How many North Koreans Are Relegated to be just Waitresses for China?

About a month ago, I was in a long line to see one of my old professors, and sitting next to me at the time were three graduate students from China. If you ever meet me in real life, you'll notice that I like to talk and ask quite frequently about people, places, and things I identify with, such as California and Korea and a multitude of cities in both states. And sure enough, I asked the graduate students if there were any North Koreans in China and was told that a lot of North Korean ladies are in the service industry in China with a belittling look. I rarely get offended by such talk, but as I sit here and wonder how many North Koreans are relegated to be waitresses in China, I wonder how the conversation would've went if I brought up that the manner in which you describe North Koreans is the exact image that Chinese nationals hold in South Korea. Also, pregnant North Korean refugees in China that are caught by North Korean fascist agents undergo abortion forcibly as they try to ensure that Korean blood does not become tainted. I'm curious how their reaction would be to such a comment and if I were to see them again, I want to see if Chinese nationals really view Koreans to be too nationalistic as I have picked up on the Internet during the Winter Olympics some time ago when Korean female athletes held up a sign claiming that "Mt.  Baekdu is ours." 

Anyways, I would be grateful if someone could provide a link to a paper or data set that can provide an answer to how many north Koreans are relegated to low level service jobs in China. Happy New Year ^^

[U.S. Capitulation to the Chinese] Japanese Currency Intervention

For the first time since 2004...

Economist's Free Exchange:

AMONG today's big news items is the word that Japan is now actively selling yen in order to improve its exchange rate against other major currencies. The yen has risen sharply in recent months, dealing a blow to Japanese exporters and slowing Japanese recovery.

The columnist looks at the development in a positive light.

Doom and gloom, but I feel more positive about this development. Consider Buttonwood's take:

As David Bloom of HSBC points out in a note responding to the move, the costs of intervention to the Japanese are not great. Selling yen and buying dollars results in more yen being created, which might be inflationary, but a bit of Japanese inflation wouild be a good thing.

My thought concerns the general tendency of countries to want their currencies to depreciate. Everyone would like to boost their growth by letting their currencies slide and increasing exports. Of course, not all can succeed. Someone must increase net imports and let their currency appreciate. The obvious candidate is the Chinese, but they are unwilling to let it happen (at least at a pace desired by the rest of the world).

The result is like a game of deflationary pass the parcel in which the countries with appreciating currencies eventually feel the pressure, and try to reverse the trend.

But, I wonder if this development is in fact simply the realization that China will not fairly value its currency -- irrespective of what this may or may not do with respect to the U.S. trade deficit -- and that rather than waiting for a time that will not come, Japan has decided the country could wait no longer.

Consider the South Korean Won. South Korean exports compete directly with many Japanese exports, and South Korean exporters have historically looked at a 10 KRW : 1 JPY ratio as the level where South Korean exports would still remain competitive with Japanese exports. However, this changed in 2008 as the South Korean Won collapsed. (Its performance was the second worst that year after, well, Iceland's currency.) Since that time, rather than the South Korean Won tracking the performance of the Japanese Yen -- which it historically has, the currency now seems to be tracking the performance of, well, the Chinese Yuan. Until the just announced Yen Intervention, the currencies have been trading at about 14 KRW : 1 JPY. (The link to a chart is here.) The story seems to be the same with respect to the New Taiwanese Dollar (TWD). (The link to a chart is here.)

So, doesn't it seem to be the case that the Japanese have decided that the expense of waiting for the Chinese to revalue is just too great? In this sense, it's hard to be optimistic when it seems to be a capitulation on the part of the U.S. to Chinese mercantile practices, which in the process seems to have dragged the rest of East Asia along with Beijing. What will it take before the U.S. "takes action"? (By the way, in this sense, I miss President George W. Bush. His ability to "take decisive action" -- whatever the costs or logic may be -- seems to be ostensibly missing right now. (I think with respect to defense issues I'm a huge supporter of current U.S. policy of re-engaging the East Asia region, but I think this would be there regardless of who is in power. e.g. Consider the Guam naval buildup since 2006.)

Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands

Recently, it appears that Japan has taken into custody Chinese fishermen in disputed waters as Japan and both Chinas all claim a string of islands called the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands. The funny thing about these islands is that, well, after the Second World War -- or the second Sino-Japanese War -- they were first occupied by Americans not unlike the Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima), which Japan and both Koreas also claim as their own. This is East Asia...

I understand that North Korea and much of the rest of the world likes to say that Americans are a crazy nation that likes war, but I find it interesting in what America did with the "islands" when they were under U.S. control -- both became places that American planes would bomb. 

Anyways, Japan has recently released most of the fishermen except for its captain as, well...

BBC News: 

The fishing boat reportedly rammed Japanese coast guard patrol boats which had been trying to intercept it.

And, in another example of Beijing's respect for her East Asian neighbors, BBC News also reports:

On Sunday Chinese diplomat State Councillor Dai Bingguo warned Tokyo to make a "wise political decision" over the matter.

and

The Chinese foreign ministry said any evidence collected by Japan on the collision would be "illegal, invalid and in vain".

Of course, it's interesting to see this considering recent naval exercises in the region by the United States Navy and, of course, the magnanimous decision of the U.S. to facilitate territorial disputes between China and Vietnam. Maybe, the talks, if they ever materialize, could also include the Philippines, the other China (Taiwan), and maybe Japan as well, to make for new round(s) of six party talks. I'm sure they would have a better chance at arriving at a solution than those talks held in Beijing or even those talks of having the talks in the first place.

What's wrong with China? *edit*

edit: 08/30

I earlier alluded to Chinese currency manipulation and I guess I'm sharing why I feel so ambivalent about China.

But, by far, the  most troubling, worrisome, and, downright outrageous aspect seems to be how as the rest of the world is recovering from a great recession, China has turned to gloating over how it is now "China's turn" to lead the world rather than seeing how the absorption of the country's products and merchandise had and has lifted millions of her people out of absolute poverty or subsistence living standards . Rather than returning this assistance in kind -- and showing the rest of the world, what a rich and prosperous China is capable of, the Chinese government seems intent to shy away from helping these very same countries recover from a recession or even trading with these countries on fair terms. 

China earlier in the year agreed -- as the rest of the world was facing a slump in demand China's economy continued to be in double digits as  its "reserves" passed $2 trillion -- to slowly change the value of the Chinese Yuan. Well, if you think about it, this is by far the most egregious act that has China has committed. How can a country that is now the second largest economy and poised to be the largest exporter justify unfair trade advantages, especially with $2 trillion in "reserves." This is outrageous.

iMarketNews:

The yuan has seen increased volatility in the trading days since the PBOC's [People's Bank of China] June 19 pledge to increase exchange rate flexibility. The yuan has risen by 0.37% since that pledge was made.

I'm not quite sure how old the author of this article is, but for someone, who is still in his twenties, I've aged more than 0.37% over the past four months.

Anyways, the reason that I write about this is that, well, every article I read as of late has much to do with the ails of the economy, and there seems to be much in the realm of U.S. domestic politics and China that really, well, vexes me. 

There seems to be so many people out of the work force and for such a long period of time that it looks like it has become observable. I mean this is pretty alarming stuff. Consider that there are so many people out there that have gotten laid off or lost their jobs over the past couple of years and have not been able to find work for such a prolonged period that people can observe this as something beyond the anecdotal. and it may have brought about long term structural changes to the US economy (and along with it a lower potential economic prosperity for a long run -- maybe not the long run.)

