A friend passes along an interesting report on China's "Project 048," the PLA Navy's strategic plan to construct six nuclear and conventionally powered aircraft carriers. The first two conventionally powered carriers will reportedly be laid down this year, with more quickly to follow. Once completed, Project 048 should be the final step in the PLAN's transformation from a green to blue water Navy (or an expeditionary navy, if you prefer the British terminology).

Though plenty of brass in the DoD are sweating China's rise as a first-world power, this new carrier fleet isn't all that dire a prospect. Their technology is still a full decade behind ours, they have no experience in deploying carriers in combat (whereas we have plenty), and -- perhaps most importantly -- it will take China years to master the harsh arithmetic of flight deck operations. Further, it's likely to spook an already nervous Japan into matching the Chinese in naval power -- strengthening our powerful far east alliance with Australia, Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore. My friend, a former submariner who shares my skepticism, finished off his email with "thanks for the targets Beijing!"

Nepal may have gotten rid of the royal family, but thankfully it hasn't yet dispensed with another tradition: the child goddess who sounds like a duck.

If you are female, possess “the voice of a duck” and are between 2 and 4 years old, it could be just the job for you - Nepal is advertising for a new living goddess.

Despite being revered as a powerful Hindu divinity, the Himalayan state's Royal Kumari has no option but to step down once she reaches puberty. Because Preeti Shakya, the current holder of the centuries-old role, has reached her 11th birthday, the race is on to find a replacement before the end of the summer. ...

The job criteria are rigorous: Kumaris, who are typically selected as toddlers, must have a voice “as soft and clear as a duck's”, “the body of a Banyan tree” and “the chest of a lion”. The 32 prerequisite physical “perfections” also include flawless skin, hair, eyes and teeth. A suitable horoscope is mandatory and being afraid of the dark is not allowed.

There are perks: a Kumari can eat whatever she likes and act with impunity — at least her parents, who receive a small cash stipend, are not allowed to tell her off. For 240 years, before the abolition of Nepal's monarchy in May after a Maoist uprising, the Royal Kumari was asked to approve the rule of the king.

Grounding a goddess wouldn't work out all that well anyway, but one wonders whether parents of the goddess are at least allowed to say, "Just wait until you're 11 ..."

The Hong Kong-based newspaper Wen Wei Pao reported last week that in the wake of the recent labor unrest in Vietnam, dozens of Taiwanese businesses are considering pulling out of the Southeast Asian country. The report cited a Taiwanese trade representative in Ho Chi Minh City as saying that a wave of bankruptcies, beginning this month, will result in more than 1,000 factory closures in Vietnam before the year is out.

Labor disputes have been increasing in Vietnam. According to Taiwan media, strikes were occurring so frequently that since September of last year Taiwanese businessmen in Vietnam have been greeting each other with “Have you been struck yet?” instead of the customary expression “Have you eaten yet?”

Vietnamese government statistics indicate that in 2007 there were 541 strikes as compared with the previous year’s 387. In the first four months of this year alone, the country was hit by 295 strikes. Workers are demanding higher wages to cope with soaring inflation, which topped 25 percent year-on-year in May, with food prices witnessing a jump of 42 percent.

Most of the strikes have involved low-end footwear, textile, and toy factories owned by Taiwanese, Hong Kong, or South Korean businesses. The Taiwanese have been especially hard hit. During the first four months of this year, more than 20 Taiwanese-owned plants in or around Ho Chi Minh City had to suspend operation temporarily due to strikes, including one that makes shoes for Nike and employs 20,000 workers.

Adopting the China-plus-one strategy, Taiwanese companies with operations in China began diversifying into Vietnam in the late 1980s, long before that country’s economy gained steam and many felt it would become the next “Asian tiger.” By this past April, approximately 3,000 Taiwanese firms had invested a total of $10.9 billion in the Vietnamese economy, making the self-governing island Vietnam’s third-largest source of foreign capital, after South Korea and Singapore.

The recent spate of strikes by Vietnamese workers has since made some Taiwanese firms rethink their investment strategies. The Pacific Hospital Supply Company and Taiwan Sugar Corporation, for example, have both postponed plans to invest in Vietnam.

It’s not all gloom and doom, however. While investors in labor-intensive sectors such as clothing and footwear may be getting jittery about Vietnam, Taiwan’s Formosa Plastics Group (FPG) recently poured a whopping $8 billion into the more upstream steel industry. Earlier this month, in the central Vietnamese province of Ha Tinh, prime minister Nguyen Tan Dung presided over the ground-breaking ceremony for an FPG iron and steel complex, the largest foreign investment project in Vietnam to date. FPG reportedly will also build an oil refinery and ethylene plant near the complex.

Despite these occasional positive developments, unless the underlying problems with Vietnam’s economy are dealt with effectively, the future of Taiwan investment in Vietnam can be characterized as, at best, uncertain.

The Dalai Lama said yesterday "'it's totally wrong, unfair' to call Islam a violent religion." Whatever the truth of this claim, there is certainly political wisdom in it. It will be easier to reform Islam if we assert terrorists pervert their religion rather than Islam is inherently flawed. And the Dalai Lama knows first hand how dangerous the Islamic threat is:

Security forces surrounding the Dalai Lama have been increased after reports that an Al Qaeda-linked terror group attempted to assassinate the spiritual leader. The 72-year-old Tibetan Buddhist has been given a three-tiered security ring to protect him after the assassination attempt by Lashkar-e-Toiba surfaced, reported The Australian newspaper.

Just one week has passed since the Maoist controlled Parliament deposed King Gyanendra, the Etonian head-of-state, and Nepal is already in the crapper. Thousands of local government workers have gone on strike in protest of a Maoist minister, who "locked up an 'errant official' in a toilet" for an hour and a half.

The official had incurred the minister's wrath for allegedly running an illegal stone mine. Striking workers said that his incarceration inside a toilet was an "inhumane and objectionable act". But the minister responded by saying that the official now knows what it is like to live in a "foul environment".

As an aside, the standoff over who would get the feathered crown concluded with poor King Gyanendra handing it over to the Commies. Perhaps Gyanendra will take some solace in that his people consider him a deity--or at least they used to.

Wired's David Axe makes Canberra's case

The F-22's long range and twin engines make it a good choice for replacing aged Australia's F-111s and F/A-18s. On a recent visit, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said there was no reason Canberra couldn't be trusted with the radar-evading Raptor. "The reality is we have a law that prohibits the United States from selling F-22 to any country," he added. Since Gates' comment, Aussie media has only pumped up the volume on its Raptor punditry.

Australia's in the middle of a huge economic boom thanks to its oil and mineral wealth. The government has plowed a big chunk of that windfall into new destroyers and amphibious ships, M-1 tanks, MRAP-style armored trucks, a couple squadrons of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and airborne radar planes. The F-22s would top off what amounts to the biggest rearmament in decades for the island nation. Barring a change of heart by Congress on the F-22 ban, Canberra's planning on buying F-35s. But the single-engined F-35 is nobody's favorite.

The next best thing to the U.S. Air Force with Raptors is the RAAF with Raptors. I say work out an airtight security arrangement for protecting the highly classified F-22 schematics from foreign collection and let the Aussies play. It's the least we can do after decades of unwavering support for our alliance.

Eh, I suppose that's one way to conduct counterinsurgency operations:

The US Air Force wanted to use nuclear weapons against Vietnam in 1959 and 1968, and Laos in 1961, to obliterate communist guerrillas, according to newly declassified secret US Air Force documents.

In 1959, US Air Force chief of staff General Thomas D White chose several targets in northern Vietnam, but other military officials blocked his demand to nuke the Southeast Asian nation.

Confucius say, do not use cannon to kill mosquito. Still, I kind of miss the days of crazy old Air Force generals:

Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed.
But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

The Ishigaki city council, in the Okinawa prefecture of Japan, has passed a resolution allowing the capture of goats on the Uotsuri Island. Satellite images show that overgrazing by the goats is endangering the island’s delicate ecosystem. Ishigaki city councilmen plan to seek the National Diet’s (parliamentary) approval, as well as support from the executive branch, for their initiative.

The Uotsuri is the largest of a group of eight islets measuring a total of 2.7 square miles. Known in Japan as the Senkaku Islands, in China as the Diaoyu Islands, and in Taiwan as the Diaoyutai Islands, they are controlled by Japan but also claimed by China and Taiwan.

In 1978, members of the ultra-nationalist Japan Youth Association built a lighthouse on the Uotsuri as a symbol of Japanese sovereignty. Ownership and management of the lighthouse was transferred from the group to the Japanese government in 2005.

Over the years, activists from China and Taiwan have tried repeatedly to land on the island to protest Japan’s assertion of sovereignty. The erection of a second lighthouse and the raising of a Japanese flag on the Senkakus in 1996 ignited a storm of protest from both China and Taiwan. In September of that year, four protesters jumped into the East China Sea after Japanese patrol boats blocked their ship from approaching the Uotsuri. One of the protestors, an activist from Hong Kong named David Chan, drowned.

In 2006, the director of the Japanese Coast Guard described the islands as "uninhabited, except for a few goats." The goats, however, are not native to the Uotsuri. The Japanese activists who built the lighthouse in 1978 were given by their supporters a pair of goats to be used for food. Upon completion of the lighthouse, the goats were set free on the island. Their descendants now number more than 1,000.

Any act of sovereignty over the disputed islands -- or their goats -- threatens to have serious diplomatic consequences.

In March 2005, Beijing expressed "firm opposition" to the Ishigaki city council’s proposal to enact an ordinance establishing an official "Senkaku Island Day," calling it "unlawful and invalid." Later that year, the city council appropriated 1.6 million yen for an inspection tour of the Senkakus by the mayor and city councilmen. The act was regarded by China as a serious provocation.

A landing by Japanese goat snatchers may result in China and Japan once again locking horns.

They've been looking at more advanced systems like the JSF and Raptor, but something needs to plug the hole until the RAAF retires the venerable F-111 in 2010.

The Australian government has confirmed the purchase of 24 Boeing F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet fighters.

This is despite accusing the previous administration, which originally ordered the aircraft, of having failed to make sound, long-term air combat capability decisions during its decade in power.

The decision followed the release of Part A of an Air Combat Capability Review ordered by the new government in January. This focused on the feasibility of retaining the Royal Australian Air Force's ageing F-111 strike aircraft beyond 2010 and the status of Australia's plans to acquire the Super Hornet.

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon said in a statement on 17 March that cancelling the Super Hornet would bring significant financial penalties and create tension between the United States and Australian governments. In February, defence officials said cancelling the Super Hornet contract under the US Foreign Military Sales programme would cost between AUD400 million and AUD600 million (USD375 million to USD563 million).

The decision is drawing fire down under. For one, the Super Hornet doesn't stack up too well against the Russian built Flankers and Fulcrums flown by Australia's far-east competitors. Second, this is essentially a $2.5 billion duct-tape job, as the F/A-18 is to serve as a mere gap-filler between the Aardvarks' retirement and the JSF deployment.

Additionally, the timing is odd. Australia is committing itself to expensive fighter aircraft--jets that won't be needed in 7 years--while simultaneously lamenting a $6 billion "hole" in their defense budget. Labor officials maintain that they can't keep the Aardvarks flying long enough to wait around for the JSF, but a former RAAF air boss has gone on record saying that the F-111 is "quite capable of going out to 2020 and beyond." Given the USAF's ability to keep ancient KC-135s, B-52s, and C-130s airborne decades past their projected retirement dates, I'm thinking that he's right. Though it's always pleasing to see allied nations buying American kit, this seems like a waste of precious defense resources.

Reuters reports:

New South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, who has pledged a tougher policy in dealing with North Korea, rebuffed his communist neighbor's offer to meet in January, a news report said on Wednesday.

The proposal was made through South Korea's National Intelligence Service (NIS) "for responsible officials from the two sides to meet," the conservative Dong-a Ilbo newspaper quoted an unnamed government official as saying.

"But President Lee demanded clarification on the purpose of such a meeting, and the North subsequently suspended attempts to make contact," the official said....

Spokesman Lee Dong-kwan said the president felt: "it was not appropriate to meet without principle or with no results expected."

The last South Korean administration had relatively warm relations with their counterparts in the North--not that face-to-face meetings and unconditional aid ever prompted any real change in the behavior of the Kim Family Regime. Of course, meeting without principle and with no results expected would seem to be the guiding principle of Obama's proposed foreign policy--we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate, right? Wouldn't it be great if someone from the press actually asked Obama about this. Does he believe the South Koreans fear to negotiate? Would he meet with Kim Jong-Il regardless of whether or not the South Korean president does? That's what his website says.

Update: These are the people Obama would meet without precondition, and who the New York Philharmonic recently serenaded:

North Korea publicly executed 15 people who attempted to flee the country or helped others escape, a warning aimed at stemming the growing flow of refugees to China, an aid group said Wednesday.

Of those 15 people, 13 were women.

Traveling the world in search of Condi's legacy:

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill said on Friday he may go to Beijing at the weekend to meet his North Korean counterpart for talks on ending Pyongyang's nuclear programs.

"I think we will have an announcement on that at some point," Hill told reporters in Bangkok. "We had some very good discussions with the Chinese. There is an idea we might try to arrange something this weekend."

We're always on the verge of a breakthrough with the Chinese. A cynic might call it chasing the dragon.

But they still can't have it:

Australia could be trusted with the United States' Lockheed F-22 Raptor fighter, US defence secretary Robert Gates says.

Currently an Act of the US Congress bars any foreign sales of the Raptor.

The aircraft is the US Air Force's most advanced fighter and its sale is prohibited to any foreign country, under a 1998 amendment to a budget bill moved by Wisconsin Democrat Congressman Dave Obey.

The production line will remain open until 2009, allowing for the next President to decide if we'll continue manufacturing the birds. If it's McCain, sympathetic ears may be willing to hear the Air Force out. Obama or HRC, maybe not. But the Raptor's current mission is as much about winning a war with China as it is about preventing one. In that sense, it's in our best interest to equip trustworthy Pacific rim allies with the world's most advanced fighter. If Australia gets access, so will the Japanese, which could mean as many as 200 allied F-22s in the theater.

The real problem: if the U.S. starts selling F-22s in the Pacific, it will come at the expense of the Joint Strike Fighter.

The conductor of the New York Philharmonic, Lorin Maazel, defended his orchestra's commie concerto in the Wall Street Journal last week:

I have always believed that the arts, per se, and their exponents, artists, have a broader role to play in the public arena. But it must be totally apolitical, nonpartisan and free of issue-specific agendas. It is a role of the highest possible order: bringing peoples and their cultures together on common ground, where the roots of peaceful interchange can imperceptibly but irrevocably take hold. If all goes well, the presence of the New York Philharmonic in Pyongyang might gently influence the perception of our country there.

One could be forgiven for thinking that Maazel intended to improve the perception of Americans in North Korea and keep his political opinions to himself. No such luck. The maestro spoke to reporters in Los Angeles just before his departure:

Philharmonic music director Lorin Maazel caused more controversy with remarks suggesting that the United States shouldn't criticize North Korea's human rights record because of its own treatment of prisoners at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw bricks, should they? Is our standing as a country -- the United States -- is our reputation all that clean when it comes to prisoners and the way they are treated?"

Political, partisan, and issue-specific. He's just on the other side.

HT: FP Passport

I listened to this bit on NPR yesterday about the New York Philharmonic's trip to North Korea. It featured Zarin Mehta, the orchestra's president and executive director. He says:

I think it's going to mean a lot...our board has supported it, our musicians have supported it, I would say that 95 percent of opinion in New York and in American and around the world has supported it. Yes, there are a few people who think that we shouldn't have dialogue. I don't happen to believe that one shouldn't have dialogue in any circumstances.

He's like the Michael Barone of classical music. Count us among that 5 percent that thinks there isn't much to be gained from the country's most famous orchestra serenading Kim Jong-Il. And one wonders what, precisely, is the percentage of North Koreans who support the visit according to Mr. Mehta's polling? Between scrounging for tree bark to eat and trying to avoid being sent to slave labor camps, one might imagine that support is something less than 95 percent. That is unless an agent of the North Korean government is standing around when you ask, in which case I suspect support for the visit would be a whopping 100 percent.

Let this be a lesson to potentially hostile North Korean and Chinese fishermen:

Experts sounded alarm on Feb. 20 over the Japanese military's ability to defend the country after one of its most advanced naval destroyers crashed into a fishing boat, leaving two missing.

The collision on Feb. 19 came as Japan steps up security to ensure safety during July's summit of the Group of Eight major industrial countries, to be held in the northern resort town of Tokyo.

"Japan's security cannot be ensured if an Aegis-equipped destroyer fails to avert a collision with a fishing boat," the top-selling Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper said in an editorial.

Curious how this happened. Being a Navy brat, I've heard my fair share of sea tales. Most USN surface warfare officers will tell you that the "pucker factor" shoots up when you're steering a Navy ship within 5 or 6 miles of another vessel. Granted, we accidentally surfaced a nuclear attack submarine underneath a Japanese fishing boat a few years back, but that was a bit different, what with the whole no "eyes on" element.

North Korea's official press agency responds to Jay Lefkowitz's speech at AEI:

Some days ago, Lefkowitz, special envoy for North Korean human rights issue of the US, was impudent enough to poke his nose into the nuclear issue, only to bring shame to himself.

What he uttered is nothing but rubbish which admits of no argument as it only provoked wry laughter.

But what merits attention here is that some American guys who do not know even where they stand, to say nothing of the way the world goes, are watching for a chance to scuttle the processes to settle the nuclear issue and improve the DPRK-US relations, displeased with them....

It was in this context that Lefkowitz underlined the need to include the human rights issue in the agenda items of the six-party talks and complained that China and South Korea are not pressurizing [pressuring] North Korea at the American Enterprise Institute, a centre of conservatives.

It seems the North Koreans and Foggy Bottom agree on something. As Secretary Rice said last week:

"[Lefkowitz] doesn't know what's going on in the six-party talks, and he certainly has no say on what American policy will be in the six-party talks."

