Korea needs soccer to beat out Japan ?

Japan must again be absolutely furious at Korea again being closer to the center of the world that just happens to not just be the center of Asia.It must be Japan's fate that a powerful farm lobby was the one that pushed the KORUS(Korea United States Free Trade Treaty) forward and from the view of misguided nationalists of Korea (Democratic Party of Korea) one that was not powerful enough in South Korea to prevent the ratification of American Beef to South Korea or Japanese capital and American machinery sales into and to South Korea(KORUS) rather than the opposite way around as has come to characterize the Korea-United States relationship in or, equivalently, small car expertise for China, has come to symbolize.

[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.

[KORUS Free Trade Pact] A Pony to an Equus...

A couple days ago, I was driving -- and while waiting for the lights to turn green, of course, no idea why the light there is green...-- there was this dated Toyota truck right in front of me. Interestingly enough, all the letters from the word Toyota fell off except for, well, "YO." And, well, it sure enough perked my interest to the point where I took a picture of the car. The picture is symbolic of Toyota's fading presence recently; Toyota has apparently recalled over 11 million vehicles in the past ten months.

Now, flip back a couple decades and many car American buyers thought that, well, Japan makes affordable, quality passenger cars so what's different with South Korean cars. Of course, they gap in quality was at that time a gulf. Shoddy brakes on Hyundai cars left a perceived gap in the quality of Korean cars that for some even continues to the present. It also took Hyundai almost two decades to recover its U.S. sales back to that of its heyday in the late 1980s. It's well past that now as Hyundai looks to introduce the Equus.

When I first heard of Hyundai's Equus I thought the name to be pretty funny. The first passenger car that Hyundai ever built was called, well, the Hyundai Pony. In Korea, for some time now, the largest and most expensive car that Hyundai sold has been, well, the Hyundai Equus. The Equus is, well, in latin, horse. So, I thought it a bit funny and somewhat representative of how Hyundai together with its subsidiary Kia Motors has come to be I believe the fifth or sixth largest car manufacturer in the world. They have gone from building ponys to well horses. Hyundai has also opened a factory in Alabama where American workers now assemble many of the cars that are now sold to, well, Americans.

The threat that cheap Asian imports from Korea would displace American jobs seems to be overblown.The cars that South Korea produces compete directly with Japanese car manufacturers more so than it does with American manufacturers. Hyundai -- along with Kia -- seems to be poised to displace Nissan this year as the third largest Asian auto seller in the U.S. after, well, Toyota's slip up in quality. In this sense, the idea that passage of the KORUS free trade pact would displace American jobs seems to be overblown. 

Moreover, much of GM's success in China -- probably the only place in the world where GM's sales have been competitive and consistently profitable in the past decade is due to in large part to the expertise gained from GM taking a stake in what used to be an insolvent South Korean car manufacturer, Daewoo Motors. (By the way, perhaps America's labor unions could see how their South Korean counterparts have come to see the introduction of a large American presence in South Korea's domestic market. Whereas the Chinese takeover of Ssangyong Motors has resulted in, well, disaster, GM's investment in GM Daewoo has come to be seen as a successful merger, if it could be called that, in an industry where successful takeovers are, well, excluding Nissan, for the most part non-existent.)

Moreover, South Korea really likes American beef and they like to buy a lot of it.

So, perhaps, it's time to pass that KORUS.

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.

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."

Military Exercises in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) and the Cheonan Incident in Review

edit:  Aug. 1st, 2010, for grammar.

Contrary to what many may be thinking, including Christine Ahn in a New York Times editorial:

In a move intended to punish North Korea for its alleged sinking of a South Korean warship, the Cheonan, the United States and South Korea are flexing their military might by mobilizing American and South Korean ships, over 200 aircraft, including the F-22 Raptor fighters, and 8,000 troops.

I highly doubt the United States would go to that extent to "punish" or show North Korea.anything. The United States doesn't need to send warships to intimidate North Korea; all the United States has to do is -- as Josh Stanton advocates -- enforce financial sanctions on North Korea for which the United States (and South Korea) lacks the will to do.

Considering the highly visible show of force and also within context of the United States taking a position on the Spratly Islands and the Obama Administration's very tough stance against Japan's push for a more independent Japan or equivalently a diminished U.S. role, it seems that the audience for all this is definitely not for North Korea or even China, but for all actors in East Asia. Additionally, with respect to China, it seems that unlike my earlier postings about how this is being used to push China to control North Korea, I have come to believe that the ultimate objective of the United States' military exercises is that while the U.S. may be caught up in a couple overseas entanglements and, also, the aftermath of the worst recession since, well, the Great Depression, the United States is using the Cheonan incident to re-assert the United States in East Asia.