But, what's more disconcerting is that there seems to be a strangely timed, but definitely newly found apprehension towards U.S. budget deficits in the far flung future. (One of the few sectors that seems to have added jobs as of late is the health care industry.) This newly found apprehension looks as if it will lead to a paralyzed federal government that will lack the ability to engage in any new policy initiative. I strongly believe there needs to be working majorities in both senses of the word, "working majorities" for something to be done, yet it seems the U.S. public has no appetite for this.

I guess a good example that captures my concerns is this entire mosque building issue. Why is this issue capturing so much attention in the press over what little attention and patience  a disappointed and  apathetic U.S. electorate has left. The issue seems to have crossed over from being a traditional debate over the role of the government and into one that is now being manipulated as a regular wedge issue. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve seems to have run out of its conventional tools to stimulate the economy and is looking a bit reluctant to use its more unconventional tools to stimulate the economy.

If the U.S. is facing problems at home, then it would be quite natural to look over and see what if her friends could help, say in the manner that U.S. leadership helped bring about export-led recoveries in East Asia in the aftermath of financial crisis in 1997-98 over there. Currently, with Europe being well Europe, I mean this in a way as in pretty undependable, and aside from super loyal Japan, there pretty much is only one large economy remaining -- booming China. By the way, India doesn't really count yet. But, this remarkable contrast between a booming China with $2 trillion in "reserves" refusing to abandon its currency manipulation techniques is just unacceptable. I mean something needs to be done. 

Now, I'd think it might be a bit disrespectful to not credit Chinese people for continuing to develop their country, but for some time now, the U.S. and the West wholeheartedly embraced China that made much of what China has achieved possible. China has about $2 trillion in "reserves" for lack of a better word, I guess. So, this is where I'm coming from when I earlier said the "most troubling, worrisome, and, downright outrageous" development in China is its refusal to take on any responsibility even to the point of abandoning an unfair trade advantage as its economy is booming. 

Now, I'm a believer in that countries don't treat each other in the manner that people have come to treat each other and it is within this sense that I think China is doing something that is simply against her interests. Economic benefits notwithstanding, I think China's single-minded quest to be a superpower at all costs is creating enemies. For example, returns on investment from government spending on defense seems to be added insecurity for not only the country --a la czarist Russia or the Soviet Union-- but also for the rest of the world. China seems to think good will  only comes from soft power, which comes from investing in English-language 24 hour cable news networks, but I beg to differ.

Dexter Roberts:

Lydia Wang, a 28-year-old marketing manager in Shanghai, gripes that the shoes and clothing she normally buys are at least 50 percent pricier than in 2009. Wu Sengyun, a 54-year-old retiree living in the coastal city of Ningbo, Zhejiang, says prices of fruit and fish are both up more than 20 percent. Willy Lin has cut back on serving free drumsticks in the canteen of his Jiangxi clothing factory as meat and vegetable prices climb. "The workers suffer," he says. "Everybody is crying."

Officially, China's consumer price inflation topped out at 3.3 percent in July from the year before—a 21-month high. The government says the spike is a one-off caused by crop damage in recent flooding. Other costs, they say, such as cars, mobile-phone bills, and clothing, are actually falling, and price increases should slow as the economy cools. At an Aug. 12 press conference, Pan Jiancheng, a deputy director in the statistics bureau, announced that the inflationary threat was "overhyped."

Many consumers, investors, analysts, and academics disagree.

[...]

Why does China need super cheap money right now? Exporting inflation would make China very popular, I bet, though I think it's just doing what it should have started on a long, long time ago.

Anyways, $2 trillion in "reserve" with 10% growth rates and still the need to engage in mercantile practices, it's quite vexing...

Note: I know today is the 100 year "anniversary" of Japanese annexation of Korea, but hey, this is what's on my mind right now.

Exaggerating the China "Threat"

The Economist seems to have a couple articles that talks up the idea of China taking over the world as China recently surpassed Japan as the world's second largest economy in nominal terms. One of the articles suggests that China is by many measures the world's largest economy, such as by annual sales of passenger cars, and alludes to a time when the British Empire was in relative decline. But, I might suggest that this is a bit of a stretch. The British Empire, before the aggregate size of its economy was overtaken, was already being surpassed by the United States in industrial technology and Germany was pioneering a brand new industry, petrochemicals.

We no longer live in a world where countries are compared by its annual pig-iron output or by railway mileage. It's easy to acquire, mimic, and improve upon already existing technologies, but for a country to drive innovation is not easy. France, with its blotched Internet initiative and Japan with its blotched supercomputer initiative come to mind here. In the 21st century, I would like to suggest that the technological gap between the West and China/India is so vast that such comparisons may not be directly applicable. If the developed world were ever to engage in a land war with China somehow, then I believe the comparisons might be a bit more substantive in its content. 

Disclaimer: This post is of course a very American-centric view. If I were to say live on the Korean Peninsula or live in a country that borders China, or even on one of the islands that naturally encircle China, then China's astronomical rise in industrial output matched by astronomical rises in military spending, then my perspective may be not be as relaxed.

Refuting the absurdity behind claims of the U.S. "raising tensions" in East Asia

Xinhua:  

The United States seems to be flexing its military muscles in Northeast Asia and the South China Sea for some time now, especially after the sinking of the Republic of Korea's (ROK) corvette, Cheonan, on March 26.

The United States -- and the author of this post -- do not have anything against the Chinese. It is a good thing that hundreds of millions of Chinese have been lifted out of poverty in large part due to the embrace of Communist China by the western world. However, along with this embrace comes the responsibility or expectation that China will soon thereafter become a responsible member of the world community.

China, often critical of past Japanese aggressions, seems to be moving towards a fascist, xenophobic, and ultra-nationalistic state herself. While China is technically "communist," one needs to look no further than North Korea, which has removed all references to communism in its constitution and has put a military first (선군) regime in its place, to see what communism has come to mean in Northeast Asia.

By the way, how does a country go from being a revolutionary communist regime to a hereditary fascist country in half a century. It seems that North Korea has gone so far to the left it emerged back to the far right? (I should reference B.R. Meyers here as I believe I read an interview somewhere where rather than North Korean politics being defined along a singular political spectrum stretching from right to left, it was described in a circular fashion. I may be wrong on the source here.)

But, anyways, to the meat of the argument, as China becomes more prosperous, the country should understand that the rest of the world embraced China not just to make a quick dollar or two, but also to assuage Chinese concerns that the west was out to prevent "China's rise." This argument was often used to support China's entry into the WTO. Since that time it is not hard, though it is hardly reported, as to how far China has deviated from these expectations. China's obstinate attitude towards global climate change, indifference towards terrorism in Afghanistan, and unwillingness to take a position against North Korea's murder of South Korean sailors for the sake of "stability" does bode well for seeing China to be a responsible country that respects her neighbors, let alone take on a position of world or even regional leadership. 

In particular, China's embrace of Myanmar's (Burma) brutal military dictatorship just to secure a port so that one day the country may be able to compete with India and the United States  militarily (or to secure its shipping lanes against a threat that does not exist) is outright ridiculous considering the extent to which China has prospered up until now. The extent to how absurd this is can be seen by how the world's largest democracy, India, has come now to embrace the military dictatorship in Myanmar (Burma) out of fears that the country will soon become a port for Chinese (eople's Liberation Army's Navy ships off India's borders. China's rising military spending is also raising concerns (and probably creating enemies) as its smaller neighbors nervously look on as China becomes ever richer and ever stronger. Furthermore, the Chinese also "invaded" the Spratly islands and regularly harasses firms that do business with other countries. 