Which translates roughly into 'don't be poking your nose into our negotiations.'

For the past week or so we've been following the fallout from Jay Lefkowitz's criticism of the State Depatment's North Korea policy (see here, here, and here). The criticism itself went something like this:

Using unusually sharp words, he said North Korea "has not kept its word," was "not serious about disarming in a timely manner" and "its conduct does not appear to be that of a government that is willing to come in from the cold."

Lefkowitz also accused Pyongyang of being a "serial proliferator" and using its nuclear arms to "extort" foreign aid, saying there was no guarantee that US military and nuclear strength could prevent it from passing on nuclear arms or technology to Islamist extremists or their backers.

Since then the State Department has erased any record of Lefkowitz's speech from its own website, and now the Secretary herself has fired back:

Rice said that Jay Lefkowitz, President Bush's special envoy on North Korean human rights, "doesn't know what's going on in the six-party talks, and he certainly has no say on what American policy will be in the six-party talks."...

Rice, speaking with reporters on her way to Germany for talks on Iran's nuclear program, said that she knows where Bush stands on North Korean policy, "and I know where I stand, and those are the people who speak for American policy."

The Wall Street Journal expressed some hope in a recent editorial that Lefkowitz might have been talking for the president when he made those comments. Or at least that Lefkowitz might have the president's ear on this issue. I'm skeptical. But her reaction here is a bit bizarre. Nobody besides Rice, Chris Hill, and the president really have any idea what's going on at the six-party talks. And in fact, we don't need to know what's going on there to know that the North hasn't yet met its deadlines for "disablement," hasn't yet stopped starving its people, hasn't yet become a credible partner for negotiation. If, despite his title, Lefkowitz has no say in American policy on North Korea--perhaps he ought to.

Jay Lefkowitz, the U.S. special envoy on North Korean human rights, has publicly questioned the Bush administration's approach to dealing with North Korea:

Lefkowitz charged late Thursday that North Korea used its nuclear arsenal to "extort" aid, was "not serious" about disarming, and would likely not give up its weapons before US President George W. Bush's term ends in January 2009.

He also said that China and South Korea -- the two nations with the most leverage over the North Korean regime -- were "unwilling to apply significant pressure on Pyongyang" to abandon its nuclear weapons arsenal.

Because of this, he said, recent six-party talks "in actuality, became a bilateral negotiation between the US and North Korea."

Lefkowitz called for a "new approach" in disarmament talks -- "perhaps even bilaterally" -- with North Korea that would permanently link human rights as part of the engagement policy and a critical condition for any normalization of diplomatic relations.

Using unusually sharp words, he said North Korea "has not kept its word," was "not serious about disarming in a timely manner" and "its conduct does not appear to be that of a government that is willing to come in from the cold."

Lefkowitz also accused Pyongyang of being a "serial proliferator" and using its nuclear arms to "extort" foreign aid, saying there was no guarantee that US military and nuclear strength could prevent it from passing on nuclear arms or technology to Islamist extremists or their backers.

Lefkowitz has one overarching concern--human rights in North Korea--and there's little doubt that the current process is unlikely to see progress on that front. But there's also no reason to doubt his assessment of the nature of the six party talks, or that North Korea is negotiating in bad faith. A number of Conservatives, most notably John Bolton, have broken ranks with the administration over the "disablement" process, but this is the first time someone has done so from the inside. Hopefully his boss is paying attention.

Hong Kong
I’m not the only Heritage Foundation guy in Hong Kong this week. Heritage President Ed Feulner was in town to release the 2008 "Index of Economic Freedom." A joint project of the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, the index grades every country on the openness of their economy and the potential for economic opportunity. This year’s winner is Hong Kong. That was no big surprise. Hong Kong has been ranked No. 1 in economic freedom every year, starting with the first "Index," published 14 years ago.

One striking thing about this year’s report, though, is how many Pacific nations rank among world leaders in economic freedom. Indeed, six of the eight top-ranked countries border the Pacific. Four of those six are Asian: Hong Kong (1), Singapore (2), Australia (4), and New Zealand (6). The U.S. ranks fifth--an indication that America might well spend more time looking East.

Americans are getting exercised by warnings of a possible recession and talk about an economic "stimulus" package from Washington. But the early word about the stimulants under discussion suggests that--as is often the case -- the promised help from Washington is calculated more to win votes than generate jobs. Odds are that, whatever "stimulus" Washington applies will have only a minor effect on America’s $14 trillion economy. But the best stimulus package is to unleash the economy and let free economies do what they do best--grow. That’s what Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand have done. And that’s why Asia offers tremendous opportunities for growth.

From a security standpoint, turning East makes sense, too. Asia has been awash with "happy talk." South Korea is talking to North Korea; Taiwan is talking to China, and China is talking to India. Asia’s hottest hot spots all look to be a little cooler as a result.

American leadership in Asia could help keep things moving in the right direction. Only continued U.S. pressure will ensure that North Korea follows through on backing away from its "nuclear bully" stance. Missile defense in Asia won’t happen without U.S. leadership. The Taiwan Straits will always be potentially troubled waters without a vigilant U.S. presence. And U.S.-India relations have come a long way--but have a long way to go.

And, of course, there is Pakistan. My guess is al Qaeda has overplayed its hand in Pakistan much as it did in Iraq--and there will be serious "blowback" against the extremists (regardless of who is Pakistan’s president). A year from now Osama bin Laden and his cohorts may find themselves pressed between a Pakistan which no longer wants them and an Afghanistan with a NATO presence (bucked-up by the United States) this is not about to take them back. This happy scenario, however, won’t happen without leadership from the White House. To regain momentum here, the U.S. needs to remain actively engaged with both countries.

American leadership can make a real difference in Asia this year. And there is a real payoff for the effort: an opportunity to engage with some of the most dynamic economies in the world. And that’s a great way to help ward off a recession.

Because it worked out so well the last time...

Not long ago we learned that the State Department had facilitated arrangements for the New York Philharmonic Orchestra to travel to North Korea. It’s a terrible idea, of course, to reward Kim Jong Il’s bad behavior--indeed, his bad nature--by sending cultural envoys with the blessing of our top diplomats. (See Powerline’s Scott Johnson on the subject here.)

But it would be something just short of disastrous if our top diplomat herself--Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice--were to go along, no? That is just what she is planning to do, according to a report from NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, in an appearance on The Chris Matthews Show. According to Mitchell, whose reporting consistently reflects access to very good sources at the highest levels of our diplomatic bureaucracy, Rice will be going to North Korea with the philharmonic when it travels to the dark nation in February.

George W. Bush included North Korea in the Axis of Evil some six years ago. And he famously told Bob Woodward: "I loathe Kim Jong Il. I’ve got a visceral reaction to this guy because he is starving his people."

But more recently, Bush sent a letter to the man he once derided as a "pygmy," in an effort to get the North Korean leader to made good on his disarmament commitments--a triumph of hope over experience, as Samuel Johnson once said in a different context. Bush was even said to have addressed Kim Jong Il as "Mr. Chairman" in the letter, suggesting a softening of his earlier views.

A letter is one thing. But a cultural exchange featuring America’s top diplomat is quite another.

Will Bush let her go?

As Kevin Rudd and his new cabinet are being sworn into office today, Chinese media have given unprecedented coverage to the Australian Labor Party’s victory in the November 24 elections, and to the newly designated prime minister in particular.

Names of Western leaders are typically transliterated into Chinese characters. For example, Bush is referred to in the Chinese press as bu-shi, Blair as bu-lai-er, Brown as bu-lang, and so on. All sound somewhat alien to the Chinese ear.

Kevin Rudd, on the other hand, is known as Lu Kewen, a quintessentially Chinese name that he adopted while studying Chinese language and history at the Australian National University. Rudd endeared himself to the Chinese even more when he mentioned, during a pre-election interview with China Central Television (CCTV) conducted almost entirely in Mandarin, that his three children are all students of the language and his son-in-law is a Chinese-born, naturalized Aussie.

The Chinese take great pride in the fact that the leader of a major Western country speaks their language and has expressed a keen interest in their culture. Rudd’s interview with CCTV is characterized as a conversation that "demonstrated China’s cultural soft power," while the "Lu Kewen phenomenon" is viewed as a reflection of "China’s continuously ascending international clout."

The official Xinhua news agency found it "profoundly significant" that Australia’s "history" finally caught up with its "geography," as its voters ousted John Howard, whose Asia policy was "bogged down in history," and embraced Rudd, the widely acclaimed "China expert" who turned his "Chinese-ness" into a "campaign trump card."

Guangming Daily, run by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, attributed Rudd’s victory to his "forward-looking new thinking."

The gushing enthusiasm, however, is mixed with a certain degree of caution. People’s Daily ran on November 27 an opinion piece titled "Do not rush to label the China-expert prime minister ‘pro-China.’" The story, first published in China Youth Daily, states:

Being a "China expert" is not equivalent to being a "China lover." First and foremost, Lu Kewen is a citizen of Australia; secondly, he is the prime minister of Australia. In the eyes of Westerners, official duties and private affairs are strictly separated. Lu Kewen the "China expert" belongs in the personal realm. Being "prime minister" is Kevin Rudd’s official duty. We expect him to improve his country’s relations with China. But we cannot expect too much.

At an APEC lunch in Sydney this past September, then-opposition leader Rudd upstaged prime minister Howard by addressing Chinese president Hu Jintao in Mandarin. Howard, who had just inked a $45 billion gas deal with Hu, was left to listen to a translation of Rudd expressing his love for China and its culture.

The following day, Rudd and Hu held a 30-minute meeting conducted entirely in Mandarin. So impressed was Hu that he told Rudd: "You speak perfect Chinese and you know China inside out."

In his victory speech on November 24, Rudd referred to the United States as Australia’s "great friend and ally." Australia’s friends across Asia and the Pacific were characterized not as "allies," but instead as "partners." An indicator, perhaps, that Kevin Rudd, aka Lu Kewen, really does know China inside out.

Beijing
Intelligence sources and other observers both here in the capital of the PRC and elsewhere in Asia are stating that they project a possible collapse of the North Korean regime within six months time.

Although there have been similar dire predictions made in the past, those analyzing the current situation point to several factors that indicate that the regime may finally be unraveling.

Recent activity by both Kim Jong-Il and other DPRK officials suggest that the Dear Leader is in the process of moving around the financial resources of Pyongyang’s international banking empire in order to make sure he is taken care of should he have to go into exile. This includes a recent visit to the United States by North Korean finance officials who were visiting to learn about the international financial circulation network.

Ostensibly, this visit was preparatory work that would allow the country to re-join the international financial system. This is the next, anticipated step for Pyongyang once the regime has negotiated its removal from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism. The DPRK are also seeking an end to their being subject to the U.S. Trading with the Enemy Act first imposed during the Korean War by President Harry Truman.

But, there are others who suggest that this is also part of a contingency plan in order to make Kim’s assets “portable.”

While the Dear Leader is engaged in financial matters, other reports state that there are movements of U.S. and South Korean military units and equipment to the DMZ in what appears to be a pre-positioning exercise in anticipation of some internal upheavals in the north.

Indications that the regime is possibly losing its grip and that Kim may be failing to maintain control over events are seen in what happens both inside--and how people are managing to get outside of--the country.

A recent article in the Washington Post details how it has become far easier and more common for North Koreas to find ways of getting out of their country. How much money you have determines how arduous and circuitous your escape route might be.

The key factor to watch is how rapidly the numbers of people fleeing are increasing. Only 41 North Koreans were able to reach the South in 1995, but the rate of those escaping has grown each year and last year it reached 2,000. What makes these multiple escape routes out of the country possible is that there are a growing number of DPRK border guards and secret police officials who are willing to take bribes to allow their fellow countrymen to escape.

North Korea watchers regard this as a telltale sign of the regime losing its control. Part of the motivation for these border control officials’ desire to collect bribes is that the centrally-controlled economy has ceased to function and the food distribution system is nearly as broken. But, the other side of the coin, they say, is that those accepting these under-the-table payments do not fear the punishment of higher-ranking authorities as much as they once did.

Equally indicative of how little Pyongyang can now affect the outward flow of asylum seekers is how harsh the retributions have become for the relatives left behind.

It happens, on rare occasion. When the USS Porter came to the rescue of a hijacked North Korean ship off the coast of Somalia, I speculated that the North Korean public would never hear about the encounter, remaining blissfully ignorant of the fact that the United States fleet includes a single vessel other than the captured USS Pueblo.

Don Surber, took a different view, though, saying "this should help relations with North Korea":

Still, I have to think that there are a few Koreans who think a little more highly of the United States because of this.

Well, apparently it has helped relations:

In an extremely rare public expression, North Korea officially thanked the United States for helping the crew of a North Korean cargo ship hijacked by pirates off the Somali coast late last month, describing the rescue as a symbol of Washington-Pyongyang rapprochement.

"We feel grateful to the United States for its assistance given to our crewmen. This case serves as a symbol of the DPRK [North Korea]-U.S. cooperation in the struggle against terrorism," the North's state-run Korean Central News Agency said.

Best word to describe the North Koreans, other than evil: unpredictable.

Looking les and less likely.

According to a weekend report from Reuters news agency, one of Washington’s closest Asian allies may be ending a several decades-long practice of purchasing its advanced weaponry from the United States. On Wednesday, Japanese Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba gave an interview which seemed to indicate that the country’s air force was saying "sayonara" to their earlier expressed wishes to purchase an export version of the Lockheed Martin (LM) F-22A Raptor.

Japanese military officials have been discussing a possible F-22A purchase with the United States for more than two years, and several of the aircraft have made visits to Japanese air bases, but Congressional and other opposition to selling the U.S. Air Force’s top-of-the-line stealthy fighter appears to still be enough to block the sale. Despite the fact that Japan is perhaps the number one security partner of the United States in the region, there is still a mindset within the U.S. Government that is hesitant to export the new-age technologies that are the basis for the Raptor’s performance and combat effectiveness.

This past August the House Appropriations Committee passed legislation banning the export of the F-22A to any foreign government. DoD officials in Washington said this would derail plans by Israel and Japan to obtain the advanced fighter sometime during the next three years, Middle East Newsline reported.

Conventional wisdom has been that the Japanese would try to outwait this resistance and just postpone their procurement for another year, but the problem facing Japan’s Air Self-Defence Force (JSDAF) is that time is not on their side. The JSDAF are still operating a number of the aging McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantoms that need to be retired and replaced with a later-model platform. Some of the F-4s have been in service in Japan for nearly 35 years.

If the past week’s statements are to be believed, the need to buy something now appears to be winning out over Tokyo’s desire to continue to "buy American."

"The F-22 is an exceptional aircraft," Ishiba was quoted as saying. "But we at the Defence Ministry have not decided that it is absolutely necessary for Japan." Ishiba went on to say that of the several other competitors to replace the F-4s the most likely choice was the four-nation consortium Eurofighter. Eurofighter’s major industrial participants are BAE Systems in the UK, EADS in Germany and Spain, and Alenia Aeronautica/Finemeccanica in Italy.

Other competitors in the race have been ruled out for other reasons. "The French [Dassault] Rafale is difficult to use. We certainly wouldn't choose a Russian fighter plane. So I think it would be the Eurofighter Typhoon," he said.

Observers of the F-22A program in the United States are puzzled as to why the U.S. Government continues to hold back from selling the Raptor. They point out that the other major LM program, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), utilizes many of the same technologies as the F-22A and will likely be sold to more than a dozen nations.

"The major new technologies that make the F-22A the next generation in fighter aircraft are also the building blocks of the F-35," said a Washington, D.C.-based expert on combat aircraft and stealth technology. "The low observable materials, the active electronically scanning array (AESA) radar, new avionics--these and more are part of the F-35’s design. The USAF also need an export sale to bump up the total numbers of F-22As to be produced. It is the only way to put any economies of scale into this program."

Gordon Chang has posted an interesting rebuttal to Robert D. Kaplan's must-read in today's New York Times. Chang is dubious of Kaplan's contention that this century will be "the Asian Century":

Kaplan is right to highlight the growing militarization of Asia. But he’s too hasty in arguing that the continent will, therefore, dominate the 21st century. If anything, Asian militarism probably will be the reason that historians will call this era “the Second American Century.”

In the twentieth century it took two all-encompassing wars and one decades-long struggle to resolve the most pressing matters in Europe. In Asia, Japan and Russia have yet to settle their differences resulting from World War II, and the Korean War still has not been concluded by peace treaty. More important, the animosity among the great powers of Asia—China and India, India and Pakistan, and China and Japan, just to mention the most prominent of them—continues to flare. And then there is always Taiwan, essentially the unfinished Chinese civil war.

Kaplan does note a few of today’s territorial disputes, but he ignores the more important ones, and fails to convey the intensity of any of them. Moreover, he does not refer to the military clashes and confrontations that have threatened peace this decade. Asia is an area of rising giants, failing states, and unresolved disputes, some of which have gone on for centuries. In this context, it’s unlikely that the Chinese, Indians, Japanese, and South Koreans will spend hundreds of billions of dollars on new ships and not use them in another monumental clash. We can probably look forward to decades of Asian turbulence. In many respects, Asia today is the Europe of a hundred years ago. For this and other reasons, Asians will not dominate this century.

My own two cents: Kaplan worries that China's increased military spending may result in "a quantitative advantage in naval technology that could erode our qualitative one." This seems unlikely as the U.S. Navy still maintains an enormous quantitative advantage over its competitors, including China. The United States Navy has more ships than the next 17 navies combined. During Pax Britannica, the British Navy understood supremacy to mean a fleet larger than the next two navies combined. And our qualitative advantage is similarly impressive--despite cutting the number of ships from 592 at the end of the Cold War to less than 300 now, the current Navy is a far more lethal force than it was before. There's no doubt that China's ever-growing submarine fleet represents a real challenge, but that is in the littorals. So I'm deeply skeptical that in just "a few years" we will see "the loss of the Pacific Ocean as an American lake after 60 years of near-total dominance." But Kaplan's a smart guy.

