United States recognizes North Korea as an emerging nuclear power. In addition, China and Russia have strong leverages on North Korea since the beginning of the Cold War. In an interview with FOX News, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense K.T. McFarland, who was also a national security staff to Henry Kissinger, says that China is the only power to persuade North Korea because it supplies food and energy to Pyongyang. Quite importantly, she is extremely concerned with nuclear proliferation to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Egypt, because of arms race in the Middle East. McFarland does not worry so much about North Korean attack to Alaska（”China Key to North Korean Missile Test?”; FOX News; April 3, 2009).

The anti-North Korea alliance consisted of the United States, Japan, and South Korea　faces a critical dilemma. While Chinese and Russian involvement is necessary to prevent the Pyongyang autocrat from committing dangerous adventurism, their interference is a hurdle to impose effective pressures on North Korea. As far as the North Korean crisis is concerned, President Obama is tested in the following issues: non-proliferation, global and geopolitical rivalry with illiberal powers of China and Russia, and impacts on the War on Terror.

Although stakeholder governments want to avoid escalation of this crisis, 57% of American voters prefer a military action to destroy missile launching facilities in North Korea (“57% Want Military Response to North Korea Missile Launch”; Rasmussen Report; April 5, 2009). Actually, Israel bombed a French-built nuclear power plant in Iraq during the Iran Iraq War to stop Saddam Hussein’s dangerous ambition. Facing a crisis, American voters favor approaches by George W. Bush 1st term and John McCain over those by Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter. Of course, I believe it preferable to avoid an escalation of crisis. However, the United Nations has not overcome the Iraq Gap. Also, China failed in controlling the rogue dictator in Pyongyang. Therefore, the result of this poll is understandable.

Finally, I would like to mention an article by Nicholas Eberstadt, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He points out that the real problem behind this missile test is the timing when the totalitarian regime is becoming fragile. The rocket was launched just before the annual Supreme People’s Assembly to decide the successor of ailing Kim Jong Il. In conclusion, Eberstadt says “A monolithic regime with a dying monarch is now suddenly exposing unfamiliar cracks to the outside world. This development may prove even more consequential for North Korea's future than Sunday's missile launch.” (“Kim's Crumbling Dynasty”; Wall Street Journal; April 6, 2009)

This crisis is beyond non-proliferation. The tripartite alliance of the United States, Japan, and South Korea, must be well prepared for geopolitical rivalry in the Korean Peninsula, against China and Russia. This is a long lasting test for President Obama.

Secretary Clinton, Coming to Asia

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will leave for Japan, China, South Korea, and Indonesia on February 15. Secretary Clinton’s decision to visit Asia before Europe and the Middle East has given a significant impression to Washington watchers. It is true that Vice President Joseph Biden attended the Munich Security Conference in Germany, and Special Envoy George Mitchell visits Israel and Palestine. In addition, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and German Foreign Minister Walter Steinmeier visited Secretary Clinton on February 3. Thus, Clinton is free to break the tradition. (“Bucking tradition, Clinton to head for Asia”; CNN News; February 3, 2009: also, see the video)

However, this is more than schedule and procedure. Secretary Clinton has been keeping a close eye on Asia. During the presidential election campaign, Hillary Clinton contributed an article to Foreign Affairs, and said “Our relationship with China will be the most important bilateral relationship in the world in this century.” (“Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century”; Foreign Affairs; November/December 2007) A new liberal think tank closely related to Secretary Clinton, called CNAS (Center for a New American Security), has the Asia Initiative ‘09 project with extensive focus on the Asia-Pacific region. The statement of this project says “As power shifts from the Atlantic to the Pacific, it is paramount for American strategists to articulate a forward-looking strategy to deal with the complexities of the Asia-Pacific region.”

Apparently, Secretary Clinton is more Pacific-oriented than any other Secretary of State in history. She even had a scandal of Chinese donation during the election campaign. In an interview with BBC, Clinton said "Going to Asia signals that the US is not just a transatlantic power but also a transpacific power." (“US 'keen to strengthen Asia ties'”; BBC News; 13 February 2009)

Key issues will be North Korea, Sino-US security affairs, and trade problems associated with the Buy American Clause. President Ralph A. Cossa and Executive Director Brad Glosserman, both at the Pacific Forum of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Honolulu, present brief analyses in their joint article. (“Secretary Clinton's No. 1 mission is to reassure allies”; Japan Times; February 12, 2009)

They visited Tokyo and Seoul recently to find that senior officials in both capitals are worried of the Obama administration’s foreign policy, because Japanese and South Korean leaders have no clear idea what change will happen US strategy in East Asia.