But, by far, the  most troubling, worrisome, and, downright, outrageous aspect seems to be how as the rest of the world is recovering from a great recession, China has turned to gloating over how it is now "China's turn" to lead the world rather than seeing how the absorption of the country's products and merchandise had and has lifted millions of her people out of absolute poverty or subsistence living standards . Rather than returning this assistance in kind -- and showing the rest of the world, what a rich and prosperous China is capable of, the Chinese government seems intent to shy away from helping these very same countries recover from a recession or even trading with these countries on fair terms.

It is within this light that the military exercises in East Asia by the United States should be seen. The United States is not a belligerent that is out to get China, but when a country systematically ignores and disrespects the wishes of her much, much smaller neighbors and spends undisclosed sums on a naval military buildup that seems to serve no other purpose than to one day challenge or confront the United States, then it is no wonder that the United States will regularly send spy ships right outside Chinese territorial waters. (In contrast, the Chinese do not seem to respect the right of South Korea to stage military exercises to ostensibly demonstrate that North Korean provocations are not acceptable.) 

I downright reject the notion that the United States is raising tensions in East Asia. What is worrisome is that these types of "news" stories articulate a position that is flat wrong and is an extension of the propaganda arms of either governments, such as China, or, perhaps, the left in a divided country. It is no wonder that countries, such as South Korea and Vietnam, which both share deep cultural affinities with China are hedging their bets. China will not receive the respect the country wishes  or feels it deserves until it shows that same amount of respect back, including to countries that would naturally fall under its cultural and economic "sphere of influence."

[US Returns to Asia] Now, the Spratly Islands...

I have often said that the "Obama Doctrine" has finally brought the United States to a more, normal, say rational foreign policy. The previous administration was so preoccupied with Iraq that the country ignored some of the more pressing issues going on in the rest of the world and in particular to East Asia and China. However, the more I see of what the current administration is doing in East Asia, I am

In a New York Times article, "Offering to Aid Talks, U.S. Challenges China on Disputed Islands,Mark Landler writes:

Opening a new source of potential friction with China, the Obama administration said Friday that it would step into a tangled dispute between China and its smaller Asian neighbors over a string of strategically significant islands in the South China Sea.

The United States is again internationalizing an issue that is causing China discomfort. While China, as the article goes on to say, regards the South China Sea to be a "core interest" of sovereignty, so does the United States for a number of reasons. First, as a giant continental island nation, the United States also has a "core interest." The article continues:

“The United States has a national interest in freedom of navigation, open access to Asia’s maritime commons and respect for international law in the South China Sea,” Mrs. Clinton said. 

Of course, at the same time, the United States provides protection to China's "[much, much] smaller Asian neighbors, it's another pressure point on China. And, while the article does not say this, it completes the encirclement of China's east coast from Okinawa down to Taiwan and, of course, through the South China Sea. I think for far too long China has given China a free pass even as the United States has shown good faith to China by wholeheartedly accepting Communist China into the international community, such as the WTO. It seems the administration's strategy is to support the position of China's smaller neighbors and internationalize the issue where ever and whenever possible. 

The announcement was a significant victory for the Vietnamese, who have had deadly clashes in past decades with China over some of the islands. Vietnam’s strategy has been to try to “internationalize” the disputes by bringing in other players for multilateral negotiations. 

Of course, there is no player other than the United States in East Asia that would be willing to take on China . (This does, however, need to be put in context of the US-China relationship now being about more than a single or a couple or even three issues.) Imagine if the U.S. wasn't around in East Asia. All of Asia would be swallowed whole by Chinese interests.

And, it seems that military exercises in Northeast Asia have also begun (more on this shortly).

[A Paradox or Mere Contradiction?] Korean Economic Dependence with China, but Security Reliance with the United States

Joshua Stanton:

I certainly do not suggest that Peter Lee speaks for Beijing, but I do suppose his writing probably reflects the way Beijing hopes to use this incident to advance its hegemonic ambitions and divert its suppressed domestic rage toward foreign demons.

But, in Peter Lee's lenghty article's, he goes on to write that the U.S. decision to support South Korea in the Cheonan incident was in part a response to Japanese efforts to move the U.S. base off of Okinawa. He goes on further to write that "it encouraged Lee's ambitions to boost South Korea's global profile, arranging for the Group of 20 Summit and 2011 Nuclear Security Summit to be held in Seoul." U.S. President Barak Obama also pledged to support the KORUS free trade pact that was signed during the last administration and which has yet to be ratified by the Senate -- both President Barak Obama and Secretary Hillary Clinton had reservations against KORUS in the last presidential campaign race. 

Nonetheless, there's also another aspect of this article that I find to be interesting at least with respect to a certain state owned Chinese publication. 

I previously wrote about how the People's Daily Online -- a Chinese state owned newspaper -- fabricated claims about a fictitious South Korean Professor's research and a South Korean agenda to register Chinese script as a Korean cultural treasure. Well, interestingly enough, Peter Lee documents the several "other" times this publication has lapsed into questionable journalistic practices.

In an indication of the convoluted path of content across the Chinese Internet, the People's Daily English-language post was an uncredited cut-and-paste of an EastSouthWestNorth (ESWN) post.

Apparently, the publication also published pictures of a bombed U.S. aircraft carrier before it retracted it. 

However, with respect to the main aspect of Peter Lee's article, he suggests that increasing South Korean economic dependence on China makes it difficult for South Korea to remain dependent on the United States for security. And, I believe this is what Joshua Stanton was addressing when he writes that he "suppose[s] his writing probably reflects the way Beijing hopes to use this incident [...]" 

However, it hasn't really yet been shown whether China can effectively transfer economic ties into political leverage-- I'd say consider Scott Snyder's book, China's Rise and the Two Koreas: Politics, Economics, Security. This seems to be true for both halves of the peninsula, but it remains to be seen if this will continue to hold, even as South Korean trade with China now is greater than combined trade figures with the United States and Japan and North Korea is kept on life support by China. 

Still, even as China keeps North Korea afloat, China doesn't really have that much leverage with North Korea. 

Andrei Lankov writes:

A senior South Korean diplomat described this problem in a private conversation by a good allegory: "China does not have leverage when it comes to dealing with the North. What China has is a hammer."

An Update to the Cheonan Saga

It seems everything that I was advocating has happened and I'm delighted.

South Korean President Lee Myung Bak internationalized the issue to the point, where North Korea is now talking to the UN -- rather than South Korea -- about the Cheonan incident, a token UN resolution has been passed (more token it could not be), and it appears U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is again headed over to Seoul -- this time before heading to the ASEAN gathering.

This was almost exactly what I had been advocating since the beginning of the Cheonan incident. With a token slap of sanctions against North Korea, an opportunistic United States can take advantage of this situation -- I personally see a strong US-ROK alliance to be in the long term best interests of South Korea -- to strengthen US-ROK ties (again, here, there is the recent announcement by U.S. President Barak Obama in Toronto to look into the stalled KORUS FTA -- the only substantive policy change I had hoped this Cheonan incident would help foster -- and to agree to extend the deadline of wartime leadership of South Korean forces to South Korea to until 2015), use this incident by South Korean President Lee Myung Bak to marginalize Chinese regional leadership in front of at least the eyes of South Koreans, and, of course, to not really take any real punitive measures against North Korea -- which, hopefully, will crumble on her own accord shortly.