Australian PM John Howard is seeing a "stunning recovery in the polls":

JOHN Howard's refusal to bow to Cabinet critics has paid off for the Prime Minister with a stunning recovery in the polls.

A Newspoll survey published today shows the Government picking up four percentage points to get 45 per cent of the two-party preferred vote.

Labor's share fell four points to 55 per cent.

The poll still shows that an election held now would see Labor easily elected. But it will give Coalition MPs - and Mr Howard - greater confidence.

Maybe a result of Bush's recent trip to Australia where he delivered this strong message?

It was a bad week for Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, one of America’s most important allies. First his party took a “thumping” (as George W. Bush might say) in upper house elections on Sunday, July 29th. Then, a day later, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution urging Tokyo to formally apologize and “accept historical responsibility in a clear and unequivocal manner” for the mistreatment of thousands of sex slaves in Japanese military brothels during World War II.

Japan issued an official apology for the so-called “comfort women” in 1993, but it was never ratified by parliament. Many Japanese conservatives, including Prime Minister Abe, have shown a troubling tendency to downplay or sugarcoat such imperial atrocities. (The Rape of Nanking is another example.) Indeed, a large bloc of Japanese MPs has pushed to revise the 1993 apology.

The “history issue” remains a stubborn and embarrassing problem for Japan. But here is my take, from a few months ago, on why it shouldn’t discredit Tokyo’s new foreign policy agenda, which is based around prudent self-defense, a greater acceptance of international duties, and what Foreign Minister Taro Aso calls “value-oriented diplomacy.” (And here is a related piece on the overblown fears of resurgent Japanese nationalism.)

From today's Australian:

ALEXANDER Downer has distanced Australia from US and Japanese complaints about China's rapid military build-up, saying the concerns are exaggerated.

The US and Japanese Governments have complained about the escalation and "opaqueness" of Beijing's military spending, but Mr Downer said Australia viewed growing military strength as "an inevitable function" of China's economic growth. China was interested in secure supplies of resources and free markets for its products, he said in Tokyo yesterday, not expanding its territory or exporting its ideology, except possibly in the case of Taiwan.

"I don't think anything drives the Chinese leadership more than their desire to lift their people out of poverty and about making China a prosperous country," he said. "That is the true driving force of Chinese public policy, so I don't think any of us need be unduly concerned about Chinese military expenditure. I think expressions of concern are much exaggerated."

This might seem like a strange sentiment for a government that has been one of the Bush administration's staunchest allies on matters of democracy promotion. But, according to THE WEEKLY STANDARD's own Duncan Currie, this view of China runs deep in the Howard government, which has presided over an unprecedented economic boom that has been given a recent lift by increased trade with the Chinese mainland. Unlike the United States, which runs an enormous trade deficit with China, Australia's deficit was only $3.5 billion last year, and exports rose 46.4 percent while imports climbed just 16.5 percent compared with the year before.

Currie says the Australians see themselves as an honest broker between the Chinese and the United States, a mediator that both sides can trust. Still, it seems unbelievably naive to think that China's Communist party is primarily driven by the desire to lift the country's masses out of poverty...and to the extent that it is driven by such considerations, it's unlikely that prosperity is, in and of itself, an end, but rather a means to greater stability and military power. Either way, helping the Chinese get rich, and helping oneself in the process, shouldn't blind developed countries to the nature of the regime in Beijing. Currie says that Howard, for his part, has promoted a “calm and constructive dialogue” between the U.S. and China. But the Australian premier has also emphasized that he has “no illusions--that China remains an authoritarian country” and “no false illusions about the nature of China’s society.” He made those remarks at a press conference with Dick Cheney this past February in Sydney.

And when Howard signed a security pact with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in March, he made it quite clear that Australia would not soon ink such a deal with Beijing. As he told a reporter: “There are a lot of things we have in common with China, but China is not a democracy. Japan is.”

This speech offers a good distillation of Howard’s views on China (and on Asia generally).

As things stand now, it's entirely unclear whether the North Koreans will meet their first obligation set forth under the February 13 agreement--the shutdown of the country's main nuclear reactor at Yongbyon.

After nearly four years of Six Party Talks with the North Koreans, the reclusive regime seems interested only in stalling for more time and extorting aid from the West in the form of fuel oil and food.

But what if the West, instead of trying to disarm the rogue regime, merely sought to do business there. The story of the Baltika Beer Company might be instructive. The Russian brewery shipped 72,000 bottles of Baltika No. 5 Gold to Korea last week, the first delivery of its kind. How long did it take for Baltika to tap the North Korean market? Longer than it took the Bush administration to bribe the North Koreans into another nuke deal.

Negotiations began in 2001, when Kim Johg-Il himself visited the brewery while in St. Petersburg. The next year he sent engineers back to St. Petersburg "to study brewing methods." According to officials at Baltika, reaching an accord took a further three years. That only takes us up to 2005--and there's no explanation for what held up the first shipment for another two and a half years.

Dmitry Kistev, head of Baltika's export sales, explained the company's strategy: "The foam drink brewed in the city that's the cradle of socialist revolution -- and that's how Baltika will be positioned in North Korea -- will be available for foreign tourists as well."

At 80 cents a bottle, it's doubtful that Baltika will reach a wide swath of the North Korean "market." And, given that it takes Kim six years to order a beer, one has good reason to be skeptical that the regime will dismantle its nuclear program after just four years of giving us the run around.

Tim Johnson, the China correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers, also runs his own blog, China Rises, which is a must-read for those following events in the world's most populous country. Yesterday Johnson linked to a story titled "Have All China Scholars Been Bought?" from the Far Eastern Economic Review. The author, Carson A. Holz, writes:

Academics who study China, which includes the author, habitually please the Chinese Communist Party, sometimes consciously, and often unconsciously. Our incentives are to conform, and we do so in numerous ways: through the research questions we ask or don’t ask, through the facts we report or ignore, through our use of language, and through what and how we teach.

Foreign academics must cooperate with academics in China to collect data and co-author research. Surveys are conducted in a manner that is acceptable to the Party, and their content is limited to politically acceptable questions. For academics in China, such choices come naturally. The Western side plays along.

China researchers are equally constrained in their solo research. Some Western China scholars have relatives in China. Others own apartments there. Those China scholars whose mother tongue is not Chinese have studied the language for years and have built their careers on this large and nontransferable investment. We benefit from our connections in China to obtain information and insights, and we protect these connections. Everybody is happy, Western readers for the up-to-date view from academia, we ourselves for prospering in our jobs, and the Party for getting us to do its advertising. China is fairly unique in that the incentives for academics all go one way: One does not upset the Party.

You get the gist--if one wants to study China, he had better not get on the wrong side of the Communist party. If he does, he runs the risk of losing his access, and his job.

For his part, Johnson locks onto this particularly disturbing paragraph from the story:

We ignore the fact that of the 3,220 Chinese citizens with a personal wealth of 100 million yuan ($13 million) or more, 2,932 are children of high-level cadres. Of the key positions in the five industrial sectors -­ finance, foreign trade, land development, large-scale engineering and securities -- 85% to 90% are held by children of high-level cadres.

Johnson is suspicious--"It’s a pretty extraordinary statistic. But is it true? I have my serious doubts." Jennifer Chou posted here yesterday on two "children of high-level cadres," one of whom is the vice minister of the State Environmental Protection Administration and the other the head of Huaneng Power International, China's largest power producer. THE WORLDWIDE STANDARD thus makes its contribution of anecdotal evidence to support Holz's claim.

But Johnson does not really challenge the thrust of Holz's argument, that Western scholars have, out of self-interest, largely conformed to the wishes of the Communist party on issues large and small.

Current New Mexico governor and Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson is making the rounds in North Korea this week with the blessing of President Bush. Richardson hopes to collect the remains of U.S. soldiers killed during the Korean War, but his hosts are making the most of the visit's propaganda value, taking the governor, and a group of reporters, to the USS Pueblo, which was captured in 1968 along with 82 of her crew. The crew was released 11 months later, but the Pueblo remains in North Korea, for the purpose of "anti-American education" in the words of a Nork colonel accompanying Richardson's delegation. The Pueblo is the only active duty warship held by a foreign government, and was the first U.S. warship to be captured since 1807.

As embarrassing as the ship's capture was at the time, Allahpundit rightly points out the performance of that crew relative to the 15 British sailors and marines released by Iran's Revolutionary Guards just last week. I'm hesitant to accuse the British troops of cowardice, though I pretty much agree with those that have, but in comparison to the Americans who served on the Pueblo, they fail to measure up. The crew of the Pueblo may not have fought to the last man, but neither were they a "contrite and cooperative lot."

Notice the hand signals these sailors from the Pueblo display
in this propaganda photo taken by the North Koreans.

Today at the American Enterprise Institute, John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control before his stint as ambassador to the United Nations, slammed the February 13 agreement between the United States and North Korea. Here's the report from U.S. News:

"I think this deal will inevitably fail," Bolton said. "That day cannot come too soon in my view."

Asked by U.S. News why the administration had changed course in February and accepted that North Korea would receive some benefits before it had verifiably disarmed, Bolton said it was because of "the persistence of the State Department bureaucracy ... they've finally succeeded." Bolton added that he was particularly surprised that President Bush, with well-known views about human-rights violations in North Korea and terrorism, would agree to begin a process of removing North Korea from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. He cited North Korea's abduction of perhaps 15 Japanese citizens in the 1970s and '80s as a matter that must be resolved before North Korea could shed its terrorism-sponsor status.

"The February 13 agreement let North Korea out of the corner it had put itself in," Bolton said. "Time works in North Korea's favor and against our interest."

Bolton argued that North Korea will not surrender its nuclear weapons and programs until there is regime change, saying that a real denuclearization agreement would constitute a "suicide pact" for the regime of Kim Jong Il.

Bolton argued that North Korea will not surrender its nuclear weapons and programs until there is regime change, saying that a real denuclearization agreement would constitute a "suicide pact" for the regime of Kim Jong Il.

Whatever opinion one has of Bolton, it's hard to argue against his interpretation of events. And it would be surprising if the left, as much as they love to hate Bolton, didn't support this interpretation--if only to deny the Bush administration credit for what is, in fact, a pathetically Clintonian deal. In other news "Pyongyang is likely to miss an agreed deadline for initial steps towards dismantling its nuclear programme" according to Wu Dawei, China's chief negotiator on North Korea.

Total WonKerr Paul Kerr continues to support the government's bizarre position that an absence of evidence that the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs are collaborating is, in fact, evidence of absence. Kerr points to this Feb. 27 exchange before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

SEN. COLLINS: Do you have evidence that North Korea is assisting Iran in developing its nuclear capabilities?

ADM. MCCONNELL: No, ma’am, I’m not aware of anything. Let me turn to my colleagues, if they are. I don’t know of anything — any connection between the two.

SEN. COLLINS: General?

GEN. MAPLES: No, ma’am.

SEN. COLLINS: The reason I ask is there was a CRS report that was issued back in October of last year that says the evidence suggests that North Korea has had extensive dealings with Iran on missiles and other weapons. But General?

GEN. MAPLES: That’s correct, they have had extensive interaction on the development of missile systems. And Iran, in fact, has purchased missiles from North Korea.

SEN. COLLINS: But there’s no concern that North Korea may be helping Iran develop nuclear capabilities?

GEN. MAPLES: There is a concern, but we haven’t seen —

SEN. COLLINS: But no evidence to support it?

ADM. MCCONNELL: No evidence, that’s correct, Senator.

Well, case closed, right? I mean, we haven't actually seen Kim Jong-Il handing plutonium to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, so I'm sure they've confined their collaboration to the development of missile systems.

Fortunately, not everyone is lining up to give these rogue regimes the benefit of the doubt. Spiegel reports:

The fate of 12 German giant rabbits delivered to North Korea is in doubt. The breeder who sent them suspects they have been eaten by top officials rather than used to set up a bunny farm. Berlin's North Korean embassy denies the allegation.

Update: Over at The Danger Room, Sharon Weinberger links to an English-language copy of the original report. And John at Op-For makes this excellent point: "I've always chuckled at references to China's "asymmetrical" military doctrine. We're the boys with the force-multiplying toys, and China's the one with the big honking Army. Aren't we the asymmetrical ones?"

I've been skeptical of reports that China is planning to deploy an aircraft carrier in the near future, perhaps as soon as 2010. But the rumor is persistent, and the Heritage Foundation's Peter Brookes recently wrote a compelling essay on why the rumors might be true. Said Brookes,

The existence of a Chinese “flattop” program has long been rumored. Sure, some experts scoff at the idea, pointing out that carriers don’t fit with China’s military doctrine of “asymmetry.” . . .

(Critics will point out that carriers have significant vulnerabilities. Jaunty submariners brag those 100,000-ton “bird farms” are nuthin’ but big, fat gray targets.)

So, if the experts are right, and China is pursuing a “David and Goliath” strategy against U.S. military might in the Pacific, why would Beijing build carriers?

First, it’s always possible the recent news is wrong--just another badly sourced rumor coming out of Hong Kong regarding Chinese military developments.

Second, Beijing could be changing its strategy. It might be looking toward a more balanced naval force that includes aircraft carriers to project power deep into the Pacific. (With its broad expanses of open ocean, there aren't many other ways to operate in the Pacific theater.)

A third option: China may want to “show the flag.”

China is, without question, a rising power--world’s largest population, No. 2 energy consumer, No. 3 defense budget, No. 4 economy. And so on. It’s an up-and-comer. Beijing may well think the time is ripe to proclaim to the world: We’re not just a regional power anymore.

I find this third reason particularly persuasive. The Chinese ASAT test earlier this year confirmed Beijing's asymmetric strategy, but it also signaled to the world that China was capable of waging war in space--that it was a military power on par with the Soviet Union and the United States.

An even greater indication of the Chinese desire to "show the flag" is that country's manned space program, which, like this country's manned space program, serves no other purpose than to demonstrate technological superiority and foster national pride. As the party organ People's Daily put it in February of this year under the headline "Why Does China Want to Probe the Moon?", "Sooner or later, China's gorgeous five-star red flag will tower on the moon, and days are not distant for the dream of the Chinese people to come true." Clearly, showing the flag is of some importance to the Chinese.

Now The Marmot's Hole links to this story from the very credible, if reliably left wing, Korean newspaper Hankyoreh Shinmun. According to the report, "China is secretly pushing the construction of a nuclear-powered 'supercarrier' of 93,000 tons." My Korean is a bit rusty, but The Marmot's Hole gives this synopsis:

Citing a source familiar with Chinese military issues, the Hankyoreh Shinmun is reporting that China is secretly pushing the construction of a nuclear-powered "supercarrier" of 93,000 tons.

The source, presenting internal Chinese Communist Party documents, said China plans to build a 48,000-ton conventional-powered aircraft carrier (so-called “Project 085″) and a 93,000-ton monster carrier (”Project 089″). The materials presented said China’s Central Military Commission had recently approved both projects and spelled out both vessels’ displacement.

I'd still contend that, as Brookes put it, Chinese carriers would be "nuthin’ but big, fat gray targets," but that doesn't change the fact that an aircraft carrier would boost Beijing's ability to project "soft power." And deploying a Nimitz-sized nuclear carrier would, like the ASAT test, show that China is to be considered a military superpower.

Again, Brookes:

As opposed to provocative exercises of "hard power" (such as China's January test of a satellite-killer), a friendly ship visit, while still displaying strength, does so in a "soft power" way (think: velvet glove around the iron fist).

The Russian carrier Varyag, which is being refitted in the port of Dalian by the Chinese.
When the Chinese bought the ship from the Ukraine, they claimed it would be used in Macau as a floating casino.

Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was greeted with full military honors in Beijing yesterday where he met with his counterpart, PLA General Liang Guanglie.

The American Forces Press Service reports that the Chinese brought up the "situation" between Taiwan and China and that Pace assured them that American policy is guided by the "'One China Policy,' the ‘Three Communiques’ (between the United States and China), the Taiwan Relations Act and a sincere desire to see reunification done in a peaceful manner."

An American officer of this rank didn't visit the Soviet Union until June of 1989, when Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral William Crowe Jr. arrived in Moscow to sign the Agreement on Prevention of Dangerous Military Activities--the aim of which was to reduce the risk of a confrontation between the two superpowers. Among the articles of that agreement were pledges to avoid:

Using a laser in such a manner that its radiation could cause harm to personnel or damage to equipment of the armed forces of the other Party;

Interfering with command and control networks in a manner which could cause harm to personnel or damage to equipment of the armed forces of the other Party.

It would have been nice if Pace could have walked away from his meetings in Beijing with just such an agreement in hand. Larry Wortzel, chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, spoke at the National Press Club late last year about the urgent need for U.S. military leaders to engage in "serious defense talks with the senior PLA leaders on what the red lines are in warfare." Wortzel was talking specifically about the surfacing of a Chinese sub so close to an American carrier, but he added that "the Chinese need to understand that we are very sensitive about interference with our strategic warning and about the ability of the United States to gather indications of hostility"--i.e. blinding our satellites with lasers and generally "interfering with command and control networks in a manner which could cause harm to personnel."

And it is absolutely crucial that the American military come to some sort of understanding with their Chinese counterparts on these issues. Any interference in command and control networks could force the United States into a disproportionate response simply because that interference will blind American commanders to the severity of the attack. So it's a bit disappointing that the precedent of Crowe's visit to the Soviet Union was not seized on to push for a similar deal with the Chinese.

The pictures from the visit are striking though. You can see more here.

Marine General Peter Pace and PLA General Liang Guanglie.
DoD photo by Staff Sgt. D. Myles Cullen, U.S. Air Force

Defense News carries an interesting piece today on the rise of China and its implications for American allies in the Pacific. Reporting from Taipei, Wendell Minnick spoke with two friends of THE WORLDWIDE STANDARD to better understand the impact of China's swelling defense budget. Reuben Johnson, THE WEEKLY STANDARD's aviation and defense correspondent, had this to say:

There is almost no intelligent analysis or thinking in Washington about what China will be like--what the nature of the state and its policies will be--when Beijing is a true superpower.