There's more than a couple things that led me to this view. 

For starters, unlike Joshua Stanton, I do not believe that the United States is levying any type of real financial sanctions against North Korea. "One hundred" bank accounts is extremely vague and this indicates that this is primarily for domestic (North and South) Korean consumption purposes. Moreover, when considering that the United States has finally decided to take a position on the Spratly Islands -- it seems to be more than mere chance that for the first time in history both U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense -- while en route to an ASEAN Security Dialogue -- visited the DMZ together. All this seems that the U.S. has finally in place  a coherent policy in East Asia that encompasses more than a "quick fix." Furthermore,  consider that the current administration did not take lightly to Japan's proposals for base relocation. Finally, the sheer scale, size, and scope of the recent military exercises off the East Sea (Sea of Japan) seems to be the icing on the cake. 

Problematically, and this is where I might suggest that previous analyses of the naval exercises has overlooked is how relatively unimportant North Korea -- and, unfortunately, South Korea is to the United States. It seems support of South Korea's global initiative is there just to send Japan a message and the naval exercises are there just to show China -- and the rest of East Asia -- that the United States is committed to engaging the region. Also, I might add that the "financial sanctions" the United States is adding is there just for Korean (North & South) consumption. I do not believe that freezing one hundred "bank accounts" is anything beyond mere symbolism. 

I say this not with any elation at all and actually wish South Korea was more important to the United States for its own sake, but as in the past -- most notably, the Cold War -- South Korea is  and will be benefiting. The  United States is supporting the current South Korean administration's global initiative (e.g. G-20 summit), a stronger US.- South Korea military alliance, and, hopefully passage of the KORUS, which would  really  reinvigorate the US-ROK notwithstanding the economic aspect.  If current U.S. domestic political trends continue, then I would be that passage of KORUS is not that far off.

Initially I had intended to originally post on the scale of the United States deployment to the East Sea (Sea of Japan). However, while I was thinking about the deployment it led me to this posting. Just check out these pictures over at ROKdrop. The picture in the back is of the ROKN Dokdo or a South Korean "mini-carrier" that transports troops and helicopters -- I believe. The two hundred planes -- and the USAF's F-22  stealth fighter -- is a lot when considering that South Korea initially procured just forty planes when the country decided to purchase F-15K from Boeing. (I believe there was an extension in this contract or that South Korea will attempt to purchase the upcoming F-35's...) 

But, anyways, consider that there are seventy planes on the 97,000 ton U.S. aircraft carrier and that two hundred planes are involved. Also, there seems to be a recently built new, Virgina class U.S. attack submarine that seems to be on its way to be deployed over at Pearl Harbor -- that would make it the third deployed in Pearl Harbor and sends a direct signal to China's massive military buildup. Furthermore, the South Korean navy has been very busy recently as well. Involved in the exercises were most likely KDX I/II/III destroyers. I believe the KDX III destroyers are equipped with the anti-air AEGIS missile system. The KDX III destroyers are actually larger in tonnage than their USN counterparts that are largely armed with US technology. Of course, there was also probably a nuclear submarine and a U.S. AEGIS ship that went along with the U.S. carrier. So, yes, it definitely does look like a show of force, but reading up or checking out how large -- or expensive -- these U.S. and South Korean ships may be to get a sense of why the U.S. is doing this is not necessary. The pictures linked at ROKdrop is probably a good analogy of the situation.

[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."

[US Department of Defense Press Release] So it's official...

US Department of Defense:

USS George Washington, the U.S. Navy's only permanently forward-deployed aircraft carrier will visit the Korean port of Busan July 21 to 25, U.S. Forces Korea officials announced today.

In addition to USS George Washington, three destroyers from its strike group will also visit

Korean ports. USS McCampbell and USS John S. McCain will visit Busan, and USS Lassen will visit Chinhae.

"The U.S. Navy maintains a robust forward presence in the Asia-Pacific region and the people of the Republic of Korea are our good friends and allies," said George Washington commanding officer Capt. David Lausman. "Our presence here is a testament to the strength of our alliance and our constant readiness to defend the Republic of Korea."