Pretty much, thanks to a foolish North Korean excursion and Chinese indecisiveness, the United States position has strengthened considerably in the region with no cost to the United States whatsoever. There is even continued talk of a U.S. aircraft carrier heading to the Yellow Sea, which while I have stated to be quite amusing, I find to be an amazing event in and of itself and shows exactly to what extent South Korea's internationalizing of the issue has brought about. China wants six party talks again...

This should put China on notice: it seems incredibly ironic that rather than China unleashing North Korea on South Korea/U.S., this incident has been more of the United States unleashing South Korea against North Korea. (Consider the rare nervous press release given by the North Korean military).

So, what now?

The narrative of the Cheonan is not quite yet over. Now, I think we wait until the U.S.S. George Washington arrives in the Yellow Sea/East Sea (of China) and read Chinese state run editorials stammering away helplessly -- while understanding that they must be privately fuming at North Korea. We watch to see what will come of the KORUS FTA and, of course, the joint press release that will be given when the U.S. Secretary of State pays a visit to one of the United States allies in the region.

And, of course, we should give credit where credit is due -- to South Korean President Lee Myung Bak and U.S. President Barak Obama for capitalizing perfectly on very poor decisions on the part of North Korea and the lack of any decision on the part of China. It seems China is quick to ask the rest of the world to recognize the changing economic balance of power in Asia, but China is even slower to to recognize the tectonic shift in not only the military and economic, but political balance of power on the Korean Peninsula.

Note: On a side note, is anybody else following how amazing the South Korean economy seems to performing? It appears the highly export dependent economy has grown over 7% in the first half of this year -- which makes it look as if South Korean President has fulfilled his election campaign promises (kind of).

Disclaimer: I write this posting comfortably thousands of miles away from the DMZ or the Korean Peninsula in California.

[A Rising South Korea] The Cheonan Saga Continues...

I've been following this Cheonan story for quite some time now and I wrote about how funny I thought it would be that a U.S. aircraft carrier would be going to the Yellow Sea. Well, the story seems to be quite true and just keeps getting more and more interesting.

Christopher Bodeen of the AP:

"The U.S. is directly threatening China by sailing an aircraft carrier into the Yellow Sea," wrote defense blogger Brother Guangdong on the Western Military Affairs site. "China must respond firmly and show the American imperialists we won't be pushed around."

I think this Chinese Blogger is a bit confused. China should respond firmly and show the Americans by taming North Korea rather than attempting to slug it out with a giant nuclear powered U.S. aircraft carrier, a nuclear submarine, and destroyer off the Chinese coast. But, there's more...

China's Foreign Ministry this week registered its concerns that the drills could prompt further rash behavior from North Korea's isolated and erratic communist regime.

North Korea will -- as a direct result -- of the U.S. naval deployment be essentially tamed by Communist China for the forseeable future. This is not because North Korea is scared of a U.S. military attack, but because North Koreans do not want to further upset the -- already furious -- Chinese by attracting another aircraft carrier to the coast of China. Beijing is a lot closer from North Korean than Taiwan -- just consider the Korean War. So, this essentially negates the arguments of blind Chinese nationalists as well as the South Korean left.

By the way, why is it that those on the South Korean left label themselves as "progressive." It is a ridiculously Korean English term, not unlike, say, "Netizens" which really hasn't caught on in the rest of the world. It would be best to label South Korean liberals as well liberals -- though the term Socialists is a good fit for those on the left in the South Korean political spectrum. Progressive in a way implies that, well, those that are not progressive thinkers haven't learned something yet.  It seems so condescending to those that might disagree with these "progressive" thinkers. To me though, the word, progressive reminds me of an insurance company or Teddy Roosevelt a century ago.  

Anyways, back to how the Chinese are directy anger at U.S. "imperialists..."

People's Daily Online (yes, this is the newspaper -- 人民日報社 that reported that a non-existant South Korean professor was going to register Chinese script as a Korean cultural treasure):

No one would allow its competitor with guns in hand to wander in front of their home or keep a close watch staring through their windows, and the American would not too.

[...]

The United States should make people feel that the U.S. military presence in this region is peaceful and necessary, not vice versa.

I'm pretty sure that it was Chinese inaction that led to this military exercise and I'm quite sure the South Korean and Japanese governments feel a lot more comfortable that there is a friend that can stand up to China.

Furthermore, the United States needs to take into account these countries' moods if it wants to become a peacemaker, not a troublemaker. Otherwise, the United States will have difficulties in staying in the region for a long time and its interests here will be difficult to effectively protect.

China never considers the United States an enemy, but the United States should show necessary respect to China. The provocative military drill will only lead to the accumulation of resentment against the United States in the hearts of Chinese people and the United States will inevitably be regarded as a threat.

Again, China seems to only respect force or strength. If South Korea had nuclear weapons and a dozen aircraft carriers, then I'm sure the Chinese would've respected the lives of the South Korean sailors.

Anyways, not too long ago, the rest of the world believed China had some leverage over North Korea and could control the "isolated" and "erratic" regime. Specially appointed diplomats from the United States, South Korea, and Japan among other nations would even go to Beijing and play along in this facade by paying tribute -- attending the Six Party Talks. In exchange, it was believed that China would and could control North Korea -- or if the United States was upsetting the Chinese -- unleash North Korea on South Korea. But, this is no longer the case...

The Cheonan incident -- along with a very nicely played hand by both South Korean President Lee Myung Bak and U.S. President Barak Obama, has single-handledly demonstrated how incapable the Chinese were of controlling North Korea. The incident as mentioned in earlier postings has strengthened the U.S-South Korea alliance, US-Japan alliance, and encouraged better bilateral ties between Japan and South Korea. Furthermore and perhaps most importantly, it has shown the world how little leverage Communist China has over a country that she is basically keeping on life support -- not to mention how much resentment this must breed amongst North Koreans.

Moreover, the United States has also -- finally -- agreed to extend the handover of wartime control to South Korea from 2012 to 2015. (This was first negotiated out of a misguided belief on the part of the late South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun, who believed South Korea might be able to become a regional power or -- the more nonsensical idea of a playing a "balancing" role in Northeast Asia --  before unification had even taken place.) Of course, what Roh Moo Hyun did not understand is that the "balancing" role is precisely what the United States is doing right now by sending none other than a U.S.S. George Washington to waters off the coast of China. The United States is sending China a crystal clear message to China that this is what exactly could occur if the Chinese are incapable of controlling North Korea. And, thanks to North Korea, there seems there will once again be fireworks on July 4th -- no longer North Korean missiles as twice before -- but a nice exercise by the Chinese navy.

(Plus, of course, it's also a nice way to send back a reply to the Chinese military snubbing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates when about a two hundred strong U.S. delegation visited China.)

Nonetheless, I find the ongoing Cheonan saga quite comical as it's gone from an incident that wasn't first highly publicized to one that has led to a U.S. aircraft carrier that will soon kiss the coasts of China in an exercise that is -- of course -- aimed at North Korea, and, which if you really think about, it really is.

[North Korea] Perhaps Financial Sanctions on North Korea Might Not Be Such A Good Idea Right Now...

Apparently, the United States, according to Josh Stanton, is once again considering imposing financial sanctions on North Korea, which is arguably the most potent weapon that the United States has against North Korea. But, while I thought these sanctions to be a good idea under the Bush administration, I think the situation in North Korea has changed sufficiently enough that it might as well be a good time to consider holding off on such sanctions and instead just deflect the issue (North Korea) to China -- by sending a 97,000 ton U.S. aircraft carrier to the Yellow Sea. I had earlier commented this would probably be one funny development and which The Washington Post reports might actually turn out to be a reality shortly. 