What disturbs China’s neighbors is that there is little--if any--sort of strategic vision emanating from D.C. on this subject. In the absence of anything other than the usual polemics, they will seek to go their own way in developing a response to the implications of China.

And speaking to the "real fears in the region that China might procure the Tu-22 Backfire bomber and the thrust-vectoring Su-35 fighter," John Tkacik said that,

Japan certainly needs a fifth-generation fighter, given the tremendous expansion in China’s fourth-generation fighter fleet. The F-22 is a proven killer to anything China can put in the skies. It would make budget sense for Japan to have a fighter that can kill 50 Chinese Su-27s without suffering a loss, as opposed to the F-15, which is merely an even match for the Su-27. The unfortunate thing, however, is that the State Department seems to be hesitating on the approval for the F-22 sale to Japan.

I spoke with the Lexington Institute's Loren Thompson a couple of weeks ago about the prospects for a sale of F-22s to Japan. He said that it would cost the Chinese approximately $300 billion to build an air defense network capable of thwarting the stealthy, supersonic fighter, though talk of any sale remained "pure speculation." But the Pentagon's dithering on the matter perfectly illustrates Johnson's point--the United States has no coherent policy for balancing against China's rise.

Mohamed El Baradei, the head of the IAEA, just emerged from North Korea with this to say:

"The DPRK [North Korea] said they were committed to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula," . . .

"It is in the interests of North Korea to normalise relations with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]," . . . "We cleared the air. We opened the door for a normal relationship."

El Baradei was the winner of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize for "efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way," despite the fact that his tenure has seen Pakistan and North Korea both go nuclear, with Iran soon to follow. Still the Peace Prize winner is now ready to "open the door for a normal relationship" with the world's most heinous regime. Further, he seems intent on doing the North Koreans dirty work for them, telling reporters that “The DPRK says their cooperation, accepting inspectors, will come after the lifting of the sanctions.”

Claudia Rosett, writing at her blog The Rosett Report, says

That’s an interesting formulation, which basically puts the burden on the sanctioners, not on North Korea’s totalitarian government--which has turned nuclear extortion into one of its main industries, and has already lied and cheated on previous nuclear freeze deals. We can expect that kind of statement from officials working for Kim Jong Il’s regime, but why should the IAEA be a purveyor of Pyongyang’s duplicities?

Your world government at work.

John J. Tkacik, Jr. has posted a must-read on China's military buildup at the Heritage Foundation website. Beijing announced last week that military spending would rise more than 17 percent in 2007 to a total of $45 billion, but Tkacik says the actual figure may be ten-times as much.

A closer look at China's military spending raises profound questions about China's geopolitical direction. In terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), China's effective military spending is far greater than $45 billion, or even the U.S. Department of Defense's $105 billion estimate. In fact, it is in the $450 billion range, putting it in the same league as the United States and far ahead of any other country, including Russia. This figure reflects the reality that a billion dollars can buy a lot more "bang" in China than in the United States.

How much "bang" you ask? Reuters reported yesterday that the Chinese may try and deploy their first aircraft carrier as soon as 2010. But over at Ares, the official blog of Aviation Week, Catherine Hockmuth casts some doubt on the claim, saying that such plans face at least one major obstacle: "the enormous cost of developing and operating a carrier fleet, which includes warships, supply ships and submarines to protect the carrier."

While the massive increases in China's defense budget in the last few years should be considered a major threat to the balance of power in the Pacific, the claim reported by Reuters is highly dubious. In the event of a conflict between the United States and China, a Chinese carrier would likely be the Pentagon's number one target--and an easy one at that. If the U.S. military can see it, they can destroy it, and there's no hiding an aircraft carrier. For this reason the Chinese are likely to focus their naval budget on building submarines--which are difficult to track and thus present a far greater challenge for the U.S. Navy--with advanced missile and ASAT systems. This line of thinking is put forward by a professor of China's Dalian Naval Academy, Liu Huanyu, whose work was translated by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in their assessment of China's ASAT and space warfare program, policies, and doctrines. Liu writes,

China is in urgent need of new effective defense forces. Constrained by its national resources, the broad goals of economic development, and the international environment in the area, it is impossible and unnecessary for China to develop large scale aircraft carriers…..What China needs now is an effective capability to intervene on the ocean, which means a new sea power. The sea-based anti-satellite platform is a major component of the new sea power and must be given a high priority. If this new avenue is explored as soon as possible, China can hopefully improve its sea power dramatically within 10 years.

The assessment, which relied on open-source articles from Chinese military journals, provides an excellent glimpse at the current thinking of Chinese military strategists. And while the Chinese are clearly working toward developing some very threating asymmetric capabilities with all that defense spending, there's very little evidence of a serious effort to build and deploy an aircraft carrier.

U.S. officials continue to push for greater transparency from Beijing in matters of defense spending, with Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte echoing calls made last week by the vice president. The response from the Communist regime: Beijing announced defense spending would grow by 17.8 percent in FY 2007. Cheney's comments last week, saying that such increases were "not consistent with China's goal of a peaceful rise," were answered by foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang:

"If you had a neighbor always standing at your doorstep, peering into your household and constantly shouting at you, 'Why don't you open your door and let me see what's in your house, what's in your family,' how would you feel about that?"

Mr. Qin continued: "You wear your clothes, you wear your underwear, and when there are people shouting at you, 'Please take off all your clothes and let me see what's inside,' how would you respond? I think you will cry for police help.

"I hope such a comparison will help you better understand our position," Mr. Qin said.

The "peeping tom comparison" is only slightly more diplomatic than the last outburst by a Chinese official on this matter, which came from Sha Zukang, who last August said Washington should just "shut up and keep quiet" on the subject. For delivering that message, Sha got a promotion. No wonder then that Chinese officials are lining up to tell the Bush administration what they think of its concerns.

Now China "demands" that the president stops the sale of weapons to Taiwan. The BBC quotes the same Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, Qin Gang, on the Defense Department's proposal to sell $421 million worth of Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air missiles (AMRAM) and Maverick missiles to Taiwan.

We solemnly demand the leader of the United States... immediately cancel this weapons sale (and) avoid harming the peace and stability of the Taiwan Straits and Sino-US relations," ministry spokesman Qin Gang said.

If there is any danger to the stability of the Taiwan straits, it comes from China's massive defense buildup, which the Washington Times reported just this week "includes five new strategic nuclear-missile boats and several advanced nuclear-powered attack submarines."

More encouraging news from a former U.S. enemy. For many years now political reform has lagged woefully behind Vietnam’s vaunted “doi moi” agenda of economic liberalization. But in late January, the Vietnamese prime minister met with Pope Benedict, which the Vatican called an “important step towards the normalization of bilateral relations.” Apparently a Vatican delegation is heading to Hanoi next week.

Of course, Vietnam remains a one-party state, but these are all positive signs that the government is ever so gradually loosening its grip over basic civil and religious liberties. Hopefully the loosening will not be ephemeral.

Meanwhile, Vietnam’s economy is red hot. In 2005 it grew faster than every other Asian economy save China’s. The surge of foreign investment is especially striking; ditto the high-tech sector. As former U.S. ambassador Raymond Burghardt has written, “Young Vietnamese idolize Bill Gates and aspire to study at our universities.” Indeed, the Microsoft founder got quite a welcome during his visit to Hanoi last April. Earlier this year, Vietnam officially joined the World Trade Organization.

We often hear about a “global tide” of anti-Americanism. Well, Vietnam is one country that has resisted this tide. Small wonder that the updated version of the Armitage-Nye Report, which focuses on the U.S.-Japan alliance, argues that Vietnam represents “perhaps the greatest opportunity over the next 15 years” for American and Japanese diplomacy in Southeast Asia.

Jay Lefkowitz, appointed by Congress in 2005 as special envoy for human rights in North Korea, testified yesterday before the House Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment. There was nothing diplomatic about what Lefkowitz had to say:

Many of the human rights abuses in North Korea are all too familiar to members of this Committee, but certain points bear repeating. There are an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 North Koreans in a vast network of political concentration camps. The rights of free speech, worship, assembly, press, fair trial and emigration are ignored. The regime conducts mandatory political indoctrination, attempts to control all information, and supports a cult of personality around Kim Jong Il that is reminiscent of the worst dictators of the 20th century. . . .

The North Korean government also has grossly negligent policies that exact a shocking humanitarian toll and put its population at risk of mass starvation. The state's highly centralized economy fails each year to produce even enough food for the country to subsist. Nonetheless, we believe the regime could feed its population if it wanted, but instead squanders revenue and foreign assistance on a massive military, weapons development and a small but pampered elite.

Lefkowitz goes on to say that although the Six Party Talks have set forth a working group for normalizing relations between North Korea and the United States, "We believe a discussion on human rights should take place prior to a full normalization of relations." Lefkowitz also warned of "indications that the food shortage this spring in North Korea could be more acute than it has been since the famine years of the 1990s."

Senator McCain addressed "Pyongyang's appalling human rights record" yesterday as well. McCain sent a letter to Secretary Rice calling attention to the trafficking of North Korean women who are "sold" as brides to Chinese men. McCain urged Rice "to ensure that trafficking of North Korean women is a key element of any discussion with Chinese officials that bears on these issues." McCain was more forceful on the subject of North Korea though, demanding that the North's human rights record "must be on the table in talks conducted pursuant to the new agreement with North Korea." You can read McCain's letter here.

From Bloomberg:

Shoichi Nakagawa, the policy chief of Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party said China's rising military spending may cause Japan to fall under the country's influence, the Sankei newspaper reported earlier today, citing his comments.

``If something were to happen to Taiwan in the next 15 years, then within 20 years, Japan might become just another Chinese province,'' Nakagawa said yesterday at a speech in Nagoya according to the Sankei.

Nakagawa characterized annual increases in Chinese military spending of between 15 and 18 percent as a ``serious situation,'' the newspaper said.

This story is a few days old, but offers some insight into the mind of the world's most reclusive dictator. From the blog China Rises, which is an otherwise excellent resource on life in mainland China, comes this bizarre story of Kim Jong-Il's war on Japanese automobiles.

In one of the stranger items out of North Korea lately comes this new report that Kim Jong Il has issued an edict ordering most Japanese cars in the country seized.

According to South Korea’s semi-official Yonhap news agency, Kim grew angry when he saw a Japanese car stalled and blocking the road. So he ordered Japanese cars impounded. The event occurred Jan. 1 as Kim was going to visit his father’s mausoleum.

The upside: If the recently negotiated nuke deal leads to a thawing of relations between the United States and North Korea, America's struggling automobile industry may finally find a market where it can compete with the likes of Toyota.

Conservatives have rightly been grousing about the latest nuke deal with North Korea. As John Podhoretz put it in the New York Post, "the Bush administration has now gone down the same path as everybody else--paying Kim a bribe in exchange for promises of change." True enough, the North Korean nuke deal isn't all that different from the deal President Clinton worked out back in 1994. In this nifty little table put together by Eric Hundman over at FP Passport, one can see the similarities.

Equally disconcerting--and Clintonian--is that the deal seems to hinge on the "disablement" of the North Korean nuclear program. According to the blog China Matters, the Chinese word for "disablement" has a rather murky etymology:

I don’t think it’s really a Chinese word. I didn’t find it in my dictionaries. Google the phrase and you get about 600 hits, virtually all of them embedded in news stories covering the February 13 announcement.

It crops up a few times in other contexts.

One use is on an academic media site, talking in a po-mo sort of way about how trendy products are “stripped of their functional attributes” when the majority of the their value to the consumer can be ascribed to the image of with-it ness they bring.

On another site, the meaning is actually the subject of a query by a Chinese poster. 去功能化What’s that mean? the poster asks. The blog writer responds, I guess...maybe it’s like when you enter a code on a DVD player so it can’t show adult movies.

So where did the word come from? What does it mean? It appears to have been used at the request of American negotiators in lieu of a more familiar terminology. Again, from China Matters:

But it [disablement] doesn’t seem to include what Americans would normally construe "disablement" to mean, i.e. something involving dismantling or destruction.

Maybe the term was created and inserted into the negotiations so the Bush administration could assert that it had achieved more than the dreaded Clintonian “freeze”, while the North Koreans can interpret it to mean that all they need to do is to use reversible measures to put the facilities in a non-operating state without damaging or destroying them in order to receive the energy assistance promised in the declaration.

Whatever the word means, it's not a very good sign for those who would claim that this deal represents a breakthrough in resolving the standoff over North Korea's nuclear program. Jeffrey Lewis points to this transcript in which Secretary Rice uses the term "disablement" no less than 21 times in her announcement of the North Korea nuke deal. Perhaps conservatives would have a little more faith in this latest deal if it didn't appear to hinge on what the definition of the word "is" is.

Bonus: Lewis also links to this hilarious website paying homage to those who mangle of the English language.

Some amusing propaganda from Red China. The video was posted to YouTube more than a year ago, and it looks older than that, but very entertaining nevertheless. The last minute features some impressive kung-fu.
(HT blogenlust)

Occasional WEEKLY STANDARD contributor Jennifer Chou (who is also the director of Radio Free Asia's Mandarin Service) writes in with news and links from the Chinese-language media:

On February 15th, the People’s Daily's overseas Chinese edition carried an article entitled “China’s Defense Capability And Its National Responsibilities: Without Strength China Cannot Fulfill Its Responsibilities.” Written by Chen Hu, executive editor of World Military Affairs magazine (published under the auspices of the official Xinhua News Agency), the article appeared in the “important news” section on the front page of the paper.

The piece begins with the observation that as China has acquired greater clout, more and more people are expecting it to behave as a responsible power, to join the international community in the fight against terrorism, and to provide humanitarian aid for the victims of natural and manmade disasters.

The author goes on to argue that “China must fulfill even greater internal responsibilities . . . As a developing country, China faces even more problems: energy security, information security, and trade security . . . But without strength China cannot fulfill its responsibilities; the greater the responsibilities, the more power it requires. The word ‘power’ here includes defense power. However, advances in China’s defense capability always seem to generate a noisy reaction in some quarters; accusing fingers are pointed without rhyme or reason at China for developing its own defense capability . . . Some say that China’s defense lacks transparency . . . but no nation can be expected to disclose its defense information unreservedly. Unilaterally demanding others to make completely transparent their defense data is in and of itself an act of hegemony.”

The article concludes with a thinly veiled criticism of the United States: “Whence comes the indiscreetly critical voice? It comes from those countries most vocal in their demands that China be ‘responsible.’ It comes from those countries that are the leaders in world military technology. It comes from the military superpowers. It comes from those countries that have their own militaries deployed around the globe. A country equipped with the most advanced, fourth-generation fighter planes [the F-22] is alarmed, and has gone so far as to criticize China for successfully developing a third-generation jet fighter [the J-10]. Just think about the real motive behind all the sound and fury.”

Chen Hu’s article was published on the People’s Daily website at 6:10. Less than three hours later, at 8:53, a comment by reader Xiao He (little river) was posted, expressing total agreement with the author. The title of the comment, “without military might, what you say is nothing more than passing gas,” is displayed prominently, just below the title of the original article.

In contrast to the belligerent tone of these pieces was an interview with Major General Zhang Bangdong that appeared the same day in the Southern Weekend magazine. In it, Zhang went to great lengths to emphasize the defensive nature of China’s security policy. Zhang Bangdong is the director of the Chinese Ministry of Defense’s Foreign Affairs Office, and the Southern Weekend has a larger circulation than any other Chinese weekly.

In addressing whether China has the capability to build its own aircraft carriers, Zhang declared, “First of all, it is a fact that China currently does not have any aircraft carriers. Second, with a coastline of 18,000 kilometers, China needs to be correspondingly equipped militarily to defend its maritime sovereignty and interests. Such is the sacred duty of the Chinese armed forces. Third, China insists on pursuing a policy of peaceful development. It will adhere to a foreign policy that is independent and peaceful, and a defense policy that is defensive in nature. China will not encroach upon others at any time and under any circumstances. Others need not worry about China’s military build-up.”

However, in answering a question about China’s strategic intentions in developing its J-10 fighter planes, the major general responded curtly, “I think it is inappropriate for some people to make so much fuss about it.

Occasional WEEKLY STANDARD contributor Jennifer Chou (who is also the director of Radio Free Asia's Mandarin Service) writes in with news and links from the Chinese-language media:

On February 7th, the 2007 China Aerospace Exhibition got it's official kick-off at a much-hyped ceremony and press conference in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People. Organized by the China High-Tech Industrialization Association (with the support of the People’s Liberation Army and other branches of the government), the Exhibition itself is scheduled to begin in the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone in Guangdong provinceon on May 1. Before the exhibition closes in April 2008, it will have made stops not only in Guangdong, but Guangxi, Zhejiang, Fujian, Jiangxi, Hunan, Hubei, Jiangsu, Liaoning, Shandong, and Hong Kong as well.

The stated purpose of the Exhibition is to "fulfill the State Council’s ‘Action Plan to Promote Scientific Nurturing in all People’ by showcasing the hard-earned accomplishments and heroic feats of China’s aerospace undertaking in order to glorify the spirit of the space age, arouse patriotic fervor, and inspire national self-esteem and cohesiveness.”

The Exhibition will consist of 10 distinct components, including displays on manned space missions, voyages to the moon and mars, rockets, and satellites. Other displays will cover practical applications of aerospace technology and showcase items carried on previous Chinese space missions. Aerospace industry specialists and China's celebrity astronauts will also be present for simulated launches of the Shenzhou spacecraft.

In the meantime, a nationwide contest for an Exhibition mascot is in full swing. The official announcement states that the mascot should embody patriotism so as to “arouse patriotic fervor and inspire national self-esteem and cohesiveness.” The contest winner will receive $10,000 yuan (U.S. $1290.82) in prize money. Entries are due by April 30th, and may be submitted online to china_soars@163.com.