Both Japan and South Korea are concerned with possible softening of US approach to North Korea. The Bush administration sought compromises with the North Korean evil, instead of complete denuclearization. Neither Japan nor South Korea hopes further Chamberlainian diplomacy against the rogue regime in Pyongyang.

The threat of China is another critical issue. While Japan and South Korea do not desire Rumsfeldian hardliner against China, both nations are dismayed with increasing US tilt with China at the expense of the US-Japanese and the US Korean alliance.

Regarding trade, both Japan and South Korea want “reassurance that the Obama administration will remain committed to open markets and free trade.”

Secretary Clinton replied to these concerns in her interview with BBC. Clinton warned North Korea not to take any provocative actions, but stressed offering incentives to abandon nuclear programs. I would say that Secretary Clinton needs to shed anxieties among Japanese and South Korean officials. Also, the abduction issue must not be missed.

Secretary Clinton’s approach to China is another concern. She is right to say that the United States needs to develop cooperation with China to resolve global issues, such as climate change, energy, pandemic prevention, nuclear proliferation, and so forth. However, Clinton thinks too light of Chinese threat. After a long holiday from history during the Clinton administration era, China and Russia have remerged as new threats to our liberal world order. As Robert Kagan argues, the clash between our liberal capitalism and their authoritarian capitalism is a key agenda in global security of this century.

Secretary Clinton will send important messages to understand the Obama administration’s vision to the world. As I mention in this post, there are some worries regarding new administration’s approaches to China and North Korea. It is necessary that Secretary Clinton win trust by key allies in the Pacific area, and impress strong commitment of the United States. Be careful not to be seen America weak!

The West and New Capitalist Motherlands ―― Russia and China

While American conservatives worry about President-Elect Barack Obama’s new socialist motherland America, new capitalist motherlands of Russia and China pose far more critical challenges to global security. The clash between our liberal capitalism and their illiberal capitalism will be no less important than threats of Islamic radicals. President Bush has made substantial efforts to tackle dangers posed by Muslim terrorists, but it seems that the Russo-Chinese challenge has been left unconstrained. It is becoming increasingly important to understand the nature of their defiance to our liberal world order.

Bobo Lo, Director of Russia and China Programme at the Centre for European Reform in London, examines foreign policy of Russia and China in “Ten things everyone should know about the Sino-Russian relationship” (Policy Brief; Centre for European Reform; December 2008). He was the Deputy Head of the Mission at the Australian Embassy in Moscow. Lo articulates that Russia and China have contrasting national interests and values. Also, he insists that the Russo-Chinese partnership will not harm Western interests, because both nations are more interested in engaging with the West than with each other.

Lo criticizes neoconservative agenda that Western liberal democracies unite against the rise of Russo-Chinese authoritarianism. He even makes an analogy between this agenda and Marxist slogan of united international proletariats. To the contrary, Lo says that Russia and China do not share common interests in authoritarian alliance.

Let me review 10 points mentioned by Bobo Lo. He admits that bilateral economic relations are expanding, and security cooperation is developing rapidly. However, Lo points out that Russia is just one of the markets and natural resource suppliers for China. For Russia, China accounts for a tiny portion of its total amount of trade. Also, in security, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is not enthusiastically endorsed by the government of both countries.

Rather, Lo argues that both Russia and China are keenly interested in developing relations with the West, despite bitter rhetoric against American hegemony. Both Russia and China trade more with the West than each other. In addition, both Russia and China see the West as a model for their economic development despite recent financial crisis.

As the Chinese economy has been growing rapidly since late 1980s, the relation with Russia is becoming increasingly unequal. Though Russia has recovered from disruptive economy during the Yeltsin era, its economy is dependent on natural resources, and technological lag lowers its global competitiveness.

Lo also points out that Russia and China are competitors as well as partners in Central Asia. Sometimes, they unite against the West, while they confront each other in some cases.

The most importantly, Bobo Lo argues that Russia and China have different visions of the world. While Russia envisions its unique role to bridge the East (China) and the West (the United States), China regards Russia as a secondary great power along with Japan, India, and the EU in a world of rivalry against the United States. While Russian nationalism is confrontational to the West, China emphasizes “peaceful rise” or “harmonious world”. China is so cautious that it does not pursue a multilateral order so as not to provoke its indispensable partner, the United States.

A former Australian diplomat in Moscow, Bobo Lo presents invaluable insights on the nature of the Russo-Chinese challenge. Particularly, different visions of the world between Russia and China are important. However, his viewpoints seem to be quite liberal. Whatever their intentions are, both nations develop critical arsenals to defy American or Western supremacy. Russia has deployed Bulava SLBM while the United States has stopped producing new nuclear weapons. China succeeded in anti-satellite missile test.