Anyways, North Korea is once again experiencing widespread food shortages again and Kim Jong Il is preoccupied with concerns of succession and domestic stability. Moreover, consider that the country has ditched any pretense of being a Communist country, by making changes in the regime's constitution, and, much more recently, has fully and formally absolved any rules that make market activity illegal in an effort to stave off starvation. So, clearly the country is bankrupt both ideologically and materially. Why press for further substantive sanctions now?

And, while it might seem at times that I am all for unification at all costs, I think the U.S. has more pressing issues at the moment, which unfortunately look far more important than Korean unification -- which itself the South Korean people are not yet ready for. For example, Iran's nuclear weapons program, finding a global consensus on ways to amend the world's financial system, and the on-going war in Afghanistan -- which the South Korean government refuses to aid on a substantive basis not unlike South Korea's "heroic" troop deployment to the peaceful Kurdish regions in Iraq -- seem far more important. I would also add a flexible Chinese currency regime in here as well, which China seems to have budged on even with the crisis in Europe. Probably the best course of action that's in the best interests of the United States would be to once again overlook the transgressions of the worst regime in the history of the world. Of course, it looks like this is actually in the best interests of the five remaining parties not inclusive of North Koreans, of course.

I mean is it not China's duty at the moment to ensure that North Korea does not torpedo another South Korean boat? So, along with token sanctions that have been extended for another year very recently by the U.S., a 97,000 ton aircraft carrier in the Yellow Sea will send a crystal clear message to China about what is exactly at stake when China is unable to actually rein in North Korea. Simply, North Korea doesn't want war and I don't think the country will be stupid enough to incite another incident out of fear for China's wrath when China is fuming at the country that there is a giant aircraft carrier parked near China's capital and less so out of a North Korean belief  that the U.S. will actually bomb or invade North Korea. So, for the time being, as it is increasingly clear that North Korea is both a financially and ideologically bankrupt regime, it would be best to deflect the matter to China -- which means maintaining the status quo for the time being and, yes, millions of Koreans suffering and starving -- while the rest of the world waits to see how the succession issue plays out.

Of course, if people were willing to die for starving North Koreans -- as well as a united Korean peninsula, then it would be an entirely different situation as it would present additional options. However, this is just not the case and unlike the past two decades it looks like the DPRK might soon implode on its own accord.

[A Rising South Korea] Who would've thought the sinking of the Cheonan would bring...

... a 97,000-ton aircraft carrier to the Yellow Sea...

I find this story hilarious for a number of reasons --  (map below). But, the underlying message here would be that China can utter a few words of measured regret, yet try and maintain an equidistant or "neutral" stance on the Korean peninsula, but the United States can offer a 97,000 ton aircraft carrier to South Korea in support. Also, Communist China only seems to pay attention to hard power as they admonish North Korea only when they kill Chinese citizens -- recently, 3 Chinese smugglers were killed by North Korean border guards -- and only begin to really start paying attention when a 97,000-ton aircraft carrier is about to be parked off Beijing and Shanghai. That's the serious part I guess, but, I just find this story so terribly funny...

In a Chosun Ilbo article entitled, "Keep U.S. Aircraft Carrier Out of Our Backyard, China Warns:"

A state-run Chinese newspaper on Tuesday criticized the South Korean government for allowing the 97,000-ton aircraft carrier George Washington of the U.S. Navy's Seventh Fleet to join South Korea-U.S. military training scheduled late this month.

In an editorial, Global News wrote the West Sea "is in proximity to China's political hub of Beijing and Tianjin. If a U.S. aircraft carrier comes into the West Sea, mainland China falls under the military strategic influence of U.S. military forces. The people of China will not accept South Korea having military demonstration involving a U.S. aircraft carrier."

There are a couple things that I find incredibly funny about this article, but, first, I should digress. What is the West Sea?

 

Koreans are a funny lot. Like the Japanese, Koreans are very ethnocentric. (Of course, for reasons why I would again repeat the mantra of a long history of a single people without an ethnic minority or sense of other). But, anyways, the waters to the west of the Korean Peninsula, known to the rest of the world as the Yellow Sea is also called the Yellow Sea in Korean, but is used interchangeably with the name, the "West Sea" -- 황해/서해. Of course, Japan gets less deference as, well, the waters to the east of Korea are always referred in Korean as the East Sea (of Korea) rather than the Sea of Japan. 

Note: Of course, there are historical factors that play into this... but anyways...

 

I'm in no way trying to diminish the legitimacy of the name East Sea (of Korea), but, rather just, pointing out the difference in the way Korea has traditionally treated Japan and China. (Japan as a peer and China, well, not so much so). But anyways, I guess along with increasing tensions against China comes, perhaps, a new found need to call the Yellow Sea by its proper name. (By the way, there's a province in the central part of western North Korea called the Yellow Sea Province). Of course, I might be reading too much into this... But, this is Northeast Asia... 

 

But anyways, I  wrote just yesterday that I was pleased with the new "Obama doctrine" of pragmatism. Well, to fully appreciate this story, we should first take a look at a map (Source: University of Texas).

 

If you examine the map, right to the south of the most western part of North Korea, is a few islands that are controlled by South Korea. That is where naval clashes between North and South Korea have occurred, the Cheonan sank, and where a 97,000 ton U.S. aircraft carrier may soon be headed.

 

Now, if you look at the map, look how close China is -- particularly Beijing and Shanghai; it is pretty understandable why China would be so upset. It's like having a Chinese aircraft carrier -- if they had one as well as a base in say Greenland or Cuba -- and they were to say hold "exercises" off Washington, D.C. or New York...

Now, I'm sure there are some in South Korea that think Lee Myung Bak used the incident for personal gain -- perhaps even in agreement with North Korea for those that are more cynical, but having a giant aircraft carrier off the coast of China is something that seems a lot more convincing to China than any amount of evidence that may be collected against North Korea. Of course, if there is talk of China looking rather feeble, this seems to make China look like a laughing stock... But, of course, this leads directly into whether if China actually respected the deaths of innocent South Korean sailors, perhaps such a show of force would not be necessary...

As counter-intuitive as this may sound, this is definitely a more pragmatic U.S. foreign policy.

I find it absolutely hilarious though that there is talk of an aircraft carrier headed to the Yellow Sea now -- the last time the U.S. sent aircraft carriers so close to China in a show of force, they sent them to the Taiwan Strait, but this is a lot closer to home (Beijing, Shanghai)... Who would've thought that, well, the sinking of the Cheonan would lead to this...

[Correcting Gibberish from the Los Angeles Times Again] Re: Sinking of ship provides welcome distraction for North Korea *update3*

Edit: For clarity and readability...
Edit 3: Overlooked the political agenda of the article

I wrote before that blogs are useful for dissecting editorials -- particularly terrible editorials -- and that most editorials on North Korea can be summed up in a couple sentences. Well, this is one of them and a particularly dangerous one as the author has a couple award winning books with a deliberate political agenda. A welcome distraction?! How on earth can we know it's a welcome distraction... But, it's worse than that... Let's take a look...

Barbara Demick, author of the award winning book, Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea and current Beijing Bureau Chief of the Los Angeles Times writes:

"This will distract people from their troubles," said Cho Myong-chol, a Pyongyang-born economist and son of a former North Korean minister. Cho, who now lives in Seoul, doesn't believe that Kim was intimately involved in the attack.

"It is more likely that a local naval commander did it, but there could be some short-term benefit," Cho said. "In the long run, of course, it will only make their problems worse."

In an assessment released last week based on intelligence reports, the Washington-based International Strategic Studies Assn. concluded, "Kim Jong Il was so far winning the Cheonan incident he had instigated."