On the very day of the 2007 China Aerospace Exhibition kick-off ceremony, the English edition of People’s Daily Online carried two articles underscoring Beijing’s space ambitions. One asks: “Why Does China Want to Probe the Moon?” The article ends with the declaration that “sooner or later, China’s gorgeous five-star red flag will tower on the moon, and days are not distant for the dream of the Chinese people to come true.”

The second article announced that China plans to build a 4th satellite launching center, this one in Hainan; however, the Financial Times subsequently reported that an official of the Commission of Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense had indicated that final approval for the Hainan base was still undecided.

Clint Eastwood is out promoting his twin WWII movies, Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. The subtext of these films does not exactly bolster Eastwood's reputation for intellectual seriousness. Now his campaigning has reached a new low, with these remarks:

Clint Eastwood said his acclaimed picture "Letters from Iwo Jima" aimed to show the futility of war, after its European premiere at the 57th Berlin Film Festival.

[Eastwood] said "Letters" and "Flags of our Fathers" were a response to the war movies of his youth.

"I grew up in the war pictures in the 1940s where everything was propagandized. (In) all the movies, we were the good guys and everybody else were bad guys," he said.

"I just wanted to tell two different stories where there were good guys and bad guys everywhere and just tell something about the human condition."

Of course, World War II wasn't exactly "futile"--it achieved a number of important aims. But it certainly did illuminate the "human condition" of Japanese soldiers at the time. Here's an excerpt from the diary of a Japanese officer stationed at Guadalcanal (from Dan van der Vat's The Pacific Campaign), describing the treatment of two Allied POWs:

29 September: Discovered the captain and two prisoners who escaped last night in the jungle and let the guard company guard them. To prevent them escaping a second time, pistols were fired at their feet, but it was difficult to hit them. . . .

The two prisoners were dissected while still alive by medical officer Yamaji and their livers were taken out, and for the first time I saw the internal organs of a human being. It was very informative.

This isn't a random atrocity carried out in the heat of battle by a couple of peasant grunts--this is organized vivisection performed for the intellectual edification of the officer class.

Of course, that's just one data point. When you pull back, the picture of Japanese atrocities is much worse. In the aftermath of the Doolittle raid, for instance, Japanese soldiers massacred 250,000 Chinese civilians--read that again: 250,000 men, women, and children--because they believed that the Chinese helped the American raiding party. (Not that it matters, but in reality, the Chinese aid was minimal.)

And then there's the Rape of Nanking, during the weeks between December 1937 and February 1938. The number of civilians who died there at the hands of the Japanese is somewhere between 150,000 and 300,000. But again, the details are telling. Here's an excerpt from the diary of John Rabe, a German stationed in Nanking at the time (from The Good Man of Nanking: The Diaries of John Rabe):

I also went down to the morgue in the basement and had them uncover the bodies that were delivered last night. Among them, a civilian with his eyes burned out and his head totally burned, who had likewise had gasoline poured over him by Japanese soldiers. The body of a little boy, maybe seven years old, had four bayonet wounds in it, one in the belly about as long as your finger.

Contrary to Eastwood, there were not "bad guys" like this "everywhere."

Tim Johnson, the China correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers, had an interesting story up over the weekend on his blog, China Rises. According to Johnson, Sha Zukang, "the Chinese diplomat who suggested last August that Washington should just 'shut up and keep quiet' about China’s defense spending has just gotten a big promotion."

The “un-diplomatic” diplomat, Sha Zukang, just won a plum assignment near the top of the United Nations hierarchy. He’ll be under secretary of economic and social affairs, a post just under Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

Sha is currently China’s representative in Geneva to U.N. organizations there.

Sha threw diplomatic language to the winds last August when he told the BBC that the Bush administration has no place criticizing increases in Chinese military spending. . . . His statements raised hackles in Washington, but heartened Chinese who have grown weary of U.S. criticism of the nation’s rise.

Sha has blazed a trail for all those young internationalists aspiring to a career in world government. You want to get ahead? Just tell the United States to go f%&# itself.

The International Herald Tribune has a lengthy report today on China's newest fighter jet, the J-10. The article hypes the plane, or at least the headline does--"China adds jet fighter that rivals world best." Still, comparisons with the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale don't really warrant such bold claims. Those planes are not stealth, which means they simply aren't survivable on the modern battlefield--one expert said of the Eurofighter, it's "the perfect design for returning a radar signature." Still, the J-10 might match up fairly well against the F-16s of the Taiwanese air force:

Lin Chong-pin, president of a research institute based in Taipei, the Foundation on International and Cross- Strait Studies, said Taiwan's advantage "is getting narrower and narrower."

"At the moment it is just in balance," added Lin, a former deputy defense minister in the governing Democratic Progressive Party. "If Taiwan doesn't do anything, it will tip in favor of the PLA air force."

To counter the threat, Taiwan wants to buy more F-16 fighters from the United States, but most analysts believe it is unlikely that the Bush administration will agree to this request while the island's legislature continues to block funding for an earlier arms order.

The J-10, Courtesy of The Associated Press

The editors over at Foreign Policy have a very amusing post on the copy at China's People's Daily over the past week. It's all very reassuring.

Concerned about China's rise? Here are some recent headlines for you:
* China's development an opportunity, not threat
* Chinese economy does not pose any threat to world
* China says it opposes arms races in space
* How the move for "harmonious East Asia" goes forward?

Bernard Cole, a professor at the National War College, spoke to Taiwanese reporters at the Brookings Institution on Thursday about the proposed sale of 3 diesel electric submarines, 12 refurbished PC-3 Orion aircraft, and $4.3 billion worth of PAC III Patriot missiles. The president authorized the sale in 2001 and the Pentagon's asking $12 billion for the lot, but the deal has been held up by the Taiwanese parliament.

Cole told reporters that it might be best if the deal didn't go through. "None of these has been purchased and perhaps none of them should be," said Cole. More pressing was the need for "mundane" things, such as munitions for artillery training, flight time for pilots, and fuel for surface vessels.

Most interesting was Cole's recommendation that Taiwan build its own submarines, rather than purchasing them from the United States. Writing in the November 28 issue of the WEEKLY STANDARD, David DeVoss examined the numerous problems, political and otherwise, that have plagued this deal from the start. Despite the fact that both the Executive and the DoD support the sale--the Pentagon will get a 15 percent cut--the U.S. Navy isn't keen on seeing these subs built at American shipyards. From DeVoss:

They are fast, quiet, relatively cheap, and extremely efficient when patrolling a continental shelf or shallow waters like the Taiwan Strait. It took decades for the Navy to get its all-nuclear sub fleet. The last thing admirals want is for congressmen to have a cheaper alternative that provides jobs in an American shipyard.

So the Navy does everything it can to kill the deal. It imposes a $360 million upfront charge before the subs are even designed, a poison pill the Navy never would agree to itself. Then it tells Taipei that even if the fee is paid the subs will take eight years to build, and 13 to fully deploy.

The Europeans, who actually build these subs, won't sell to Taiwan for fear of offending China. So Cole has proposed that the Taiwanese build their own fleet of subs. Says Cole, "Given the advanced state of Taiwan's electronics industry and its shipbuilding industry, I find it hard to believe that over the course of eight to ten years that Taiwan cannot produce an operational submarine."

Cole's comments are likely to anger a lot of folks in Washington, but, at $12 billion, this deal ought to greatly enhance Taiwan's prospects in any confrontation with mainland China. Cole makes a strong case that the money could be better spent elsewhere. Still, Cole advised the Taiwanese to push through the sale of the P3-Cs. That Cole thought these aircraft were critical to Taiwan's security is interesting given that, in promoting the sale of the same aircraft to Pakistan, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency claimed that the transfer would "not affect the basic military balance in the region."

This weekend, Reuters reported that U.S. forensic tests had confirmed that a decomposing body found on the Philippine Island of Jolo was that of Khaddafy Janjalani, the military leader of Abu Sayyaf. That group had claimed responsibility for the worst terror attack in Philippine history, an attack on a ferry in Manila that claimed more than 100 lives. But the group also targeted Americans.

In the summer of 2001, Abu Sayyaf abducted 20 civilians from a resort on Palawan Island in the southern Philippines, among them Martin and Gracia Burnham, from Kansas City, who were both working as missionaries, and Guillermo Sobrero, from California. Within weeks of the kidnapping, the decapitated body of Guillermo Sobrero was found near an Aby Sayyaf camp. Martin Burnham was killed a year later during a rescue attempt that resulted in the release of his wife.

The abduction of American citizens made the destruction of Abu Sayyaf a priority for the American government, but it also had an effect in Saddam's Iraq. In 2006, Stephen Hayes reported on the existence of numerous documents connecting Saddam's intelligence services with the Philippine terrorist group. Those documents included this correspondence from the Iraqi ambassador to the Philippines, Salah Samarmad, to his superiors in Iraq:

"The kidnappers were formerly (from the previous year) receiving money and purchasing combat weapons. From now on we (IIS) are not giving them this opportunity and are not on speaking terms with them."

It seems clear that the Saddam regime was funding and arming Abu Sayyaf, though that support also seems to have ceased once the group became a target of the American government. Still, there are more questions than answers about the relationship between the two, and Hayes does a pretty thorough job of asking those questions in his piece, which can be read here.

The J-10 fighter

The Chinese military has been working for more than 20 years to develop the J-10 fighter, a multi-role single-engine and single-seat tactical fighter, with a combat radius of 1,000 km. The program has seen numerous setbacks, including the crash of a prototype in 1995, which led to a 3-year suspension of the program. Defense News reported this week that the Chinese military had finally deployed approximately 40 J-10A single-seat fighters to two air bases in southern China. Now comes word of a mysterious military plane crash in Guangdong Province. From the AP:

Hong Kong journalists who tried to visit an area where a military plane reportedly crashed in southern China were expelled by shouting soldiers dressed in camouflage, a news report said yesterday.

The military plane exploded while airborne on Tuesday, the South China Morning Post reported on Wednesday, citing an unidentified witness. Chinese authorities have not confirmed the report. A man who answered the phone yesterday at the Xingning Military Airport in Guangdong declined comment and refused to give his name.

Hong Kong's Ming Pao Daily News reported that several Hong Kong reporters climbed two big mountains in Jiexi county, in China's southern Guangdong Province, to try to reach the alleged crash site but were discovered before they got there. As one tried to take photos, soldiers appeared suddenly, shouted, and shooed the journalists away, Ming Pao said.

As the J-10's active duty status was only announced by the PLAAF on December 29, 2006, it would be extremely embarrassing for the Chinese if it was a J-10 that had crashed. The plane was intended to tap into a lucrative export market, and last April the Pakistani air force expressed interest in purchasing as many as 36 J-10s. The mysterious crash of an unidentified military aircraft in southern China may cause the Pakistanis, and others, to reconsider investing in a plane that the "the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence estimated . . . could be as manoeuvrable as the U.S. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet."

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Sen. Joe Biden believes Congress should “demonstrate to the president [that] he’s on his own” on the troop surge. Well, it’s good to see that our allies aren’t listening to the Delaware senator:

From the Associated Press:

President Bush's decision to boost American troops in Iraq won support Thursday from U.S. allies as a step toward stabilizing the country, but the move was angrily condemned by opponents of the war.

The leaders of South Korea, Australia and Japan — all longtime supporters of the U.S.-led mission in Iraq — pledged continued political backing and material help to the beleaguered war effort.

"If America retreats in Iraq, then that has enormous consequences for the stability of the Middle East and it will also be an enormous boost to terrorism in our part of the world," Australian Prime Minister John Howard said in Sydney.

With North Korea's nuclear program advancing, Japan is set to ramp up its missile defense capabilities. According to Reuters,

Japan may be getting set to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into plugging missile- defense gaps demonstrated by North Korea's July 4-5 test- firings….

Also being discussed is removing "barriers" to coordination with the United States to thwart missiles that could be tipped with chemical, biological or nuclear warheads, said Ed Butt, head of a Lockheed missile-defense division….

Lockheed is linking sensors, interceptors and other components to give military commanders a range of ways to cope with any missile attack. It would let them respond with everything from Patriot Advanced Capability-3 batteries to Aegis cruisers to ground-based interceptor missiles.

Japan is working through issues tied to how far it may go in coordinating its missile defenses with the United States under its U.S.-imposed pacifist constitution. It is due to spend more than $1 billion in the coming year for on Patriot PAC-3 and Aegis sea-based missile defense….

Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3)

(source: Boeing.com)

Sony has filed a "patent for a motorized skateboard that riders steer by shifting their weight,” Techweb.com reports.

This is a strange story first reported on ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) radio:

US authorities have uncovered a plot to set up a flight training school in the Pacific nation of Kiribati and suspect the man behind it may have had links to September 11 mastermind Mohammed Atta.

Since the plot emerged, Kiribati had asked for Australia's help to fight terrorism, ABC radio reported today.

The US' Federal Bureau of Investigations said Wolfgang Bohringer was considered a "person of interest".

It said Bohringer had close connections with a US flight school [in Florida] used by Atta, who masterminded the plot to hijack passenger planes and fly them into key targets in the United States five years ago, the ABC saod .

Bohringer had fled Kiribati on his yacht, leaving questions about his intentions.

He surfaced in the Pacific nation about a year ago and began talking up plans for a resort and flight school on Fanning Island - a remote outpost with no phones, no functioning airstrip but among the closest to Hawaii.

Bohringer is not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

From the AP:

North Korean television Friday carried a report on the U.S. midterm election, saying the Republican Party suffered a ''crushing defeat'' and claiming that President Bush fired his defense secretary in its wake.

The unusually quick response, carried on the North's Korean Central Television Station, reflects the high interest that Pyongyang is believed to have in the Tuesday election.

The tightly controlled media of totalitarian North Korea rarely report on foreign news. When they do, such reports come days or weeks after news breaks.

''The Democratic Party ... has come to seize control of Parliament,'' an anchorwoman of the North's television said, according to footage shown on South Korea's new cable channel YTN. ''This midterm election ended in a crushing defeat by the Republican Party.''

The election outcome could affect Washington's foreign policy, including its approach toward North Korea. Democrats have called for bilateral dialogue with Pyongyang to end the country's nuclear programs.

A few weeks back, Senator Clinton and Senator McCain got in a tussle over the Clinton administration’s 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea. Sen. Clinton said the Framework was a policy success and a lesson for how to deal with Pyongyang. McCain called it a “failure” and something we shouldn’t repeat. Back in 1994, he forcefully argued against the deal with the “crumbling regime” because it was all carrots and no sticks. He also noted: “We will reach a moment when it is apparent to all” that the Framework was a failure. “That will be when North Korea begins reprocessing the fuel now in cooling ponds into weapons-grade plutonium.”

All this brings me to this piece, “In ’97, U.S. Panel Predicted a North Korea Collapse in 5 Years,” in today’s New York Times. The Times reports:

A team of government and outside experts convened by the Central Intelligence Agency concluded in 1997 that North Korea’s economy was deteriorating so rapidly that the government of Kim Jong-il was likely to collapse within five years, according to declassified documents made public on Thursday.

The panel described the isolated and impoverished country as being on the brink of economic ruin and said that “political implosion stemming from irreversible economic degradation seems the most plausible endgame for North Korea.” The majority among the group argued that the North’s government “cannot remain viable for the long term” and could fall within five years….

“Conventional wisdom was completely wrong,” said Ambassador Wendy Sherman, who during the late 1990s was the Clinton administration’s coordinator for North Korea policy. “People constantly underestimated the staying power of the North Korean regime.”

The belief that the North Korean economy was collapsing helped shaped White House thinking in 1994 when it promised to deliver light-water nuclear reactors to North Korea by 2003 in exchange for Pyongyang’s halting its covert nuclear weapons program. Senior Clinton administration officials said privately at the time that they did not expect Mr. Kim’s government to be in power by the time the United States had to make good on its pledge….

So did all those carrots – from the U.S. and Pyongyang’s neighbors over the years – sustain a regime that was on the verge of collapse? Did all those carrots give Pyongyang the time it needed to advance its missile and nuclear programs? On thing is for sure: The Clinton-McCain North Korea debate hasn’t ended.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard hasn't shied away from speaking out on the global intimation campaign against free speech. He’s also not about to run away from Iraq, and he understands the consequences of defeat.

Prime Minister John Howard said Wednesday the Iraq mission was not easy, "but we have to ask ourselves is Australia's security enhanced by Western defeat in Iraq."

"I ask people to contemplate the impact on the authority of the United State, the impact on the West of a defeat in Iraq," Howard told television's Nine Network.

"If people think that is going to strengthen the West, is going to strengthen America and strengthen Australia, I think they have taken leave of their senses."

… "America will only leave Iraq when she is satisfied that the Iraqis can look after the situation themselves, and that is our position," he said.

Contrast Howard’s position with that of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, a supporter of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, who had this exchange with Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes:

STAHL: Do you not think that the war in Iraq now, today, is the war on terror?

Rep. PELOSI: No. The war on terror is the war in Afghanistan. That is what...

STAHL: But you don't think that the terrorists have moved into Iraq now?

Rep. PELOSI: (Unintelligible). They have.

STAHL: Well...

Rep. PELOSI: The jihadists in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. That means--they'll stay there as long as we're there. They're there because we're there.

So the “war on terror is the war in Afghanistan” but not in Iraq, even though, by her own admission, terrorists have moved into Iraq. The terrorists in Iraq, Pelosi says, will “stay there as long as we’ve there.” Pelosi didn’t say where the terrorists would go once we exited. Some may stay in Iraq; others may go to Afghanistan, South Asia, Somalia, Europe, or the Pacific Rim. In this regard, Pelosi joins the other Howard who also believes the only "fight on terror" is in Afghanistan.

("Iran is expanding its uranium enrichment program," reports the AP, "even as the U.N. Security Council focuses on possible sanctions for its defiance of a demand to give up the activity and ease fears it seeks nuclear weapons….”)

USA Today has a good editorial on Russian complicity in Iran’s nuclear program.