Remember! Germany under Otto von Bismarck kept friendly relationship of common German blood with Britain under the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty. However, Kaiser fought against Britain, with forces built up by Bismarck. We have to be careful to the Russo- Chinese challenge.

US Removal of North Korea from the Terrorist List Shocks Japan

The Bush administration’s decision to remove North Korea from the terrorist list has given a tremendous shock to the Japanese public. Japan and North Korea are clashing over the abductee issue. Japanese nationalists are infuriated with the bolt from the blue, and blame that the United States betrayed its best ally in the Asia-Pacific region to ignore such a vital humanitarian issue.

Their resentment is understandable, but the Japanese public should not be obsessed with the abduction. I am not saying that the Japanese be cold-blooded like Tesundo Iwakuni , Japanese Democrat Member of the House of Representatives, who remarked “Japanese people are kidnapped with the abductee issue on North Korea.” I firmly believe that Japan be allied with the global community to pressure the dictator in Pyongyang. Also, I am concerned with early removal of North Korea from the terrorist list.

At this stage, the global community has not succeeded in eliminating all nuclear weapons in North Korea. Also, this country has been engaged in illicit economic activities, such as export of drug, counterfeit of hard currency, and so forth. This is the reason why I feel it too early to take North Korea away from the list.

On the other hand, Japanese must remember that the primary objective of the six party talk is denuclearization of North Korea, and various security issues are intertwined. Therefore, the following aspects must be taken into consideration.

1. De-nuclearization of North Korea:
Ultimately, Japan shares common interest with the United States. If forced to choose, Japanese people will save 120 million citizens in Japan, instead of hundreds of abductees taken by Kim Jong Il. Nuclear bombs are far more serious threat to Japan than kidnappers. Japanese people want no more Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Though current US administration is going to take North Korea out of the list, it has not abandoned all nuclear bombs yet.

2. Geopolitical rivalry against China:
Historically, Korean Peninsula has been a buffer against continental powers like Russia and China. This is the vital reason why Britain and America approved Japan to colonize Korea in early 20th century. China plays a substantial role in this deal, and will early removal of North Korea from the list strengthen Chinese influence in the Korean Peninsula?

First, let me review an article by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (“Diplomacy is Working on North Korea”; Wall Street Journal; June 26, 2008). This article focuses on nuclear non-proliferation, and issues like Japanese abductee and geopolitical rivalry with China are not mentioned.

Despite this, I agree with Secretary Rice that there is no alternative to the six party talk. Also, I have to mention that the Secretary argues important points in negotiations with North Korea.

If it chooses confrontation – violating international law, pursuing nuclear weapons, and threatening the region – it will face serious consequences not only from the United States, but also from Japan, South Korea, China and Russia, as it did in 2006 after testing a nuclear device.

If, however, North Korea chooses cooperation – by fulfilling its pledge from the September 2005 Joint Statement to "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs" – a path is open for it to achieve the better and more secure relationship it says it wants with the international community. That includes the U.S. We have no permanent enemies.

However, should we wait and see whether North Korea really intend to give up nuclear programs, as Rice maintains? This notorious scoundrel has been lying and deceiving the global community. Unlike Libya, North Korea has never been defeated by the United States. To the contrary, it boasts a victory against America in the Pueblo incident in 1968 as I mentioned before.

Steve Clemons, Senior Fellow and Director of American Strategy Program at New America Foundation, points out political interaction behind softening approaches to North Korea (“BREAKING: Bush Administration to Ask Congress on Thursday to REMOVE North Korea from TERROR WATCH LIST”; June 24, 2008 and “Chris Hill BEATS John Bolton: Bush Declares New Track for US-North Korea Relations”; June 26, 2008. Both in the Washington Note.). He questions Bush’s engagement to North Korea while pressuring on Iran. Clemons says that the deal results from political interaction between multilateralist dove Christopher Hill and neoconservative hawk John Bolton.

In order to understand problems associated with terrorist list removal, I would like to mention two articles by Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, currently Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. In his article to the Wall Street Journal (“The Tragic End of Bush's North Korea Policy”; June 30, 2008), Bolton reminds us that North Korea has been breaking major agreements with the United States since its national foundation.

Bolton points out corrosive impacts of removal of North Korea from the terrorist list. It will help Kim Jong Il stay in power and maximize political and economic gains. In addition, he mentions that North Korea assisted nuclear bomb programs in Syria and Iran, terrorist sponsor states. Furthermore, relations with Japan and South Korea will be damaged, as North Korea has abducted hundreds of citizens from both US allies.