I wonder if the USS George Washington will end up really deploying for exercises in the Yellow Sea or if they will bow to Chinese pressure and deploy in the East Sea(Sea Of Japan). Anyways, it's a nice way for South Koreans to see what a true friend does when attacked -- unlike the dithering on the part of the Chinese...

Who says the U.S. presence in Northeast Asia is destabilizing?

[Japan & Korea Missing Another Generation?] What does Apple's iOS and Google's Android OS mean for Japan and Korea?

edit: for clarity, 07/18

It seems every other day or so, there's some article that compares the sales of Apple iPhones with Apple's iOS to that of smart phones powered by Google's Android.

Seth Weintraub at CNNMoney.com:

However, in phones, Google seems to have a winner on its hands. It will be hard for Apple to catch Android's numbers if the company can't even surpass their competitor's running weekly total at its yearly iPhone launch.

Anyways, I just ordered an iPhone 4 for my mother this past weekend and I'm sure in due time I'll have my hands one of my own as well -- preferably a white iPhone 4. And, no, white isn't a girl's color; it does require more maintenance though. But, anyways, as these articles continually compare sales, for some reason it reminds me of the original operating system war between Microsoft and Apple (and IBM among others) for personal computers. It seems Google is the Microsoft for phones this time around by commoditizing phones, whereas the Apple iOS is only on products with the Apple logo on it. (The best example here would be the Samsung Galaxy-S phone. The phone has the very same processoras that inside Apple's iPhone 4.)

But, unlike personal computers though, it seems the nice thing is that the apps for mobile platforms don't require all that much money to develop. So, regardless of which platform sells more the concern that my phone will become obsolete just isn't there. I guess this is something that is clearly in Apple's advantage as whereas Mac computer owners are stuck -- less so now than in years and decades before and particularly as Microsoft sells its Office productivity suite on Macs now -- with a much smaller choice of software, I doubt that the difference will be as noticeable if at all when Android powered phones inevitably leap frog Apple iPhone's in sales. So, as long as iPhones do keep selling, stories such as which phones powered by which platform really aren't that important with exception to the general trend that Microsoft's mobile platform seems to be dying.

What is interesting though is that once again it seems that Asian manufacturers are once again stuck manufacturing commodities again for another generation perhaps for perpetuity. Even if Microsoft's phone platform dies, Apple and Google seem to be marginalizing East Asian companies once again as chips, memory, LCD screens, flash memory, etc seem to just be nothing more than high tech commodities... I believe even Softbank -- the Japanese company that made a great deal of money by investing in Yahoo -- is profitting by selling iPhones in Japan. Of course, Research in Motion is Canadian and there's Symbian by Finland's Nokia.  

Japan and South Korea both had protected cell phone markets with super fast networks for quite some time now, but it seems the only types of companies that emerged to compete globally were hardware manufacturers. With exception to companies that catered to making cheap games and the like, where is the Japanese or Korean Apple or Google? Why isn't there one? It's all the more remarkable when considering that the United States has by far probably the most fragmented network -- competing CDMA and GSM networks -- deployed over an area that is very lightly populated compared with eitehr Europe or East Asia. With all the boasting about how consumers in Northeast Asia have for years been able to watch television or video chat on their phones, what has come of it?

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...

[A New Middle Kingdom] A glimpse into a hypothetical future

In California, the United States Air Force (USAF)  again successfully tested a new experimental hypersonic -- a speed that is a multiple of the speed of sound -- plane that is much faster than planes with traditional engines. Apparently, the plane, known as the X-51A and it sports a futuristic scramjet engine. Anyways, while the link to GlobalSecurity will tell you the techincal details of the plane, it does give a glimpse into how the United States sees the world in a generation or so.

For more on why the United States Air Force (USAF)  would like that I would look into the stated objectives of why the United States would be looking to purchase such a fast plane or develop "hypersonic technology." But, it does give a glimpse on how the United States sees the world or at least how the United States thinks the world might be a generation from now with many large continental sized economies.

The reason that I bring this up is that I think it should give pause to those in particularly China, who don't particularly care too much about who develops nuclear weapons, and to those in particularly Northeast Asia that some how see the United States as a threat to regional stability. I wrote earlier that the United States by geography is basically a giant island -- much bigger than Australia -- and, unlike her "junior sheriff" in the South Pacific, is situated in the middle of the world -- between East Asia and Europe/Africa. The feeling that this conjures is that the United States senses a potentially much more dangerous world in a couple decades as the globe is covered with many "new" countries that have at one time or another been exploited by the West and now see that it is their "rightful" turn in history to make an impact on the world.