It took the explosion of a nuclear bomb by North Korea — fortunately just a test — for China to start enforcing sanctions and applying pressure in a way that suggests it finally grasps the proliferation dangers, to itself, the region and the world, that its erratic neighbor represents.

It might take a nuclear bomb in Iran to wake Russia up in the same way — and then it could be too late.

Moscow is to Iran what Beijing is to North Korea: a great power neighbor with so much economic and political influence that it could, almost single-handedly, close the rogue regime's nuclear weapons program.

On Saturday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went to Moscow hoping to turn the "momentum" of sanctions against North Korea into similar action against Iran. Russia was having none of it. "We won't be able to support and will oppose any attempts to use the Security Council to punish Iran" to promote regime change, said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

What's happening is that Russian President Vladimir Putin's agenda is driven by a single obsession: to regain as much of the former Soviet Union's superpower status (and territory) as possible. Iran holds a key to restoring Russia's once-considerable influence in the Middle East. The two have strong trade ties, and Moscow is helping Iran build a nuclear power plant. So other priorities have shrunk to invisibility, including Russia's once-intense interest in deterring the spread of nuclear weapons….

Of course, Russia isn’t alone in coddling Iran. Beijing has done its share. Moreover, China could put much more economic and political pressure on Pyongyang. There’s also the question of how vigilant Beijing will be in enforcing the sanctions regime against the North. Still, some progress is better than none.

Via Hotline blog:

Entertainment Weekly: So is there any conceivable possibility in the modern world for the assertion of conventional heroism?

EASTWOOD: I don't see it right now. I certainly don't see any politician that's a hero in any party anywhere. I think John McCain did something that I don't know if I could do and I don't think many men can look in the mirror and say they'd do: give up a chance to get out of prison because his dad was an admiral and the Vietnamese were going to let him go. I mean that took cojones....

Today's New York Times has an interesting piece on North Korea's history of proliferating weapons and related material by registering its ships under foreign flags. It also shows how critical it is that Beijing aggressively inspect North Korean shipments coming across the Chinese border. Beijing’s lackadaisical attitude on this point is not encouraging.

The incidents illustrated North Korea’s adroit use of so-called flags of convenience to camouflage the movement of its cargo vessels as they engage in tasks that sometimes violate international laws.

The North Korean ploy could both simplify and complicate the efforts to carry out the United Nations Security Council’s resolution authorizing countries to inspect cargo entering or leaving North Korea to see if it includes illicit weapons, say shipping executives, lawyers and security experts….

But Mr. Pollack and other experts said that flags of convenience could still prove useful to North Korea in maintaining its arms trade despite the Security Council resolution.

One possibility would be for North Korea to try to smuggle out weapons or weapons components across its land borders with China or Russia, and then to a Chinese or Russian port. The weapons could then be loaded on a vessel secretly owned by North Korea but flying another country’s flag — and perhaps not be closely watched by Western intelligence services as a result.

Or weapons could be loaded on a North Korean ship flying its own flag, and the registration of the ship could be altered after it left port. “In the middle of the night, they could change the name and change the flag,” said Gary Wolfe, a maritime lawyer at Seward & Kissel, a New York law firm.

Still another possibility, shipping and security experts said, would be for a North Korean-flagged ship to transfer cargo to a North Korean ship carrying another flag, either in port or in midocean if it were a calm day and the cargo small enough.

Secretary of State Rice told a news conference held today in Seoul:

I hope it (China) has been successful in saying to North Korea that there is really only one path, which is denuclearization and dismantlement of its programs.

But there’s another path Pyongyang may be eyeing: pop off a few more nukes, wait a few months for the international uproar to subside, then engage its neighbors and the rest of the world as a nuclear power and leader of the Third World.

From The Australian:

An elite Australian Special Air Service team of about 20 soldiers has been involved in a joint military operation in the southern Philippines to hunt down Asia's most wanted terrorists, including two of the 2002 Bali bombers.

The SAS has been participating in a US-Philippines military campaign to eradicate the Abu Sayyaf terror outfit, which is believed to have been sheltering senior Indonesian Jemaah Islamiah terrorists Dulmatin and Umar Patek.

The campaign, centred on the Abu Sayyaf stronghold of Jolo island in Mindanao, has been running for more than two months.

Sources told The Weekend Australian it involved about 100 US special forces, including Green Berets, Navy SEALs and CIA counter-terrorism specialists, as well as the armed forces of The Philippines.

Of all the presidential camps to use Vietnam against McCain, the Clinton folks should be the last one. This is from Maureen Dowd’s column in today’s New York Times:

Privately, Hillary's camp was not overly upset by the McCain swipe because it suspected he was doing the bidding of the White House and that he ended up, as one adviser put it, "looking similar to the way he did on those captive tapes from Hanoi, where he recited the names of his crew mates."

The McCain camp has fired back. Asked for a response, John Weaver told the New York Daily News:

I never expected the Clintons or their allies to know much about Vietnam. But is disappointing to see one of her spokespeople purposefully lie about John's war record and time in a Hanoi prison camp. There was no such tape recording; though he did once give up the starting lineup of the Green Bay Packers while under extreme duress. Senator Clinton's spokesperson does a disservice to all who were there and served so bravely and honorably.

Also, Jay Ambrose has a good piece, “Rewards that Failed,” on the Clinton administration’s deeply flawed 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea.

InsideDefense.com's Elaine Grossman tackles that question here.

Did anyone else notice that in Jimmy Carter's history of North Korea’s nuclear program he failed to mention even once that after 1995 Pyongyang had been running a secret uranium enrichment program, a program that violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which the North was still a party to at the time) and the 1994 Agreed Framework? Consider this from Carter’s New York Times piece:

But beginning in 2002, the United States branded North Korea as part of an axis of evil, threatened military action, ended the shipments of fuel oil and the construction of nuclear power plants and refused to consider further bilateral talks. In their discussions with me at this time, North Korean spokesmen seemed convinced that the American positions posed a serious danger to their country and to its political regime.

Responding in its ill-advised but predictable way, Pyongyang withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, expelled atomic energy agency inspectors, resumed processing fuel rods (see here for more on the fuel rods and the '94 deal) and began developing nuclear explosive devices.

Here’s one key fact Carter left out: In October 2002, North Korea confirmed it had a secret uranium enrichment program after the Bush administration confronted the regime about the program. That December, Pyongyang kicked the IAEA inspectors out of the country. Evidently, these facts didn’t fit into Carter’s storyline.

Many Americans probably view Sen. McCain's statement that the Clinton administration's 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea was a “failure” as an obvious point. McCain’s comment came after Sen. Hillary Clinton and other senior Democrats were all over the media touting the ’94 agreement as a model for how to deal with the North Korean dictatorship. McCain’s point is a simple one: if we are going to effectively deal with the North’s nuclear weapons program, we have to acknowledge how we got to this point and not make the same mistakes again.

But senior Democrats -- Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Bill Richardson, Madeleine Albright, and John Kerry, etc. – won’t admit the ’94 deal was a mistake. Quite the contrary, as Bill Richardson argued last night on CNN: “The reality is, had we not had the agreed framework with North Korea on nuclear weapons, they would maybe have 50 nuclear weapons today. For eight years they didn't enrich uranium.” Richardson is arguing as if the administration had no other policy options. But that isn’t true. The Clinton administration chose the path of meeting the North’s hostile behavior and violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with further concessions – a path McCain and others vigorously argued against at the time.

In May 1994, McCain catalogued all the North Korean threats and treaty violations, along with the US concessions, that led to the Agreed Framework -- an agreement advertised as freezing Pyongyang’s nuclear program. It didn’t. The North began a secret uranium enrichment program after 1995 and never gave up working on nuclear weapons. Democrats now argue that at least the deal put the fuel rods under the eye of international inspectors before they were kicked out in 2002 on Bush’s watch. Of course, they fail to note that this happened just after the North confirmed U.S. intelligence reports that it had a clandestine enrichment program – one that violated the NPT (they later withdrew from the treaty) and the Agreed Framework. In any event, the failure to demand the speedy removal of the rods from the North was a major strategic flaw in the ’94 deal. Back then, McCain argued that leaving them in place would allow the dictatorship to kick the inspectors out and reprocess the rods at a time of its choosing. Here’s what he wrote in the Los Angeles Times in 1994:

Using sticks such as their threatened expulsion of IAEA inspectors, North Korea has consistently intimidated Administration diplomacy. To divert the United States from punishing his violations of the NPT, Kim Il Sung has raised, then withdrawn his stick, masking his forbearance in the disguise of a carrot….

In fact, North Korea has offered no real concession. The fuel rods that it would use to make weapons-grade plutonium cannot be used until they are less radioactive. The reactor cannot be refueled until the rods have cooled. North Korea's nuclear program is, of physical necessity, frozen….

Although the Administration may attempt to obscure a failure, we will reach a moment when it is apparent to all. That will be when North Korea begins reprocessing the fuel now in cooling ponds into weapons-grade plutonium.

And here we are today. Despite the apparent nuclear test, the missile launches, the proliferation, the secret enrichment program, and all the other history going back over a decade, many Democrats still embrace the '94 deal and still argue for more carrots.

From today's Wall Street Journal editorial:

Are Messrs. Reid, Dean, Menendez et al. concerned about nuclear weapons getting into terrorist hands and U.S. ports? They tell us they are. Then perhaps they might publicly call on China and Russia to join the Proliferation Security Initiative, the most successful effort yet to interdict the transfer of illicit weapons.

Are they seriously interested in bringing about North Korea's internal collapse? It would be good to see the kind of rhetorical energy the Democrats invested in Darfur go into publicizing the plight of North Korean refugees. Would they like to see the U.N. contribute positively to managing the crisis? Then send a message of solidarity to our adversaries by confirming as U.N. ambassador John Bolton, one of the world's leading experts on proliferation.

Since Sen. Clinton is fond of her administration's 1994 deal with North Korea, I wonder if she feels the same about the deal the Clinton administration cut with the Russians a year later -- a deal that “emboldened Moscow to ignore other agreements, particularly on sales of missile and nuclear technology to Iran, according to Gordon C. Oehler, who directed the Nonproliferation Center of the Central Intelligence Agency until he retired in 1998." The deal also led to the sale of “highly threatening military equipment such as modern submarines, fighter planes, and wake-homing torpedoes" to Iran, according to this October 2000 letter:

Statement by Former Secretaries of State, Defense, Directors of Central Intelligence and National Security Advisors on the Sale of Russian Weapons to Iran, October 24, 2000

The following individuals, who include supporters of both Governor George W. Bush and Vice President Gore, believe strongly that:

The President's most important job is safeguarding our nation's security and our ability to protect our interests, our citizens and our allies and friends. The military balance in regions of vital interest to America and her allies--including the Persian Gulf, which is a critical source of the world's energy supplies--is the essential underpinning for a strong foreign policy.

This is why we are deeply disturbed by the agreement made between Vice President Gore and then Russian Premier Chernomyrdin in which America acquiesced in the sale by Russia to Iran of highly threatening military equipment such as modern submarines, fighter planes, and wake-homing torpedoes.

We also find incomprehensible that this agreement was not fully disclosed even to those committees of Congress charged with receiving highly classified briefings--apparently at the request of the Russian Premier. But agreement to this request is even more disturbing since the Russian sales could have brought about sanctions against Russia in accordance with a 1992 U.S. law sponsored by Senator John McCain and then Senator Al Gore.''

George P. Shultz, former Secretary of State.
James A. Baker, III, former Secretary of State.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.
Frank C. Carlucci, former Secretary of Defense and former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.
Lawrence S. Eagleburger, former Secretary of State.
Henry A. Kissinger, former Secretary of State and former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.
Donald H. Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense.
James R. Schlesinger, former Secretary of Defense and former Director of Central Intelligence.
Brent Scowcroft, former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.
Caspar W. Weinberger, former Secretary of Defense.
R. James Woolsey, Attorney and former Director of Central Intelligence.

By 2000, Iran’s nuclear program appeared to be gathering steam:

CIA Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Related to Weapons of Mass Destruction, 1 January through 30 June 2000:

Russia also remained a key supplier for civilian nuclear programs in Iran, primarily focused on the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant project. With respect to Iran's nuclear infrastructure, Russian assistance enhances Iran's ability to support a nuclear weapons development effort. By its very nature, even the transfer of civilian technology may be of use in Iran's nuclear weapons program. We remain concerned that Tehran is seeking more than a buildup of its civilian infrastructure, and the Intelligence Community will be closely monitoring the relationship with Moscow for any direct assistance in support of a military program.

Testimony of John A. Lauder, Director of the CIA's Nonproliferation Center, to Senate Foreign Relations Committee, October 5, 2000:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin with a few comments on Russian aid to Iran's nuclear power and nuclear weapons program. The Intelligence Community judges that Iran is actively pursuing the acquisition of fissile material and the expertise and technology necessary to form the material into nuclear weapons. As part of this process, Iran is attempting to develop the capability to produce both plutonium and highly-enriched uranium.

As part of this effort, Iran is seeking nuclear-related equipment, material, and technical expertise from a variety of foreign sources, most notably in Russia. Tehran claims that it seeks foreign assistance to master nuclear technology for civilian research and nuclear energy programs. However, the expertise and technology gained-along with the contacts established-could be used to advance Iran's nuclear weapons effort.

The senator's office just released the following statement:

McCAIN CALLS FOR TOUGH SANCTIONS BY U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL, REBUTS SEN. CLINTON’S CRITICSM, CITING FAILURE OF CLINTON ADMINISTRATION POLICIES ON NORTH KOREA

Washington D.C. -– U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today expressed support for President George W. Bush’s resolve in dealing with North Korea and the need to strengthen America’s national defense, in the wake of North Korea’s reported test of a nuclear device.

“Korea doubts the world’s resolve,” said Senator McCain. “It is testing South Korea, China, Russia, Japan and the United States. They have been criticized by the U.N. Security Council, but suffered no serious sanctions. We have talked and talked about punishing their bad behavior. They don’t believe we have the resolve to do it. We must prove them wrong.”

Sen. McCain strongly supports President Bush’s call for the following actions by the U.N. Security Council:

- Impose Chapter 7 sanctions on North Korea
- Impose a military embargo
- Impose financial trade sanctions
- The right to interdict and inspect all cargo in and out of North Korea

Senator McCain also condemned the failed policies of the Clinton Administration in dealing with North Korea’s emerging nuclear threat.

“I would remind Senator Clinton and other critics of the Bush Administration policies that the framework agreement of the Clinton Administration was a failure. The Koreans received millions of dollars in energy assistance. They diverted millions in food assistance to the military. And what did the Koreans do? They secretly enriched uranium,” said Senator McCain. “We had a carrots and no sticks policy that only encouraged bad behavior. When one carrot didn’t work, we offered another.”

In addition, Sen. McCain called on Sen. Hillary Clinton (see her NK statement here) and her allies to immediately support accelerating missile defense, as opposed to blocking it, as has been the case in the past.

Finally, Sen. McCain said due to the challenges we are facing today in Iraq and Afghanistan, “It is obvious that the United States must, starting now, invest in a larger active duty Army and Marine Corps.” He said this is not a call for immediate military action against North Korea; rather it is a recognition that the U.S. military is currently stretched too thin and we are asking too much from our National Guard and Reserve.

Back in 1994, Sen. McCain was a leading opponent of the deal President Clinton struck with North Korea. He told PBS's Robert MacNeil that the US would come to "regret [the deal] very, very much" and noted that even though North Korea has "violated the nonproliferation treaty egregiously time and time again, ... we are now rewarding them.... And not only are we saying it's okay to Korea, but we'll be saying that it's okay to Iran and other countries who will demand a similar deal."

This isn't just about North Korea. You can bet that Tehran is watching the world’s reaction to Pyongyang’s defiance very closely. If confirmed, will North Korea pay a price for exploding a nuclear weapon or will the world community huff and puff and sweep all this unpleasantness under the rug? Will the Security Council impose Chapter 7 sanctions and enforce them or go wobbly? If the major capitals of the world fail to act decisively, Ahmadinejad’s hand will be further strengthened against the few inside the regime who may be arguing that the scale and pace of Iran’s nuclear weapons program isn’t worth the price. We may also have to face the reality that no amount of diplomacy – and we’ve had lots of it -- will convince either regime to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions.

Three months ago Pyongyang fired off a missile, but the Security Council didn’t do much about it. Today they reportedly conducted a nuclear test, and some commentators are already saying we can’t do much about it except engage in “direct talks” with the North. Not so, says the AEI’s Dan Blumenthal, former senior director for China, Taiwan and Mongolia in the Secretary of Defense's Office of International Security Affairs, who offers some policy advice in the current Weekly Standard. He writes:

We also have other means of deterring the Dear Leader, mitigating his threats, and working toward his eventual demise. Unrelenting pressure can be put on the trade in illicit goods that keeps Kim's regime alive. We can adopt a more robust nuclear posture in Asia. We can mitigate the artillery threat to Seoul through counter-battery weaponry. We can intensify our Proliferation Security Initiative activities, and place a quarantine and inspection regime on ships moving to and from North Korea. We can also accelerate the deployment of missile defenses to our regional allies. We can launch an international campaign to ameliorate human rights abuses and absorb refugees, and so on.

But a continued policy of conference diplomacy and empty threats will give us the worst of all worlds: more nuclear weapons in North Korea and more alliance problems with South Korea and Japan. The lesson we should be teaching Pyongyang is that breaking your commitment to non-nuclearization leads not to concession after concession, but to isolation, pressure, and the uncomfortable position of having a nuclear arsenal pointed at you.

(Are seeing-eye dogs next? A faithful reader from Australia emails this from the Herald Sun.)

(The Australian weighs in with this editorial: “It is a situation which both demonstrates the global nature of the debate on values and which presents a textbook case of how not to deal with Islamic fundamentalists in the West. Rather than threatening such cabbies with fines or loss of licence for refusing to carry fares, the Metropolitan Airports Commission has proposed special colour-coded lights to indicate which taxis are driven by non-Muslims and those willing to tote alcohol and those where sharia applies bumper to bumper. This is exactly the wrong solution. It opens moderate Muslim taxi drivers who are willing to carry passengers possessing alcohol open to harassment from their more radical co-religionists. It violates the long-enshrined legal principle that taxis are a public conveyance open to all….”