In the Daily Telegraph (“North Korea Nuclear Deal with U.S. ‘Like Police Truce with Mafia’”; July 1, 2008), Bolton criticizes this deal furthermore.

The only real progress in de-nuclearising North Korea came via Israel's air force last September 6, when it pulverized a nearly-completed clone of Yongbyon on the banks of the Euphrates River in Syria.

As one keen observer put it, negotiating with Iran or North Korea is like the police sitting down with the Mafia to discuss their common interest in law-enforcement. President Bush's North Korea deal reflects the Administration's lame-duck status.

I agree with John Bolton, and I am afraid it too early to remove the notorious scoundrel from the list.

On the other hand, I do not find one side criticism to the Bush administration of much help. Come to think of it, it is the Koizumi administration of Japan that decided to normalize relations with North Korea with the Pyongyang Declaration. However, Junichiro Koizumi has not convinced the Japanese public why Japan needs diplomatic relations with Kim Jong Il. Nor have his successors, who have not officially abandoned the Pyongyang Declaration.

Technically speaking, the Japanese government is more soft-liner to North Korea than the White House. The Bush administration is just negotiating for denuclearization. Remember this, Japanese rightists!

Above all, we must not allow North Korea any lies and deceits in the nuclear talk. Honesty in nuclear weapons will lead to honesty in abduction, illicit economic activities, and so forth. US and Japanese approaches to North Korea must be reviewed critically from this perspective.

Red China or Mad China？: Tibet, Olympic, and Repressive Regime

Controversies over the Beijing Olympic and Tibet have been intensifying day by day as freedom activists all over the world protest against the torch relay. Facing harsh criticism by conscientious global citizens, the Beijing authority decided to mobilize Chinese people to overwhelm pro-Tibet protesters with a sheer number of Communist supporters.

In Canberra, Nagano, and Seoul, a huge flock of Red Chinese surrounded pro-Tibet activists on the street, and imposed substantial psychological pressure on freedom fighters. When I saw these bizarre flocks of Chinese carrying the Red Flag, those scenes chilled my spine. How can the Chinese government mobilize such centrally controlled street activists against freedom fighters? Although those Red Chinese did not punch or kick against pro-Tibet activists, that sort of intimidation is nothing but a kind of violence. It reminds me of an Orwellian world. A dreadful behavior like that should never be accepted as an act of patriotism! It turned out that China is a backward and dangerous state despite seemingly rapid modernization.

Think again. When the United States and Britain faced vehement criticism on the Iraq War, both governments never ordered their citizens to go to the street and protest against antiwar activists. Even the Soviet Union did not do so, when it was blamed for invading Afghanistan. It has become apparent that current China is a dreadfully authoritarian society, and in the midst of the Dark Age.

In order to discuss backwardness and repressiveness of China, I would like to refer to some authors. What terrifies me most is that China had been assuming itself the supreme nation in the world until defeated by the British gunfire in the Opium War. Throughout the history, Chinese Emperors imposed the “ce feng” system all over East Asia, and had been demanding monarchs there to show loyalty to China. Having been defeated by the Royal Navy, the lord of the universe in the Confucian world order accepted the Westphalian regime. Has China become sufficiently modern since then? It is absolutely essential to understand the nature of current regime in China when we talk about freedom in Tibet.

Robert Kagan, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, casts doubt to a widespread opinion among China watchers that the West accept this country as a “responsible stakeholder” (“Behind the ‘Modern’ China”; Washington Post; March 23, 2008). Kagan criticizes the idea that growing middle class would lead China to liberalization of politics and adaptation to the global economy. He calls it a self-interested wishful thinking of commerce-oriented Western businessmen, because autocrats are simply interested in holding their power and they use money earned from global business to repress Tibet and threaten Taiwan.

Also, Kagan rejects the idea of building the East Asian Community. Europeans respect local ethnic minorities such as Catalans in Spain, Flemish in Belgium, and Scottish in Britain. To the contrary, Chinese Communists have no hesitation to impose their authority on Tibet, Taiwan, and Xinjian. Also, I would like to mention that Chinese leaders force their neighbors such as South Korea and Japan to accept their evaluation of Asia history.

Robert Kagan points out that autocrats want to keep the world safe for their own at least, which is incompatible with desire of Western leaders to keep the world safe for democracies. Therefore, Kagan argues that it is wrong to think of integrating China into our liberal world order.