When this time comes, it definitely won't be against the United States. The United States will be able to hide behind her oceans and by that time the United States will have a fully functional missile defense system that shields her, which seems to be making some remakable progress and which is not getting the attention of the domestic press. (I believe that means both those on the right and left in the United States are in agreement here.) The addition of a plane that can successfully bomb anything anywhere in the world within a couple hours flight from, say, California is something the United States is really after would truly make those annoying overseas basing arrangements -- e.g. Japan, South Korea, Central Asia... -- unnecessary. Additionally, the United States is the only country to still maintain three ways to launch nuclear weapons  -- by long distance planes, submarines, and intercontinetal ballistic missles. Furthermore, the United States still operates eleven aircraft carriers with one in reserve each of which is larger than any aircraft carrier in the world. So, it stands to reason that the United States will very much have the ability to just withdraw from the rest of the world, if it chooses that the world is just too dangerous. With this in mind, should not those that are benefitting from the current US-led world order choose to do more to ensure that the world is a much safer place?

On another note, with the rise in world trade and new powers with historical grievances, I feel it's not at all unwise to hedge against such a dangerous scenario that seems an awful lot like the period leading up to the Great War -- World War I.  And, while it's an oft used analogy, the rise of countries that have not held much sway in a few centuries -- or ever -- and have the ambition to do so makes the world seem that much more dangerous.

I believe a good bellweather is Japan, which recently succumbed to U.S. demands again -- basing problems. Japan does not have a peace treaty or any formal ties with both Russia and North Korea. The country has territorial disputes with all her neighbors -- Russia (Kuril Islands), Communist China/Taiwan (Senkaku Islands), and, finally, Korea (Liancourt Rocks). Perhaps, Okinawa should be included her as well as i'ts still basically being occupied by the United States.  I wonder how long it will be before Japan goes nuclear and how long it will take for the United States to switch from a pro-Israel to a pro-Iran -- meaning either war or some type of regime change -- in the Middle East, which seems to be in the best interest of the United States.

While there is hope that the next generation will lift a great number of people out of poverty, there is also the fear that it will spark wars all over the world. With this in mind, I have no idea why China thinks its a good idea that it's a good thing to have countries with nuclear powers surrounding her -- or probably pointed right at her. I mean North Korea can reach Beijing with her missiles, but, of course, its a very risky suicidal shot -- in the dark -- to try and hit the United States.

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.

U.S.Census 2010 and California

I just filled out the U.S. Census form -- took me an entire 30 secs (about 15 secs of that involved whether I should give them my phone number).

Though I believe this will be the first decade in American History that California will not gain any new seats in the House of Representatives regardless of the way they calculate it, I think there's a number of programs, including Pell Grants, that dole out funds according to the way the U.S. Census apportions the population of each state. So, it's probably in your best interset to fill it out...

Of course, with California not gaining any seats new seats for the first time in history this naturally begs the question, "How much of a paycut (not just in terms of money) or how much harder would it have to be open and operate a busineses in California (as opposed to Texas per se) for you to move out?" More specifically, a question that's been on my mind recently is, "How much of a paycut would you take to live in Los Angeles as compared to the Bay Area?"  Though I'm not looking for full-time work at the moment, it's been a topic that's been on my mind a lot recently...

Anyways, that'll be a topic of a future post...  And, on a secondary note, I can't remember a class, where roll is taken at an 8 am morning class, well, since high school... (not that I wouldn't show up... it's just the principle behind it)... :) Anyways, I thought California law forbade university courses outside of language courses for basing grades off of attendance...

The New Middle Kingdom - The Insular United States

There's a new book out by Bruce Cumings that looks at how the U.S. came to be in the position that it is in today (an Atlantic and Pacific power): Dominion from Sea to Sea: Pacific Ascendancy and American Power. I'm assuming it has the same type of prose as Korea's Place in the Sun, which would automatically put it on the top of my list of books to read. If you look at a map -- no, a globle, it looks like well the United States sits in the middle of the world. To the west (and, over a vast/peaceful ocean) is Asia and to the east is, well, Europe. On a side note, if you look at China, the country looks to be more of a coastal country now. The country is hemmed in by the highest mountains in the world to its Southwest, a barren desert to to its West, and a frozen tundra to its North. .