I suspect the airport commission believed it had no choice: either give in or face chaos on the sidewalk. I also doubt this will end at the airport curbside. Some of these same cabbies may decide to keep the special colored light on while in the queue to pick up fares at area hotels, for example. What about if you call for a cab? In some places, will we reach the point where the dispatcher has to ask if you will be carrying liquor? I hope not. In any event, having the government’s imprimatur on such an airport policy raises many other questions that I'm sure will be debated. Stay tuned.)

Posted on October 1, 2006:

I suspect this issue will surface at other airports in the U.S. From the AP:

Muslim Cabdrivers May Have to Signify Alcohol-Free Cars

MINNEAPOLIS, Sept. 30 (AP) — Hundreds of Muslim cabdrivers at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport may soon be required to put different colored lights atop their vehicles after refusing to take customers they know are carrying alcohol.

The proposal, which would allow airport workers to direct travelers to cabs more efficiently, needs approval from the airport’s taxicab advisory committee, and airport officials hope to have the lights ready by year’s end.

If the proposal is adopted, cabdrivers without the light who refuse a fare will be sent to the back of the line, which often means a three-hour wait.

Some said they would rather wait for another fare than carry a passenger with alcohol. “It is forbidden in Islam to carry alcohol,” said Muhamed Mursal, a cabdriver.

Pat Hogan, an airport spokesman, said a handful of drivers began refusing to carry alcohol 10 years ago. Now he estimates that three-quarters of the 900 airport cabdrivers are Somali, most of them Muslim.

Mr. Hogan said drunken passengers have not had trouble getting a cab, just the ones who mention that they are carrying a bottle. He said, “It’s slowly grown over the years to the point that it’s become a significant customer service issue for us.”

Some travelers are taken aback by the idea that they might be refused a ride.

“They’re really kind of imparting their religious views on the public,” said Katie Patterson of McKinney, Tex. “I can understand if somebody’s drunk; that’s a whole different issue. But to just bring in a closed container, maybe you should look for other work.”

From AFP:

Japan's new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has put rewriting the US-imposed pacifist constitution at the top of his agenda, a move that could lead to a more active military role overseas but alarm neighboring countries.

Abe, who took office Tuesday as Japan's first prime minister born after World War II, has been vague on much of his platform but has passionately vowed to revise the constitution, saying he wanted to "write it with my own hand."

"I belong to the post-World War II generation. The era dominated by the preconceived idea that the constitution should never be changed is over," Abe said during the campaign.

But experts said the process of rewriting the constitution would likely be slow and methodical as Abe seeks to win over skeptics both at home and abroad.

As I have noted many times, Australian Prime Minister John Howard is a rock-solid U.S. ally and a strong world leader in the War on Terror. He hasn’t taken the David Cameron path of backpedaling on the decision to remove Saddam from power or that of Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero who ran away from Iraq. And Howard hasn’t shied away from speaking out on the Pope’s recent comments and the ensuing intimation campaign, which, as the Wall Street Journal put it, is “trying to proscribe how free societies discuss one of the world's major religions.” An avid Standard reader from Australia sends along this interesting interview Howard gave on Australian TV on Tuesday. Some highlights:

TONY JONES: Now, PM, let's move on to other issues: As you'd be well aware, the Pope has provoked anger in the Muslim world after quoting a 14th century emperor who accused the Prophet Mohammed of inspiring evil and inhuman human ideas and spreading his word by the sword. Now Australia's leading Catholic has called, again, for an examination of whether the Koran, and what the Koran, in fact, has written about violence.

JOHN HOWARD: Yes.

TONY JONES: Do you think Cardinal Pell has a point in focusing on what the Koran has written about violence?

JOHN HOWARD: Well I think the cardinal has a point in making the point that it's a strange form of restraint to respond to words you disagree with, with demonstrations and threats of violence. The Islamic community is perfectly entitled to criticise the Pope and the Pope is perfectly entitled, and other religious leaders are perfectly entitled, to express their views about other religions. But we're all meant to believe in peace and we're all meant to adhere to peaceful religions and I just think it's very strange and disappointing that whenever the Pope says something that people, or on this particular occasion, let's stick to this, he has said something that people don't agree with and that provokes demonstrations. Now, we are all meant to be bound by a belief in free speech and free expression, and my, I suppose, exasperation would be that of many of the people in Australia, that, okay, they may not like what His Holiness said and whether he should have said it or not is, in a sense, beside the point, but we are meant to believe in free speech and we are meant to not overreact. I think it's very important with these things that people don't overreact. I'm sure the great bulk of Catholics around the world want good relations with Islam, and the Catholic Church, itself, cops a fair amount of abuse on a daily basis. If Catholics rioted every time people attacked the Catholic Church, you'd have riots on a very regular basis.

How refreshing.

Here are two pieces worth reading. The editors at the Wall Street Journal write:

It's a familiar spectacle: furious demands for an apology, threats, riots, violence. Anything can trigger so-called Muslim fury: a novel by a British-Indian writer, newspaper cartoons in a small Nordic country or, this past week, a talk on theology by the head of the Roman Catholic Church….

Taken alone, these are strong words. However, the pope didn't endorse the comment that he twice emphasized was not his own. No matter. As with Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses," which millions of outraged Muslims didn't bother to read (including Ayatollah Khomeini, who put the bounty on the novelist's life), what Benedict XVI meant or even said isn't the issue. Once again, many Muslim leaders are inciting their faithful against perceived slights and trying to proscribe how free societies discuss one of the world's major religions….

By their reaction to the pope's speech, some Muslim leaders showed again that Islam has a problem with modernity that is going to have to be solved by a debate within Islam. The day Muslims condemn Islamic terror with the same vehemence they condemn those who criticize Islam, an attempt at dialogue--and at improving relations between the Western and Islamic worlds--can begin.

And the AFP reports on the comments of Australian Archbishop Cardinal George Pell:

"The violent reactions in many parts of the Islamic world justified one of Pope Benedicts main fears," Pell said in a statement late Monday.

"They showed the link for many Islamists between religion and violence, their refusal to respond to criticism with rational arguments, but only with demonstrations, threats and actual violence."

"It is always someone elses fault, and issues touching on the nature of Islam are ignored," the cardinal said….

(A reader from our good friend Australia writes:

I saw your post 'Fighting Corruption as an Anti-Poverty Program' and how "too little attention is given to one of the biggest barriers to lifting nations out of chronic poverty -- rampant government and business corruption."

Our Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, is taking a tough line on this issue in relation to a developing dispute in the Solomon Islands. He's doing a great job on this.

Check out some of these links: one is from PM Howard's interview on the matter (last few paragraphs) and news reports here, here and here.

Clearly, Howard is continuing his record as a world leader who thinks and acts clearly and decisively on these issues - whether it is in Afghanistan, Iraq, Solomon Islands or elsewhere.)

George Soros, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation have generously pledged at least $150 million to alleviate hunger and poverty in Africa. Soros will donate his money to the UN Millennium Villages project, which operates in 10 African nations. The other two foundations will fund a “scaling up” of agricultural programs designed to increase crop yields. “Gates speculated that once the projects to help farmers got off the ground,” AP reports, “the farmers and their governments would reinvest in the infrastructure needed to make a lasting impact.” But a major key to securing a “lasting impact” will be to hold those governments that engage in illicit practices accountable. As I have noted in an earlier post, too little attention is given to one of the biggest barriers to lifting nations out of chronic poverty -- rampant government and business corruption – and to those trying to shine the spotlight on such activity.

AFP reports that "China has said it remains opposed to sanctions against North Korea over its nuclear drive, one day after top US envoy Christopher Hill nudged Beijing to take more action over the issue.” Guess this is one way China is thanking us for going to bat for them at the I.M.F.

Despite objections from Britain, the Netherlands and a few other nations, the Bush administration is pushing to give China more voting weight at the International Monetary Fund to reflect its growing economic power and encourage Beijing to become a “stakeholder” in the international system. According to the New York Times:

In an effort to gain Chinese cooperation on international economic issues, the Bush administration is pushing for China and other developing nations to get more power in the global institution that has played a central role in easing myriad financial crises since the end of World War II….

“I would argue that by re-engineering the I.M.F. and giving China a bigger voice,” Mr. Adams [under secretary of the Treasury for international affairs] said, “China will have a greater sense of responsibility for the institution’s mission.”

China is a particular focus of American interests because of the Bush administration’s uneasy relationship with the Beijing government and its desire for China to become a “stakeholder” in the international system, as American officials put it.

A similar “stakeholder” argument was advanced during congressional debate on granting China permanent most-favored-nation trade status. Since that time, Beijing has been less than helpful on numerous fronts: Darfur, North Korea and Iran top the list. It may make perfect economic sense for a greater Chinese role at the IMF but shouldn’t the Bush administration request “a greater sense of responsibility” from the Chinese as a member of that other international institution, the UN Security Council, before falling over backwards for them at the IMF?

First, Fidel goes missing and now another dictator hasn’t been seen publicly for some time.

Coddling dictatorships around the globe is their specialty. From AFP:

China urged non-interference in the affairs of Cuba, following comments by US President George W. Bush offering US support for "democratic change" in the Caribbean nation.

"China has all along stood for mutual respect between nations and mutual non-interference in the affairs of other nations," the foreign ministry said when asked to comment on Bush's statement.

Yesterday's performance by Sen. John Kerry at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's hearing for John Bolton was a classic. Aside from lecturing Bolton on the virtue of the 1994 Framework Agreement with North Korea – an agreement he evidently didn’t know required Pyongyang to forgo all nuclear weapons development and an agreement that allowed the North to keep the same fuel rods they may now be reprocessing – Kerry also invoked Reagan to hammer the Bush administration and asked Bolton to envision the world through Kim Jong Il’s eyes:

BOLTON: Senator, really, it's hard to understand how you can't look at the notion of conducting the bilateral conversations in the six-party talks and not say that North Korea has an opportunity to make its case to us.

KERRY: Sir, with all due respect, I mean, you know -- what I've seen work and not work over the course of the years I've been here depends on what kind of deal you're willing to make or not make and what your fundamental policies are.

If you're a leader in North Korea, looking at the United States, and you've seen the United States attack Iraq on presumptions of weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist, if you announce a preemptive strategy of regime change, if you are pursuing your own new nuclear weapons, bunker busting nuclear weapons, and you're sitting in another country, you would have a perception of threat that makes you make a certain set of decisions.

And historically throughout the Cold War, that drove the United States and the then-Soviet Union to escalate and escalate. And first one did and then the other.

In fact -- in fact -- in every single case, we were the first, with the exception of two particular weapons systems to develop a nuclear breakthrough first. They followed -- until ultimately, President Reagan, a conservative president, and President Gorbachev said we're going to come down in Reykjavik to no weapons.

So we reversed 50 years of spending money and chasing this thing.

Of course, back in the Reagan years, Kerry led the charge against the very policies that led to the sweeping arms reduction agreements. He backed a nuclear freeze, opposed the Reagan defense build-up and aligned himself with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party on most other national security issues. So, John Bolton is in pretty good company in having Sen. Kerry as a critic.

Though little reported in the Western media, Thailand has been facing an insurgency of its own. From the BBC:

A teacher has been shot and killed in front of a classroom of children in southern Thailand, according to police. Gunmen disguised themselves as students to shoot the Buddhist teacher at the primary school in Narathiwat district.

The attack is the latest in a string of violent incidents in the Thai south, where more than 1,300 people have been killed since January 2004.

Officials blames Muslim insurgents for much of the unrest, although criminal motives are also thought to be at work. The southern provinces are predominantly Muslim, with a separate language and culture to much of the rest of Thailand.

Police blamed militants for the killing of Prasarn Martchu, 46. "He has taught at this school for 20 years and has no fight with anyone," police Colonel Bunleu Chawet said. "This is the work of insurgents."

The shooting prompted some 20 local schools to close indefinitely, an official said.

At least 30 teachers have been killed since the beginning of the insurgency. Militants target schools and teachers because they see them as symbols of the Buddhist Thai authorities.

In many areas of the south, the government now provides teachers with armed escorts to and from their classes to prevent them from being harmed. In June, five security officers escorting teachers to school were killed by a roadside bomb in neighbouring Yala province.

From AFP:

An Indonesian journalist detained for posting cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in his newspaper earlier this year has been released from prison but will still face trial.

Teguh Santosa, 35, was freed from a Jakarta prison Thursday night after being held there for 24 hours by the prosecutor's office, police detective Aries Syarif Hidayat said on Friday.

Santosa, who is the chief editor of the Rakyat Merdeka Online newspaper, will still have to face trial for publishing the cartoons in February, Hidayat said. He faces a maximum five years' imprisonment….

Santosa, quoted by the Koran Tempo newspaper on Friday, said he was only trying to give readers a complete story on the controversial cartoons.

"It was in accordance with my job as a journalist," he reportedly said….

Things are apparently better in Dili -- for now at least. While places like East Timor and Kosovo are out of the headlines nowadays, they are still areas where the international community must remain engaged for the long haul.

Today's Washington Post has a piece on wealthy donors who fund liberal organizations.

An alliance of nearly a hundred of the nation's wealthiest donors is roiling Democratic political circles, directing more than $50 million in the past nine months to liberal think tanks and advocacy groups in what organizers say is the first installment of a long-term campaign to compete more aggressively against conservatives.

Bernard L. Schwartz, retired chief executive of Loral Space & Communications Inc. and an alliance donor, said the group offers partners "an array of opportunities that have passed their smell test." This is most helpful, he said, for big donors who lack the time to closely examine their political investment options.

Schwartz is a longtime Democratic Party donor. From a January 10, 2002 Associated Press piece:

A long-running investigation into Loral Space & Communications' transfer of highly sensitive information to China is at an end, with the company paying a $14 million civil fine.

The settlement comes four years after Justice Department lawyers expressed concern that their probe was being jeopardized by the Clinton White House. Bernard Schwartz, Loral's chairman and CEO, donated nearly $1 million to Democrats from 1995 to 1998.

At issue in a Justice Department probe was whether Loral illegally helped the Chinese in 1996 by offering technical help after a rocket carrying a Loral satellite exploded.

The Pentagon concluded in a report that sensitive technology involving missiles was transferred to the Chinese. Loral denied its assistance helped China militarily.

In a statement Wednesday, Schwartz said Loral "made an immediate and voluntary disclosure to the State Department" when the company learned an employee had mistakenly sent a report on the rocket failure to the Chinese.

"Loral accepts full responsibility for the matter and expresses regret for its failure to obtain appropriate State Department approval," Schwartz said. The company will pay the fine to the State Department.

The company also said it has strengthened its export compliance program with changes that will cost at least $6 million.

Schwartz said the company has instituted an extensive new training program, added staff and greatly improved oversight of export control.

In 1998, during the investigation, Justice Department attorneys cautioned that the probe could be harmed if the Clinton administration cleared the way for another Loral satellite to be launched by China. President Clinton approved the deal.

Before Clinton's decision, then-national security adviser Sandy Berger wrote the president that "the criminal division of the Justice Department has cautioned that a national interest waiver in this case could have a significant adverse impact on any prosecution (of Loral) that might take place, based on a pending investigation of export violation. On fairness grounds, we believe it is inappropriate to penalize (Loral) before they have even been charged with any crime."

In a 1998 memo marked "the president has seen," White House aide Phil Caplan wrote that the "Department of Justice believes that, if the matter ever reaches a trial, a jury would likely not convict" the company "if the jury were to learn that a waiver was issued."

Clinton said his decision "was the right one," adding that "I can assure you it was handled in the routine course of business."

This time things would be different. North Korea had badly miscalculated in firing its missiles, as some claimed in the immediate aftermath of the launch. Kim Jong Il’s belligerence would be met by a tough, united international response. But has it miscalculated? The one nation with enormous economic leverage on the North, China, refuses to employ it and Japan, a strong U.S. ally, has watched its proposed UN resolution get emasculated. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, who’s in Beijing, said today that “China is working very hard and taking its responsibility very, very seriously in trying to get the six-party process going again.” The reality is China hasn’t been “taking its responsibility very, very seriously” – far from it. Until they’re serious, Pyongyang will likely continue its provocations.

Missile Launch Pad, North Korea

(Courtesy of Globalsecurity.org)

From AFP:

China has repeated its rejection of a proposed UN resolution on possible sanctions against North Korea, dashing US and Japanese hopes for quick action over Pyongyang's missile tests.

A foreign ministry announcement that the draft Security Council resolution was an "overreaction" came amid another flurry of shuttle diplomacy to address the crisis in the wake of last Wednesday's missile launches.

The Republican governor of Arkansas and possible presidential candidate must be getting his foreign policy talking points from fellow Arkansan Bill Clinton. From the Des Moines Register:

Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in Iowa Saturday downplayed the threat North Korea's missile testing last week posed to the United States, but discouraged U.S. officials from confronting the actions without strong international collaboration.

"They are doing some saber-rattling, but their swords are very dull and very rusty," Huckabee, a Republican weighing a presidential campaign, said about the rogue communist nation as he began a three-day swing through Iowa.

Having returned from a trip to South Korea and Japan just days before the test, Huckabee said North Korea's missile technology is so crude that South Koreans are less concerned than Americans about the developments.

"They don't really have the weaponry that's advanced enough to have people ducking and covering just yet," he said in an interview. "But this clearly can't be another situation where the U.S. goes it alone."

The governor may want to spend a little more time with Japanese government officials. From today’s AP:

Japan said Monday it was considering whether a pre-emptive strike on the North's missile bases would violate its constitution, signaling a hardening stance ahead of a possible U.N. Security Council vote on Tokyo's proposal for sanctions against the regime.

Japan was badly rattled by North Korea's missile tests last week and several government officials openly discussed whether the country ought to take steps to better defend itself, including setting up the legal framework to allow Tokyo to launch a pre-emptive strike against Northern missile sites.