How do Chinese leaders see their country and their position in the world? Wang Jisi, Dean of the School of International Studies at Beijing University and Director of the Institute of International Strategic Studies at the Central Party School of the Communist Party of China, comments that national interests of China and the United States are so intertwined that mutual cooperation is the best way for both countries, though he does not expect a true Sino-American friendship. Also, Wang admits that US hegemony cannot be overturned for a long time (“China’s Search for Stability with America”; Foreign Affairs; September/October 2005).

However, Wang Jisi points out that post 9-11 security in the world and increasing mutual dependence in the economy has led the United States and China to explore closer strategic cooperation, though both nations do not expect real friendship each other. Despite difficulty in improving the relationship with the United States, Wang insists that it is Beijing’s interest to pursue closer ties with Washington to modernize China, because the United States is the global leader in economics, education, culture, technology, and science.

Despite modest tone of this article, Wang asserts that the Taiwan issue is a domestic problem. As he is in a top position of foreign policymaking in the Communist Party, it is apparent how Chinese leaders think of ethnic minorities in Tibet, Xinjian Uighur, and Inner Mongolia. Actually, he does not mention anything about reforms of political and civil liberties in China. Wang simply talks of gains from business transactions and strategic bargaining with the United States. This means that Chinese leaders are not interested in real modernization but superficial renewal. A state like this shall never be acceptable to our liberal world order.

Freedom House has launched the “China and Olympic” advocacy activity to condemn the decision to hold the Beijing Olympic by the International Olympic Committee. This site is linked to numerous useful articles, reports, and press releases. Let me have a brief look at “Ten Things You Should Know about China” by Freedom House. I will mention a couple of points among them.

2) China imprisons more journalists than any other country in the world.
The media must mention this more frequently than ever.

5) 65 crimes in China carry the death penalty.
Capital punishment itself is no surprise for me, because some states in America and whole Japan still retain it. The problem is the following.

The Chinese justice system has a number of other problems. Torture is often used to induce confessions, judges lack independence, and a lack of media freedom means that the press is unable to hold the judiciary accountable.

Regarding the Olympic and Tibet:
7) Tibetan Buddhists, Christians, Muslims and practitioners of other religions face frequent harassment.

Though constitutionally recognized, religious freedom is given little respect in China. All religious groups are required to register with the government, and while officially sanctioned groups are tolerated, members of unauthorized religious groups, such as Falun Gong, are harassed, detained and imprisoned in brutal conditions.

In Tibet, religious freedom is strictly limited by the Chinese government. While some religious practices are tolerated, officials forcibly suppress activities viewed as vehicles for political dissent or advocacy of Tibetan independence. Possession of pictures of the Dalai Lama can lead to imprisonment, and Religious Affairs Bureaus continue to control who can study religion in Tibet. Only boys who sign a declaration rejecting Tibetan independence, expressing loyalty to the Chinese government, and denouncing the Dalai Lama are allowed by Chinese officials to become monks.

In conclusion, I would suggest that we call this country Mad China, instead of Red China. I have not been so radical as to reject products of made in China until quite recently, but I may have to start a China free life from now on. Finally, I would request the Smithsonian Museum not to sell merchandises made in China at the souvenir shop. If you need something inexpensive, you can buy them from Mexico. The hall of American spirit should not be dirtied by a mad regime.

Welcome to Japan! President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak is coming to Japan from April 20 to 21. This is the first time to publish a post on South Korea, since Global American Discourse was launched. In the category, entitled “China-Korea and Asia-Pacific”, this blog has been focusing China and North Korea, because both nations pose critical challenges to our liberal world order. Also, their threats to Japan are so grave that no other East Asian nations appear as frequently as both nations do on this blog.

However, active involvement of South Korea is essential in security of the Korean Peninsula which is one of the deadliest issues in East Asia. In the presidential election last year, Lee Myung-bak defeated a pro-North candidate Chung Dong-young. Not only has Lee dismantled appeasement to North Korea by his predecessor Roh Moo-hyun, the new president has been trying to improve relations with the United States and Japan. This is a major breakthrough in Far Eastern security and the War against the Axis of Evil. This is why I entitled this post “Welcome to Japan!”.

In the Roh Moo-hyun era, I was seriously concerned to read Barack Obama’s article in Foreign Affairs, saying that more South Korean role in security of the Korean Peninsula. As widely known, South Korea’s relationship with the United States and Japan strained under President Roh. But now, there is nothing to worry about larger stake of South Korea as the new president.