The big loser has been South Korea's conservative ruling party, which was trounced in local elections Thursday. The Grand National Party had hoped that outrage over the Cheonan would boost its popularity; instead the electorate appeared to be more concerned that President Lee Myung-bak was exploiting the incident with his hard-line stand toward North Korea. Results of an investigation of the sinking were not released until May 20, two weeks before the election.

Let me begin...this editorial is taking the position that like in the past, a North Korean provocation has been used to the country's advantage -- some how without the knowledge of Kim Jong Il. They have done They have been successful by diverting domestic attention away from their economic plight and also by affecting local elections in South Korea....

The editorial suggests that average North Koreans are hurting -- the title of the editorial is "Sinking of ship provides welcome distraction for North Korea" and that Kim Jong Il is winning. What makes this article more dangerous after re-reading it is that she won an award for writing a book as an investigative reporter on the human rights situation in North Korea -- after writing a book about the human rights situation in the Balkans. So, in effect, she is in effect implying that the current right of center ruling party in South Korea is responsible for the suffering of average North Koreans, allowing the North Korean leadership to take advantage of the situation, and sacrificing South Korea's best interests (as Kim Jong Il is "winning"). And, moreover, the South Korean government is doing all this to further their own political interests, which is pretty much an outright lie if you consider what is going on in South Korea...

This is flat wrong. And, North Korea will receive no further aid. China is also furious at North Korea. And, let's not forget that the author mentions a report that says  "Kim Jong Il is winning the incident that he instigated," but --  in the same editorial -- refers to conclusions from an economist who says its probably the work of a "local naval commander." From the inherent contradiction here in sources, this should serve to show that the author is basically picking and choosing which sources to cite to backup her "argument".

While I have nothing against the book -- which I have yet to read and of which I have heard nothing but praise, the author here makes a sweeping and rather incorrect generalization that either borders on naivete or very lazy and perhaps even dishonest journalism. I'd like to believe it's out of naivete. Let's begin by looking at how it should read:

First of all, Cho Myong-Chol like many other North Koreans are quick to pass blame on anybody, but Kim Jong Il. (This view is even prevalent among North Korean defectors and is very similar to revisionist looks at the role of the Japanese Emperor during World War II.) And, this economist apparently believes North Koreans will somehow forget about hunger and hyperinflation -- which may be the single biggest threat to the stability of the DPRK regime with markets in North Korea playing a larger role now in the DPRK economy just by speaking of going to war again. The currency reform fiasco has well at least led to a governmental apology, the alleged execution of the individual that was apparently in charge of the currency reforms, and, well, actual backtracking on the reforms. Moreover, recent studies suggest North Koreans blame their economic plight on not the United States or Japan or global factors, but failed DPRK policies and to an extent China. (Blaming China is from one of the K-blogs linked from my blog; I'm sorry I cant remember the exact post, but the report of a North Korean speaker saying something along the lines of "I understand why the US & South Korea won't help us, but aren't the Chinese our allies...") 

But, moreover, I find it highly improbable in a country where if you look at some of the press releases of past six-party talks and transcripts of interviews of those involved in the six-party talks, where all aspects of the North Korean negotiation agenda tactics is handed are -- to the frustration of other parties at the six-talks -- were handed down directly from Pyongyang, that this could have happened without Kim Jong Il's approval. Now, with that said, I am not the only one who believes the sinking of the Cheonan was done without the approval from Kim Jong Il and there are many North Korean experts, such as Andrei Lankov, who feel the same way. (Also, the study cited in the editorial itself.) Now, just by reading this article in the Los Angeles Times, it makes it look as Cho Myong-Chol knows or that there is some type of agreement in that a local commander ordered the attacks without Kim Jong Il's knowledge... But, most importantly, when discussing North Korea -- nobody can actually know for sure and this view is actually a minority view among North Korean observers, experts, and the like...

Second, the author writes "the big loser is the GNP" -- the ruling, right of center political party in South Korea. Again, this is a sweeping generalization and it overlooks who is actually the big loser here -- China and, by extension, North Korea. I think while there is some sense in South Korea that Lee Myung Bak has used this for his political gain, which may be true, the Cheonan fiasco basically forced North Korea and China into a corner. I would not think too much about how the "GNP was trounced." North Korea will get hit by some symbolic slap on the wrist, but they will not get any further aid and I find it highly improbable that this will result in North Korea actually getting more aid from South Korea. In fact, if anything it looks like North Korea will get back only some of the aid South Korea took away as a result of the fiasco.

The incident has also solidified the US-ROK alliance, US-Japan alliance, and also encouraged better ties between South Korea and Japan -- all of which, is not in the interests of China. Furthermore, it has created an uproar against China for her two-Korea policy and basically makes the giant country look hostage -- which it pretty much is -- to North Korea and also made China's six-party talks a farce. I bet many minds in China are weighing the continuing costs of supporting the regime -- which I'm fairly sure China is currently doing with great hesitation and only at the bare minimum level to avert a DPRK regime collapse.

Again, we have no idea that North Koreans actually believe they are about to go to war with South Korea, but the editorial makes it sound like it's a fact. And, what's worse is that the author is not only spreading misinformation on a topic she seems to poorly understand, but that the editorial doesn't even seem to actually put forward an agenda or a real argument. It's just gibberish dishonest.

Add:
Also, South Korea's ruling GNP right of center political party suffered losses in many parts of the country in largely mayoral races -- not inclusive of Seoul I believe, but why on earth is there an article like this in the Los Angeles Times? I mean, if it were it in Hankyoreh-rubbish I would understand, but it's pretty clear that South Korea -- by internationalizing the issue -- singlehandley strengthened the US-South Korea Alliance, US-Japan Alliance, and Japan-South Korea ties. Furthermore, China has become enraged at North Korea and Kim Jong Il "winning" would mean a successful succession which I doubt that this incident has furthered. I'm not sure if the author is deliberately doing this, but it looks pretty damn deliberate and while she may be an investigative reportor of human rights situations in the more exotic places in the world, I wonder why she would deliberately dive in South Korean politics.  

[A Rising South Korea] Apparently Mainstream Media Outlets Have Picked Up on The Story...*edit*

Note: It seems that recent articles on The Economist almost exactly corroborates what I have been writing about this entire time and takes the exact same position I have been taking up until now when I first discussed the possibility of a DPRK regime collpase and the major powers waiting out Kim Jong Il on March 25th, 2010.

Edit: 5/31

It seems many others are picking up on what is going on in North Korea, including mainstream publications such as The Economist now. I mentioned earlier that China is "looking rather feeble" these days, but The Economist goes one step further:

They [the Chinese] presumably fear jeopardising the stability of their renegade ally. But that is not just feeble, it is silly.

The Chinese are indeed continuing to look rather feeble:

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has steered clear of public discussion of North Korea’s role in the sinking since he arrived in South Korea yesterday. In contrast, Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama today paid his respects at a cemetery where the 46 sailors who died in the sinking are buried, before flying to the resort island of Jeju for the two-day summit. There he said he would back any South Korean move to take the case to the United Nations Security Council.

[...]

The U.S. is joining South Korea in blaming North Korea for the sinking to “put China into an awkward position and keep hold on Japan and South Korea as its servants,” KCNA [North Korea] said.

I've been arguing the whole time South Korea has been in the driver's seat by internationalizing the issue, hence the reason why I preface these posts with "A Rising South Korea." Moreover, the rare press conference from the North Korea army seems that China must be furious at North Korea right now. This is happening not because South Korea is being held as a U.S. servant, but because of South Korean President Lee Myung Bak's handling of the issue.  