But, if the United States is geographically situated to be the new middle kingdom, then America is surely coming to look like China in other ways. I came across this article that says a third of the members of Congress don't have passports. And, "while 90 percent of faculty in 13 countries believe that a scholar must read books and journals from abroad to keep up with scholarly developments, only 62 percent of American faculty believe so" ("Internationalize American Higher Education? Not exactly" by Philip G. Altbach and Patti McGill Peterson). This is not too different from how I guess China thought there was nothing to be learned from the outside world just a few centuries ago.

On a side note, I remember ten years ago Stratfor (it was free to read back then) forecast that Pat Buchanan's wing of the Republican Party would once again gain traction with the American populace and possibly return to power in 2010; perhaps, they were off by another ten years (But, in ten years, isn't there supposed to be another race to the moon?)

China is NOT the key to North Korea Part II

[So, for those in the DeCal, I mentioned I was a little bit late as I was busy posting a comment on a blog.]

I saw a comment that I felt I had to comment on. It's a comment left on one of Professor Brad DeLong's postings on his weblog, "Grapling Reality..." The post itself was actually about what exactly happened during the latter part of the Bretton Woods period, but the comment that was left presumed -- not unlike the Los Angeles Times Editorial -- that China has this influence over North Korea. In fact, the only country that has direct influence over North Korea is the United States, if the country can ever agree on a single policy and choose to actually carry it out. A quick glimpse at the history of North Korea's nuclear program and South Korea's short stint with building its nuclear program was when the two states feared that their futures were being chosen for them by China and the United States (i.e. the Koreas reconciled after Nixon's trip, North Korea "warned that this development would 'force Pyongyang to take certain actions to build certain types of weapons by our own means'" after Russia notified the DPRK it was going to normalize relations with South Korea (Snyder 33) -- , etc etc).

Nonetheless, I wrote earlier about an editiorial in the Los Angeles Times about this common misperception that China is the key to the "North Korea problem." Well, since that time, I've found more information that supports what I've been saying all along -- China has no influence in North Korea.

Here is a table from China's Rise and the Two Koreas: Politics, Economics, Security (If I copy large portions of the book, then I'm sure I'll run into copyright issues), but anyways check the circled period and buy the book -- it's a very comprehensive look at what's been going on recently...

KEDO (Korean Energy Development Organization) was a plan that was agreed upon during the Clinton Administration that basically offered two light water nuclear power plants, heavy oil, and other aid to North Korea in exchange for North Korea abandoning/suspending its nuclear weapons program + staying in the NPT.  

Notice that basically what happened during this period was that North Korea's dependence lessend as the country was able to extract aid from other countries. In Dec. 2002, there was an exchange (and if you read the details of what puportedly happened -- it really is interesting as North Korea was preparing to return the U.S.S. Sherman to say thank you for the heavy crude that the U.S. had been providing) where the United States accused North Korea and allegedly acknowledged the existence of a secret uranium enrichment program (another way of building nuclear weapons). Soon after, KEDO became defunct and the U.S. began it's "CVID" policy. Interestingly, at the very same time, shipments of petroleum from China went up.

However,  perhaps, most interestingly, Scott Snyder writes:

"China is reported to have pleedged economic aid and energy assistance worth as much as US$50 million to secure North Korean participation in the second round of six-party talks in February 2004" (125)  [1]

It's as if China wishes to project this image that the country does have leverage over North Korea. But, as argued in this book and as I have been saying all along in this blog... However, Scott Snyder puts it best when he writes:

Thus, China's increased use of aid, trade, and investment as vehicles for enhancing political influence on North Korea has thus far worked in precisely the opposite manner, making China hostage to and enabler of North Korean provocations (132).

Moreover, if you think about it, if Korea ever does re-unifiy, I believe a unified country will be in the exact same position that North Korea is in right now. It will either have to have U.S. troops on the peninsula or have a nuclear weapons program -- the country neighbors China, Japan, and Russia...

Primary Source:
Note: I briefly tried googling the Washington Post Article to no avail. This is the source that Scott Snyder cites in China's Rise and the Two Koreas: Politics, Economics, Security.

[1] Samuel S. Kim, "China's Conflict-Management Approach to the Nuclear Standoff on the Korean Peninsula." Asian Perspective 30, no.1 (2006): 5-38 as cited in Edward Cody and Anthony Faiola, "N. Korea's Kim Reportedly in China for Talks," Washington Post, April 20, 2004; Ralph Cossa, "CVID, WMD, and Elections Galore," in Brad Glosserman and Sun Namkung eds., Comparative Connections 6, no. 1 (April 2004): 1-18.