Currently, President Lee is on his trip to the United States and Japan, in order to strengthen tripartite partnership for security in East Asia. During the joint press conference at Camp David on April 19, President George W. Bush and President Lee Myung-bak addressed joint endeavor to advance freedom in the Asia-Pacific region. Also, both leaders raised concerns with human rights violations in North Korea.

According to news report by Chosun Ilbo (President Lee Myung-bak Leaves for US and Japan; April 15) and AFP News Agency (South Korean President Lee Myung-bak Coming to Japan; April 20), President Lee and Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda will discuss the following bilateral and global issues: North Korea, climate change, and the Free Trade Agreement.

Quite importantly, Lee Myung-bak declared that South Korea stop demanding apology to Japan, regarding colonial rule. Throughout the postwar period, the relationship between Japan and South Korea has been extremely idiosyncratic. Nasty emotional disputes over bilateral history and the Yasukuni Shrine have been hampering Japanese-Korean relations. As I have posted earlier, I do not agree to chauvinist ideology of the Yushukan Museum at the Yasukuni Shrine. However, both South Korean and Japanese nationalists must understand that history and Yasukuni are low priority issues, in face of North Korean threats. Whatever Japanese rightists remark, Japan has already gone through regime change, and nobody can reverse this country into a fascist nation again.

Both South Korea and Japan have common enemies and common allies. Not only nuclear weapons but also abductions by the Northern Red Devil poses dreadful danger to both countries. According to the National Association for the Rescue of Japanese Kidnapped by North Korea (NARKN or the ‘Japanese Rescue Movement’), over 100 Japanese, and furthermore, over 80,000 South Koreans have been kidnapped by the evil regime in Pyong Yang. More South Koreans are confined than Japanese by rogue and ruthless North Korea.

Common allies are no less important to deal with post Cold War dangers. Just as President Bush endorses active involvement for worldwide democracy promotion by both nations, NATO has been exploring strategic partnership with Japan and South Korea. Both countries should assume responsibilities to fulfill expectations of Washington and Brussels.

I do not expect airy fairly stories of lovely friendship between Japan and South Korea. But both countries should not be preoccupied with bilateral relations too much. Normal relations between Japan and South Korea will be a significant help for the Greater Western Alliance. The real threat for both countries is the Rogue Tiger in the North. Never forget this!

The Russo-Chinese Challenge to Our Liberal Capitalism

In the last presidential election of Russia on March 2, First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has been elected. It is widely believed that President Medvedev will be a puppet of Prime Minister Putin, and continue to pursue policy course set by the Putin administration. An ex-president of an oil company, will Medvedev take nationalist energy diplomacy? More importantly, a strategic partnership between a self-assertive Russia and an ambitious China will pose a critical challenge to our liberal capitalism. Success of their authoritarian capitalism can attract anti-Western dictators in developing nations, which will erode our liberal world order. Therefore, I would like to talk about Russian foreign policy under the next administration, and challenges to the global community by the Russo-Chinese partnership.

First, let me mention Medvedev’s bio data in “Russia Profile”. Having graduated from Leningrad University (currently, St. Petersburg University) with a law degree, he developed close personal contacts with Vladimir Putin, while heading Gazprom. Though Putin is expected to use strong influence on him, the predecessor is likely to advise Medvedev in softer tones, according to his profile in this journal.

With regard to implication of this election, Dmitri Trenin, Deputy Director at the Carnegie Endowment Moscow Center, has contributed an article to the Wall Street Journal (“The Meaning of Medvedev”; March 4, 2008). Trenin points out “Mr. Medvedev's task is twofold: to make decisive progress toward the rule of law, and to improve Russians' health, housing and education standards, even as the country moves past its commodities-driven economy and builds a foundation for economic innovation.” Despite successful economy, Russia will remain authoritarian and un-transparent for the time being. As a Russian, Trenin admits this. However, he insists that the Medvedev Russia will move toward constitutionalism.

Dmitri Trenin points out that Russia cannot survive in the global economy without freedom and accountability. Therefore, he says that liberalism is widely supported among businessmen, professionals, middle class, and progressive bureaucrats. Also, he points out that Russia has reached the limits of the current economic model. In his view, the trend toward political freedom is irreversible in Russia. At the same time, Trenin comments that political liberalization will not complete in Medvedev’s presidential term, and the next four year will be a crucial step for further reform to be continued in the future.

However, in foreign policy, Trenin argues that Russia will pursue geopolitical rivalry against the West. As witnessed in energy sanction to Ukraine, Russia feels uneasy with its lonely great power position. In conclusion, Dmitri Trenin says “Russia is gradually transforming itself into a Western-type society and economy, while politically standing very much apart from Europe. It is a country to watch closely. Dmitry Medvedev comes at an interesting time.”