Moreover, I have been arguing against the Sunshine Policy for quite some time now as one of its supposed premises -- to bridge the income gap with North Korea for eventual unification -- has been flat wrong as the gap has only widened and continues to widen since the Sunshine Policy has taken hold -- in both absolute and relative terms. Well, it seems The Economist has a nice graph on that as well. 

And, it seems I should put a retraction here -- apparently China committed a pretty serious faux pas on their own by not notifying South Korean President Lee Myung Bak while he was in China...

Nonetheless, apparently there's a new study out by Bonnie S. Glaser and Scott Snyder that The Economist mentions. The link to the pdf file is here. I plan on giving it a full read through shortly, but as it details the potential consequences of what a North Korean collapse might lead to I'd suggest the Chinese government should give it a thorough read and perhaps reconsider what they are doing.

[A Rising South Korea] More on the handling of the Cheonan disaster/fiasco

When thinking of the Cheonan disaster/fiasco, probably a couple things that some people might think include whether the whole thing is a conspiracy -- as in why would North Korea do something so self-destructive and it seems to extremeley convenient for the Japanese  Prime Minister to renege on his campaign promises of moving U.S. bases off Okinawa-- and, also, whether South Korea unlike during previous administration has been doing the right thing by internationalizing the incident. But, of course, there is the evidence conducted by experts from South Korea, the United States, Japan, Australia -- and Sweden. (I wonder if they chose Sweden out of their expertise or because the name is not too different from Switzerland.)

Anyways, consider the recent announcement of combined U.S. - ROK naval exercises.

Peter Grier:

US-South Korean naval exercises tend to be smaller scale. Last week, the US cancelled a previously scheduled annual event called “Courageous Channel,” a naval exercise intended to practice the evacuation of noncombatants from the Korean peninsula. At the time, US military officials said that they did not want North Korea to think that the exercise, set to run from May 20-24, was a response to the Cheonan incident.

Now the US apparently wants to make the opposite impression, by announcing naval exercises billed as a direct response to the Cheonan’s sinking. According to a White House statement, President Obama has ordered his military commanders to coordinate closely with South Korea “to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression” by North Korea.

But, anyways, back to earlier posts, it's interesting to see the stark difference between what the U.S. is saying and what China is not saying.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

I will be discussing these issues with my counterparts in Beijing next week, and then I will travel to Seoul, to consult with our South Korean partners about the way forward. But let me be clear. This will not be and cannot be business as usual. There must be an international -- not just a regional, but an international -- response (US-Japan Joint Press Conference).

This suggests that the U.S. has not and will not simply be able to trade away a new round of UNSC sanctions on North Korea in exchange for China's announced support -- on the same day -- for a new round of sanctions against Iran. So, for a country such as South Korea that seeks so much prestige and respect as an independent and powerful country -- e.g. U.N. Security General, G-20 presidency, and the strange usage of trying to sound out Chinese names rather than use the Korean characters associated with each Chinese character. I simply cannot understand why some would like to go back to the Sunshine Policy.  

On a side note, with respect to Iran what is with upstart Brazil? Out of nowhere Brazil, which sits comfortably in South America, is naively complicating things that's in the best interest for the rest of the world.

Anyways, I believe what the U.S. Secretary of State was referring to when she used the term "not just a regional but an international response" is the trilateral meetings between China-Japan-South Korea in Gyeongju, South Korea (May 15th) -- home to the historical capital of Silla, which has symbolic imporance as Pyongyang was also the historical capital for a rival state on the Korean peninsula, Gogouryeo and those to be held at the end of the month in Jeju Island again at the foreign minister/secretary of state level. By the way, anybody take notice of how strange it is that while they take this to the United Nations, what nationality the U.N. Security Security General holds?

Anyways, consider U.S. remarks next to that of the Chinese...

But while expressing condolences for the South Korean sailors who died aboard the Cheonan, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi merely reaffirmed Beijing's stance that "a scientific and objective investigation is important." Yang did not mention the possibility of a link between North Korea and the shipwreck (Chosun Ilbo).

This was before proof of North Korean involvement was put on display. A very big difference how this incident is being handled and, say, the kidnapping of South Korean fishermen and the shoooting of a civilian in Mount Geumgang.

With respect to arguing directly against the rather ridiculous positions -- blame the South Korean President?! -- taken by the South Korean left recently, I'll defer to the regular Korea bloggers.

[A Rising South Korea] Talk of war is a good thing... Yes, a good thing...

The odds for North Korea to win the 2010 World Cup in South Africa is are set at 1000:1 -- I'm going to have to put down a small wager here. (only New Zealand is being given worse odds at 2000:1.) Though they will have to survive Brazil and Portugal in the first round, they do have two Japanese born, ethnic Korean professional soccer players who have vowed to represent DPRK in the world cup. I hope they can come through. Interestingly enough, I believe the only two Asian "nations" to have gone beyond the first round is, well, made it to the quarterfinals are North Korea (1966) and South Korea (2002). They both made it to the quarterfinals...  

Anyways, talk of war is just people like us realizing that South Korea is definitely taking a leading role in this crisis by internationlizing this incident as it forces China and to an extent the U.S. to address the issue. So here, when we read about 3,000+ articles about the possibility of war, it's actually a good thing. Yes, I'm saying it's a good thing [well, not so much for China] as it puts a giant magnifying glass on both China and obscure, little North Korea. This makes the political and diplomatic price of China supporting North Korea very expensive and, of course, further marginalizes North Korea. But here, just in case this is left to misinterpretation, studies have suggested, such as those by Stephen Haggard and Marcus Noland most recently, that North Korea is losing control over the country on her own and combining their study with their earlier studies, it appears NGOs seem to have almost a neglible role on the flow of refugees. So, I'm not advocating that we should (or there is even a need) to directly try to cause regime change. This was before the currency crisis showed the world how far North Korea had fallen. We should on the other hand be properly prepared to move in soldiers in the event of Kim Jong Il dying before Communist China does...

It's best for the U.S. to show unequivocal public support and sympathy for South Korea, while China stumbles through this mess. I don't think there will be six party talks nor would North Korea be willing to go back to China for a round of six-party talks after a new round of UNSC Sanctions (again, it'll be more of a 5 on 1 forum then). And, just to recall, it cost China at least $2.1 billion for those sanctions and climbing last time around.

Interestingly, if South Korea had not internationalized the incident, I believe as in previous South Korean administrations -- nothing would've happened and Communist China would be able to play a two-Korea policy, while both Koreas adhere to a one-China policy.

But, especially those on the left in South Korea should realize that talk of potential war is really a good thing especially if South Korea continues to experience economic growth rates of 5% or so as it forces the two continental country's to address the issue. It definitely is a good demonstration of how far South Korea has come.

But, of course, if Japan starts to feel capital flight, then it's time to of course get out of Northeast Asia.

But, seriously, with all the rage over North Korea and so much information out there (Google News has 3,433 4,666 similar articles on the Cheonan incident, which is about the same level seen when the health care reform package in the U.S. was passed) that it's hard to know what to believe. But, after reading quite a few editorials, I think South Korea is definitely coming of age. While I continue to believe absolutely nothing beyond the symbolic will be necessary on the part of the U.S. (perhaps a new UNSC resolution if South Korea plays her cards right) and a trip by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should suffice -- and maybe even putting North Korea back on the list of states sponsoring terrorism. But, if South Korea continues to internationalize the issue, the U.S. won't be able to simply just trade away North Korea for Iran to China.