Will Russia pose challenge to the West along with China? Both great powers have much in common. While pursuing free market economy, political elites in both countries are still reluctant for rapid reform at this stage. Moreover, they are becoming increasingly antagonistic to unipolar American world order and Western supremacy in global politics and economy.

Finally, let me review the discussion between Gideon Rachman, Chief Foreign Affairs Columnist of the Financial Times, and Robert Kagan, Senior Associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (“Illiberal Capitalism”; Financial Times; January 22, 2008). This article questions as the following. In Russia and China, capitalism has not led to Western-style democracy. The new Russo-Chinese model advocates a combination of economic development, state authority, and nationalism. The Russo-Chinese axis opposes Western pressure on rogue states. It is important to understand the implication of the rise of illiberal capitalism, and whether their model will replace the Western model.

Kagan and Rachman answered to questions from both sides of the Atlantic. Most of them are about the implication of the Russo-Chinese model to the West. Though autocrats in developing countries may be attracted to authoritarian capitalism model in Russia and China, Robert Kagan denies that both giants are exporting their models. They do not hold universal ideologies. However, Kagan points out that their influence growth in international organizations will encourage autocrats. Rachman mentions Chinese soft power to defy American or Western supremacy. China questions democracy promotion by America and Europe. However, Rachman point out the limit of Chinese soft power, because Asian neighbors take threat posed by China seriously.

Other questions are more or less the same. But one by a Chinese reader raises concern that criticism to Russia and China comes from Western-centrism. Both Kagan and Rachman reply that the West today respects multiculturalism. However, they agree that some non-Western nations are reluctant to accept Western enlightenment as a universal value. This is what I discussed in a previous post, “New Year Question: Antipathy to Western Civilization and Pax Americana”. I recommend the Financial Times article quoted in this post.

Although as Trenin says, progressive intellectuals in Russia and some of them in China may move both nations toward liberalism gradually, they remain authoritarian for some decades. The rise of nationalism will delay political liberalization. The Russo-Chinese defiance to the expansion of our liberal political economy will be one of the most important issues in this century.

Is the Chinese Economy Really Strong?

The economy of China is expanding rapidly these days. Some people say China will grow to become a real challenger to the American world order in this century. There is no doubt that China is exploring bigger stake in global politics and economy. Global American Discourse has published a few posts on China’s military ambition in the past as shown below.

US Policy against China’s Military Build-up
1-11 Shock: Reagan Diplomacy Needed against China’s Ambition in the Space

In addition, Chinese leaders regard the Beijing Olympic this year as a spring board for greater power. China is exploring the same path followed by Japan in 1964 Tokyo Olympic and South Korea in1988 Seoul Olympic.

In such harsh power rivalries on global and regional stages, the World Bank announced on December 18 last year that the economy of China had been overestimated, and it was 40% smaller than previously thought. The Bank uses purchasing power parity (PPP), which focuses on individual consumption, to evaluate wealth and poverty of 146 economies. According to this survey, the richest nations in terms pf per capita PPP are Luxemburg, the United States, Iceland, Britain, and Norway. Despite this, China still remains the second largest economy after the United States in the Bank’s ranking.

Prior to the World Bank’s press release, Albert Keidel, Senior Associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has contributed an article, “Limits of a Smaller and Poorer China” to the Financial Times on November 14 last year. As I mentioned in the previous post, “Carnegie Report on Economic Growth and Rural Society in China”, Albert Keidel has conducted field researches with Liu Jiaxing, at the International Cooperation Center of the National Development and Reform Commission in China. Also, several Chinese assistants helped his research. Therefore, his analyses are not Western-centered, and reflect Chinese viewpoints very well.

Let me summarize and review the article. According to Keidel, recent surveys by the Asian development Bank and the World Bank concludes that “the number of people in China living below the World Bank's dollar-a-day poverty line is 300million - three times larger than currently estimated.” This is an astonishing figure, and roughly a quarter of China’s total population.

As China had never participated in international price surveys, it is difficult to calculate its PPP in dollars accurately. In view of large shares of the world’s poor in rising economies, including China, India, and Brazil, World Bank President Robert Zoellick argues that the Bank continue to lend them. Keidel says that China will not grow big enough to challenge American predominance so immediately as often argued among some opinion leaders. Rather than focusing on Chinese military threat, he advises that the Unites States and it allies help China’s economic development conductive to political moderation.

Economic analyses presented by Albert Keidel sound rational and persuasive. Then, why do Chinese Communist Party leaders quibble over the American world order? China’s military build-up is extremely rapid. Its ambition in the space is evident.