And, on a side note here, China should realize the difference between delivering [the U.S. delivering Taiwan to China] and the image of trying to pretend that they can deliver [six party talks]. They should note that the U.S. looks at Taiwanese independence rather dismally -- of course, the U.S. does placate Taiwanese interests by selling them high end U.S. weaponry.

I wrote earlier about what we should be looking for before Kim Jong Il's visit and again during his visit. This was before any real attention was paid to news of the Cheonan sinking. The two things were:

1) Will there be a new UNSC resolution against North Korea ? [It's looking more and more likely]

2) Will North Korea receive additional aid? [Joongang Ilbo reported no, which news organizations and bloggers around the world picked up on]

The answers appear to be looking as if China is hedging very much against a North Korean collapse after the death of Kim Jong Il and China is looking rather feeble.

So, what should be done about North Korea?

Among other things that are going on, there seems to be a lot of speculation in major U.S. publications, among the South Korean Press, and, well, pretty much all over the place about what to do about North Korea. Though domestic U.S. media is currently preoccupied with the BP spill ($30+ billion dollar loss in market cap), there seem to be almost a daily number of articles & incredible number of editorials on the topic in the past couple weeks... Well, here's my position South Korea should do nothing in full FDR fashion by switching from blaming U.S. and Japan for hampering Korean reunification to Chinese selfishness ("stability" so it can get "rich") and support for North Korea (the hapless North Koreans, who are being taken advantage of by the Chinese). I meant in full FDR fashion as a way of slowly building or manufacturing consent (whichever term you prefer) for possible unification. In material terms, South Korea should do nothing as NGOs don't seem to be particularly effective and, just let North Korea be -- without subsidies. Nothing else though.  

Similarly, I believe North Korea's opportunity to receive U.S. aid (or the U.S. just buying out North Korea's WMD program) has come and gone. So, I'd suggest that it is high time to prepare the South Korean public for unification -- FDR style. I mean there is the planning over the what ifs -- I spoke earlier about OPLAN-5029, which details U.S. and South Korean (ROK) armed forces crossing over into North Korea primarily to secure North Korea's weapons of mass destruction (they have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that get less media attention, though I'm not as sure of the latter). But, this is just one small aspect.  On a side note, unlike Iraq or Afghanistan there is also a rich country with the right people to occupy the country, if necessary. Though, of course, unlike invading Iraq or Afghanistan, the war might turn out to be much more like World War I, but against a much more suicidal enemy (kind of like Imperial Japan).

With the current Cheonan sinking incident it's time for the South Korean government to slowly manufacture consent not unlike the Sunshine Policy, which did the same against unification for the past deacde. For example, anti-North Korean sentiment should naturally be diverted to anti-Chinese sentiment since South Korea really can't (and shouldn't) do anything (For example, long term DPRK concessions to the Chinese, such as, the port of Rajin -- which looks like a reality, should be as well known as Dokdo). 

The U.S. should continue to give symbolic assurances (aside from ratifying KORUS, which goes beyond the symbolic and which should have been ratified much, much earlier) of U.S. support for South Korea and. For starters, avoid (skip) the six-party talks until the Cheonan incident get's resolved and Kim Jong Il dies. This should serve to build pro-U.S. support for any unified Korea or for whichever type of regime comes next. Given South Korea's national psyche and inclination to blame outside forces, this shouldn't take too long. If this is indeed what happens, we'll be less likely to hear from Korean press about Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) and more about Goguryeo (Goguryeo) for a long while.  

I don't put much weight on the thought of the Chinese ever deciding to actually add North Korea to China proper (I mean North Korea is not a Xinjiang or Tibet. And, I think there's probably a reason why nobody aside from the Tang Dynasty in the 7th century and Japan in modern times really tried to annex Korea (though I believe it was discussed in China during the latter days of the 19th century to ward off Japanese influence and it's not just because of the historical, tributary system in Asia).  Imagine trying to govern the most xenophobic, nationalistic, and ethnocentric (perhaps, racist) people in the world.  

Moreover, I'm not fully convinced that China is fully backing the North Korea regime. If anything, China would love to be in the position of the United States -- hence, the reason why the South Korean President was met days before Kim Jong Il. Moreover, these concessions in the form of long term leases of ports (Rajin) or mines, etc, seem more like short term hedges against a North Korean collapse and just create North Korean resentment toward China. And, if anything, while we always consider how South Koreans might lean in the event of unification, I'd bet that current Chinese policies in North Korea would cement Anti-Chinese sentiment among North Koreans in a future, unified Korean peninsula for generations.

After a couple of decades as being the lone ranger in Northeast Asia (Japan and Australia really don't count here), it seems the U.S. is finally in a rather nice position.

China? Decidedly, less so.

Kim Jong Il visits China

Shortly after the failed currency reforms, I last talked about how North Korea was in danger of collapse and wondered what would happen when Kim Jong Il shortly visits China. Well, Kim Jong Il is in China now and this time North Korea apparently blew up a South Korean ship.

There seems to be mounting evidence that North Korea recently blew up a South Korean ship (and no, I don't believe that North Korea blew up the BP oil rig from Cuba for a second). But, what is particularly interesting is what is going on in China and to see what, if anything, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il can extract from China this time.  In particular, it'd be interesting to see:

1)How China addresses the Cheonan incident, if at all. In particular, whether South Korea takes this incident to the UNSC for token sanctions, which would, again, require China to side against North Korea. The last time China did this it cost the Chinese $2.1 billion in aid, a visit by a high ranking Chinese communist official, and the prestige from hosting six-party talks.

And, in particular,

2)What type of additional aid North Korea receives from China, if any -- such as investment.

As it has become clear for a while now that North Korea will not give up its nuclear weapons program, what will China now do? As South Korea and the United States will not provide aid, it puts South Korea in particular at risk of pushing North Korea into China's camp. But, with North Korea allegedly blowing up the South Korean ship, Cheonan, it will be intereseting to see what happens from this point on. I mean it was interesting enough to see that the Chinese President Hu Jintao met with South Korea President Lee Myung Bak just a few days before Kim Jong Il's first visit to China since 2006. But, will China strain relations with South Korea and be seen as a supporter of yet another rogue (I'd itching to use the word "terrorist" here) nation for the sake of stability? A lot has changed for China since 1998 when they last bailed out North Korea -- the country has joined the WTO, hosted the Olympics, and is set to be the second largest economy in the world, if it isn't already. It seems that the trilateral alignment that Scott Snyder mentions in China's Rise and the Two Koreas: Politics, Economics, Security that is necessary to actually coordinate an effective policy might indeed already be underway and that the end of the DPRK might indeed not be that far off.

On a side note, I'd like to clarify so that everyone understands that North Korea was taken off the terrorist list not because the United States believed that North Korea wasn't a state sponsoring terrorism, but that the previous administration did so just to see if, well, let's give them everything they want and see if they'll give up their nukes -- which they didn't. And, the Obama administration is picking up right, where the last administration left off with an approrpiate definition of  the word "engagement."

As for North Korea being a terrorist state, let's see...
state sponsored manufacturing of illicit substances, counterfeit U.S. dollar bills, torture, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction technology (i.e. Syria), ballistic missiles (i.e. Yemen, Iran(Shahab-3)), kidnapping civilians from foreign soil or waters (Japan, South Korea), blowing up foreign airliners (Korean Airlines flight in 1987 to name one), shooting a South Korean civilian (Mount Geumgang), allowing terrorist organizations to take refuge in the country (Japan's Red Army faction back), etc...