Security is not the only issues which China explores vigorous rivalries against the West. At press conferences, the Chinese government accepts questions in Chinese only. In addition to the language, the Chinese authority has been continually defying universal ideals of enlightenment, human rights, and liberty.

Apparently, China tries to rival against America, or more broadly, against the West. Why? Are the Chinese willing to sacrifice poorer economy to challenge the West just as the North Koreans are? It is a mystery. America, Europe, and Japan need further watch on China.

Conservative Backlash against un-Bush North Korea Policy

The Bush administration’s approach to North Korea raises serious concern among conservatives in the United States and the public in Japan. In return for denuclearization, US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Christopher Hill suggested that the United States remove North Korea from the List of Terrorism Sponsoring Countries. However, North Korea is notorious for cheating, and Kim Jong Il could gain to food and energy without completely denuclearizing his country, as it happened in the Clinton era. This is quite un-Bush, and it is quite questionable whether soft line policy is helpful for non-proliferation objectives.

In addition, soft policy against North Korea undermines moral leadership in US foreign policy. It is a repressive regime. North Korean leaders exploit its citizens. It is infamous for kidnapping Japanese, South Korean and other foreign citizens. As mentioned in the previous post, democracy promotion is a key agenda in the post 9-11 world.

Unlike Israel and India, North Korea can never become a strategic partner with the United States to promote a liberal world order. While both Israel and India are trustworthy democracies, North Korea has been a bête noire in the global community.

Unlike Libya, which was bombed in 1986 by the Reagan-Thatcher axis, North Korea has no experience of being defeated by the United States. North Korea has been boasting the victory over the “savage American imperialist” in the Pueblo crisis in 1968. Nor does North Korea face domestic threat of radicalists, which poses serious danger to the Khadafy regime of Libya.

Therefore, any kind of nuclear bargains with nations like India and Libya, are unlikely to work for Kim Jong Il.

Congressional Research Service has released a report, entitled “North Korea: Terrorism List Removal?” on April 6 this year. Regarding terrorism, this report says the following.

Although it is a party to six international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, Pyongyang has not taken substantial steps to cooperate in efforts to combat international terrorism.

As to the Japanese abductee issue, it says “The chronologies of acts of terrorism in the annual Patterns reports shows that the United States defines kidnapping as a terrorist act.”

It seems quite inappropriate to remove North Korea from the list.

In addition, conservative opinion leaders have been critical to a Chaimberlainian appeasement to North Korea. As Professor Niall Ferguson of Harvard University argues, the United States is capable of fighting both against Iraqi insurgents and North Korean autocrat.

David Frum, Resident Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, warns that realist approaches to North Korea would lead the Bush administration to make the same mistake as the Clinton administration did. Quoting an article in the Boston Globe by Graham Allison, Assistant Secretary of State under the Clinton administration, Frum points out that North Korea wants to reassure they have both bombs and aids. Also, he says that China is concerned with the collapse of North Korea, because a unified Korea would be under American influence. In his view, current negotiation is likely to fail in denuclearizing North Korea. (“Realism is Ugly in North Korea”; Notional Post; June 30, 2007)

Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is more critical to current talk with North Korea. In his article to the Wall Street Journal (“Bush’s North Korea Meltdown”; October 31, 2007) and an interview with Fox News on December 3, Bolton attacks that State Department bureaucracy is obsessed with making a deal first without sufficient consideration to the outcome. Even if the United States succeeds in disabling the Yongbyon reactor, it is not clear how to verify uranium enrichment facilities, he says.

Furthermore, John Bolton raises concern over negative impacts on the US-Japanese alliance, posed by current six-party negotiation. In view of possible US-North Korean compromise without consideration to abductees held by Kim Jong Il, I often hear some Japanese conservatives question the validity of staunch alliance with the United States. Regarding this issue, John Bolton argues as the following.

Thomas Schieffer, the Bush administration's ambassador to Japan, reportedly complained recently to the president that he was "cut out of the process." State should explain why it trusts North Korea more than our ambassador to Tokyo, and why we ignore Tokyo's concerns over North Korea's kidnappings of Japanese citizens.

As Reuter reports on December 4, North Korea takes a delaying tactics in the nuclear negotiation. Hawks are right to question current six-party talks.

Things may change after the forthcoming Presidential Election in South Korea on January 19 next year. South Koreans question current president Roh Moo Hyung’s Sunshine Policy against North Korea. I hope a conservative candidate wins this election.

Consequently, Shocker is Shocker! Harsher resolutions, such as military intimidation as taken in the Cuba crisis, need to be considered.