No help on Iran. No help on North Korea. No help on Darfur and Sudan. Somehow this story from today’s Washington Post doesn’t surprise me:

BEIJING, July 7 -- The Chinese government is preparing to prosecute a blind peasant who exposed excesses by authorities in enforcing the one-child policy in eastern China, where local officials were accused by residents of forcing thousands of people to undergo sterilization or to abort pregnancies. The decision, disclosed by court officials Friday, follows a prolonged bureaucratic stalemate in the ruling Communist Party over how to handle the allegations in the city of Linyi, and it highlights the growing clout of hard-liners in the party since President Hu Jintao took office three years ago.

Chen Guangcheng, 34, the blind rural activist who drew international attention to a violent crackdown on unauthorized births in Linyi last year, is scheduled to be tried July 17 on charges of destruction of property and assembling a crowd to disrupt traffic, according to his attorney, Li Jinsong.

The charges stem from an incident in March in which Chen is accused of leading a protest against local officials who had illegally confined him to his house and who were beating villagers who tried to help him, Li and residents of Chen's village said.

Chen's trial could renew international scrutiny of China's population-control practices, and it represents a major setback for reformers in the government who have been trying to soften the one-child policy and eliminate the abuses long associated with it.

From yesterday's Jerusalem Post editorial:

When President George W. Bush first stated in 2002 that Iran and North Korea were joined in an "axis of evil," there was much snickering, not only at the use of moralistic language, but at the implication that such disparate countries were in any way connected.

Former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright, for example, called Bush's comments "a big mistake" and pointed out that "first of all, they [Iran, Iraq and North Korea] are very different from each other."

They certainly are different, but the connections between the two remaining axis regimes are real.

Among the missiles that North Korea test-fired this week were short-range Scud-C missiles and intermediate range Rodong missiles, both of which, The New York Times reports, North Korea has sold to Iran, Pakistan and other nations….

The timing [of the missile launch] reasonably led the Times to speculate that North Korea's "core goal was simply to ratchet up the pressure for greater aid and diplomatic recognition, perhaps mirroring the Western incentives offered to Iran to suspend its nuclear program." Attempts to engage and bribe Iran and North Korea into better behavior appear not only to be failing, but to be spurring those nations to greater levels of belligerency.

When the North Korean dictator says jump (this time in the form of lobbing missiles) many Clintonites ask, "how high?" Bill Richardson, Madeleine Albright, Wendy Sherman, etc. have been all over the media pushing for direct talks with Pyongyang. They believe the U.S. can strike a deal with the North the same way the Clinton administration did in the 1990s. And we know that approach worked well. From today’s Wall Street Journal editorial:

Kim is at it again because his previous provocations have typically been rewarded. The most famous example is the 1994 Agreed Framework in which the Clinton Administration responded to Kim's nuclear threats by offering aid and the promise of nuclear energy plants. That deal collapsed in 2002 when Kim repudiated it, announced a secret nuclear program and kicked out U.N. inspectors.

Or consider what happened the last time Kim launched a missile, sending the Taepodong-1 over Japan in 1998. The Clinton Administration went back to the negotiating table and came close to concluding a missile version of the 1994 nuclear agreement. As part of that deal--negotiated by then-State Department Counsellor Wendy Sherman--the U.S. would launch North Korean satellites in return for the North's pledge to stop developing long-range missiles.

Given Pyongyang's abysmal record at keeping its promises, the more likely outcome would have been the theft of U.S. technology and the strengthening of the North's missile program.

And Sen. McCain had this to say yesterday:

It would be the height of folly to reward this lawless rogue regime with diplomatic benefits, including the bilateral talks it seeks. In the 1990s we nurtured Kim Jong-il’s expectation that threats of attack will garner benefits, when the United States agreed to provide fuel oil and construct two civilian nuclear reactors in return for a freeze on Pyongyang's nuclear weapons programs. Mr. Kim cheated on that agreement, and now the world faces a nuclear-armed North Korea. While the U.S. and our allies have presented incentives within the context of the six party talks, these can only go forward if North Korea gives up its nuclear program completely and verifiably. In the meantime, the world has seen the course Mr. Kim prefers, and we must respond accordingly.

Of course, despite the best efforts of UN Ambassador Bolton, I doubt the Security Council will do much beyond passing a resolution with a few tough words in it. One person suggested to me that the US should go ahead and let Russia or China veto a resolution with teeth to expose to everyone just what enablers they are of the North Korean dictatorship -- and the regime in Khartoum for that matter. After that, go ahead with the weaker resolution. Interesting thought but it won’t happen in this go around.

Call me a skeptic of the comments made by some U.S. government officials and pundits that North Korea badly miscalculated in firing its missiles. The U.N. Security Council isn’t likely to do much beyond condemning the “provocation” and pleading with the North to return to the six-party talks. If anything, there will be a new push for the U.S. to directly engage the North. The Clintonites have already taken to the airways this morning calling for just that. Madeleine Albright blamed yesterday’s events on a “failure of diplomacy,” which is her way of blaming the Bush White House for abandoning her administration’s North Korean policy. But the lesson the North most likely learned from the Clinton days was that blackmail works. The one nation in the region that seems serious about dealing with the North is Japan. Unlike some Clinton folks, the Japanese may not believe that the North is seeking a grand bargain with the international community in which the hermit kingdom gives up its nukes and nuclear-capable missiles in exchange for economic aid and security guarantees. Pyongyang may actually intend to put nuclear warheads on its missiles and may have concluded that the Security Council (thanks to Beijing, for now at least) is too dysfunctional to impose strong, lasting sanctions. Yes, the North Koreans have “provoked” the international community but if past is prologue I doubt they’ll do much about it. Let's hope I'm wrong.

Beijing's been no help on North Korea, coddles Iran and showers the dictatorship in Khartoum with arms that end up in the hands of the killers in Darfur. No doubt China has been a good place to do business but, so far, there’s little evidence that it has changed the character of the regime for the better. The long-term bet is that it will. Let’s hope.

Unilateralism, preemption, a hostile world reaction -- the good folks at the American Prospect must be gasping for air after reading this piece from President Clinton’s two top defense officials. Merits aside, it sure caught me by surprise and makes me wonder if Secretary Perry has had second thoughts on the 1994 deal his administration cut with the North Koreans.

Australia has been a very good friend of the United States. They remain steadfast in Iraq and Afghanistan, work closely with our military in the Pacific region, and have led the coalition trying to bring security and stability to East Timor. The government of Prime Minister John Howard has also been engaged in a defense build-up that will continue into the next decade. Now only if some of our friends in Europe would see the light.

From Reuters:

Australia has updated plans to spend more than 51 billion Australian dollars ($38 billion) to build up its military in a move Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said on June 20 would match defense capabilities with potential threats.

The 10-year Defence Capability Plan, last updated in 2004, outlines spending on new ships, planes and weapons….

It also allows the military to further commit to the Lockheed-Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The government hopes to buy up to 100 F-35s for 16 billion Australian dollars, with a final decision due in late 2008.

Nelson said the major features of the new capability plan include 3.7 billion Australian dollars to further rationalize Australia’s military helicopter fleet, maintenance and pilot training, and 750 million Australian dollars to upgrade army artillery.

It also includes around one billion Australian dollars to refurbish or replace the C-130 Hercules and Caribou aircraft fleets, and more than one billion Australian dollars to improve military satellite communications.
He said some projects remained confidential, but almost half of the 51 billion Australian dollars would be spent on electronics, 26 percent on aerospace, 11 percent on new ships and just seven percent on weapons and ammunition.

Yesterday's revelation of a terrorist plot to release poison gas in a NYC subway brings to mind the 1995 sarin nerve gas attack in Tokyo -- an attack that might have killed tens of thousands if the gas had been more effectively disbursed. In fact, Clinton officials would cite the attack in explaining why Saddam Hussein must be disarmed.

On November 15, 1997, for example, President Clinton told an audience that Americans should not view the current crisis with Iraq [at the time the administration was preparing the nation for possible military action] as a “replay” of the Gulf War in 1991. Instead, he told people to

think about it in terms of the innocent Japanese people that died in the subway when the sarin gas was released [by the religious cult Aum Shinrikyo in 1995]; and how important it is for every responsible government in the world to do everything that can possibly be done not to let big stores of chemical or biological weapons fall into the wrong hands, not to let irresponsible people develop the capacity to put them in warheads on missiles or put them in briefcases that could be exploded in small rooms. And I say this not to frighten you.

The same month Time magazine ran a piece, "America the Vulnerable," that stated:

officials in Washington are deeply worried about what some of them call "strategic crime." By that they mean the merging of the output from a government’s arsenals, like Saddam’s biological weapons, with a group of semi-independent terrorists, like radical Islamist groups, who might slip such bioweapons into the U.S. and use them.

We still don't know what intelligence these officials based their "deep worry" on or whether that intelligence made its way into any of the president’s daily intelligence briefs.

Jay Lefkowitz, Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea, argues in a speech to the Asia Society that promoting human rights is very much in the American national security interest.

Government conduct at home naturally influences conduct toward other nations. The 20th century shows us numerous examples of this correlation. With Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others, the march of tyranny at home was an antecedent to international aggression. For this reason, making human rights part of our national security agenda is not only an appropriate policy, but also a necessary one.

There are some who question this approach. Some argue that our concern about human freedom amounts to interference in internal affairs of another state -- a sort of new imperialism. In other words, what happens in North Korea stays in North Korea. Others do not protest raising the human rights issue, but believe this is a matter solely to be worked out between North and South Korea. Finally, some recognize that human rights is a legitimate area of concern, but argue that raising it will prevent us from making progress on more immediate security concerns like North Korea’s nuclear arsenal....

Fundamentally, the United States will pursue a policy that has freedom and respect for the individual as its cornerstone. The promotion of human rights is certainly an important end in and of itself, and therefore a clear objective of our policy. But it is also a critical means to an even broader end -- America’s effort to extend freedom and security across the globe.

With an eye toward North Korea, the US Navy has accelerated its missile defense capability in the Pacific region. From the Associated Press:

For the first time, a Navy ship at sea successfully shot down a long-range missile in its final seconds of flight, the military said Wednesday.

The test was seen as an important step toward giving ships the ability to shoot down weapons as they are about to hit their targets. Until now, the Standard Missile 2 was only launched from ships to intercept a long-range missile in the early or middle stage of flight.

For the test, a missile fired from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai was destroyed in its final stage by an SM-2 launched from USS Lake Erie.

The Navy already can shoot down a missile in its final stage with a Patriot Advanced Capability 3, or PAC-3, missile launched from land.

The experiment with the SM-2 could broaden a warship's capability, said Rear Adm. Barry McCullough, director of surface warfare on the staff of the chief of naval operations.

The Pearl Harbor-based Lake Erie is equipped with technology that allows it to detect and track intercontinental ballistic missiles. Since 2004, U.S. warships with ICBM tracking technology have been patrolling the Sea of Japan, on the lookout for missiles from North Korea.

The U.S. military is installing missile tracking radar and interceptor missiles on 18 U.S. Pacific Fleet ships. It is also equipping underground silos in Alaska and California with interceptor missiles.

And in Europe,

NATO countries face a growing threat of attack by long-range missiles, a senior alliance official said on Wednesday as he presented a study on options for a missile shield system to protect Europe.

"There is a growing threat of long-range missile attack on NATO territory. It is timely to examine ways and means of addressing that threat." [said] Marshall Billingslea, NATO assistant Secretary General for Defence Investment.

But many on the continent aren't buying it.

"There is a difference in perception," said Andrew Brookes of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. "America is looking at protection from strategic missile attacks from places like China, North Korea and Iran. Europe doesn't believe that's a threat."

"Europeans, inherently, don't buy into this fantasy," Brookes said.

Though, it appears some in NATO believe Mr. Brookes has bought into his own fantasy.

The Pentagon has released its latest report on the status of the Chinese military, the Washington Post reports today. Its findings:

China's military buildup is increasingly aimed at projecting power far beyond its shores into the western Pacific to be able to interdict U.S. aircraft carriers and other nations' military forces, according to a Pentagon report released yesterday that outlines continued concerns over China's rising strategic influence in Asia....

The People's Liberation Army "is engaged in a sustained effort to interdict, at long ranges, aircraft carrier and expeditionary strike groups that might deploy to the western Pacific," the report said. Long-term trends in China's development of nuclear and conventional weapons "have the potential to pose credible threats to modern militaries operating in the region," it said....

The report details how the Chinese military is investing in cruise missiles, precision weapons and guidance systems that could target ships, submarines, aircraft and airbases as far away as the "second island chain" including the Mariana Islands and Guam. As part of this strategy, China is buying Russian aircraft, such as the IL-76 transport and IL-78 tanker aircraft, and has shown interest in the Su-33 maritime strike aircraft. China is in the early stages of "developing power projection for other contingencies other than Taiwan," said Peter W. Rodman, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs.

On Taiwan, the report said China had deployed about 100 more short-range ballistic missiles to garrisons opposite the island, increasing the total from 650 to 730 last year to between 710 and 790 now. "The balance between Beijing and Taiwan is heading in the wrong direction," Rodman said, adding that "maybe our job is to be the equalizer if a contingency arises."

Beijing's military build-up is also driving closer relations between the U.S. and India -- a burgeoning relationship designed, in part, to thwart what Heritage Foundation scholars John J. Tkacik Jr. and Dana Dillon discuss in a recent issue of Policy Review.

Commissioned in 1950, the aircraft on the carrier Oriskany launched attacks on North Korean forces and supply lines, conducted thousands of combat missions against North Vietnamese targets and even played a major in the film "The Bridges of Toko Ri," starring Grace Kelly and William Holden. Now, the Los Angeles Times reports that the Oriskany will spend its remaining years submerged off the coast of Florida continuing its service to our nation.

PENSACOLA NAVAL AIR STATION, Fla. — After more than half a century of wartime valor, maritime tragedy and cinematic triumph, the aircraft carrier Oriskany is preparing for its final mission: sinking into an afterlife as an artificial reef....

Although thousands of artificial reefs have been created along U.S. coastlines, the 900-foot-long Oriskany is the largest vessel ever designated for sea-bottom service.

Weather permitting, the now-corroded carrier that was home to 3,460 sailors — including a future Sen. John McCain — and 80 aircraft during the wars in Korea and Vietnam will be towed 24 miles offshore on Tuesday and sunk a day later. To minimize the risk of storms or tidal action affecting its position, it will be aligned north to south, bow out and stern to the distant shoreline....

One who hopes to be among the spectators is Charles Tinker, a retired Navy captain who was a 34-year-old fighter squadron pilot when the Oriskany endured its deadliest incident, an Oct. 26, 1966, fire that took the lives of 44 shipmates.

"I've got a sentimental feeling toward the ship. I spent a lot of my life aboard, an important part of my life," said Tinker of his two separate tours of Oriskany duty. He remembers the harrowing fire "as if it was last week."

Sending the Oriskany to a watery grave for the enjoyment of tourists "initially didn't sit too well," Tinker said. But with time he's come to regard the reef project as a way of keeping the carrier in public service instead of in the scrap yard....

"There's some vets who think it's not dignified" to sink the Oriskany, said Denny Earl, another Vietnam-era flier. Earl, an avid diver, isn't among them.

"A lot of ships are sold for scrap," he said. "To me, being converted to razor blades is not very dignified either." Now 65, Earl plans to pay an undersea visit to the old warship as soon as state authorities deem it opened, likely within a week of the sinking.

Earl earned citations for exceptional valor during the Vietnam War when, wounded in both legs by enemy fire, he dropped his payload and returned his A-4 Skyhawk for a textbook landing on the Oriskany while banging his fist against the cockpit window to stay conscious....

The following op-ed by Jay Lefkowitz, the president's special envoy for human rights in North Korea, ran today in the Asian and European editions of the Wall Street Journal:

The famous former Soviet dissident, Andrei Sakharov, said it well: "A country that does not respect the rights of its own people will not respect the rights of its neighbors." North Korea is a prime example of a regime that doesn't respect either. It would probably come as no surprise to Sakharov that a government that inflicts on its citizens repression reminiscent of the most cruel totalitarian rulers of the 20th century is today counterfeiting American currency, trafficking in narcotics, building a nuclear arsenal, and threatening other nations.

Under the iron hand of Kim Jong Il, individual rights do not exist in North Korea. Millions have perished from a famine caused by government policies. Hundreds of thousands of North Koreans are held captive and brutalized in concentration camps. The regime traffics human beings, prohibits free expression of faith, holds its workforce in servitude, and has admitted to abducting foreign citizens.

As Sakharov reminds us, until the North Korean government respects the rights of its own people, the full blessings of peace and prosperity will elude Northeast Asia. So what can be done? First, we should force a ray of light through the veil of darkness and secrecy Kim Jong Il has drawn over North Korea. One defector recently told me that he first learned he was not living in a Socialist paradise when, as a soldier in the North Korean army, he listened clandestinely to South Korean radio. By increasing radio broadcasts from abroad, we can help North Koreans learn about the world outside. Defectors could play a major role, as they can speak with authority to those still in the North. The North Korean people would learn that less than 100 miles away, millions of Koreans who only 20 years ago also lived under an authoritarian regime now boast a vibrant democracy and the world's 12th largest economy. The deceit Kim Jong Il uses to help suppress his people can only be countered by a constant flow of information about the rest of the world. A policy to promote such broadcasts should be supported by America and all free nations.

We must also do more for those North Koreans who have braved great odds and escaped in search of freedom. The United States has long been a haven for vulnerable people fleeing despotic regimes, and North Korean refugees are welcome in the U.S. -- just as Jews fleeing the former Soviet Union and Cambodians fleeing Pol Pot were welcomed a generation ago. Many North Korean refugees have risked their lives to cross into China. Regrettably, they are often forcibly sent back to certain punishment in North Korea in clear violation of China's international obligations under a refugee treaty that it and 143 nations signed. Those refugees deserve better.

Certainly, Kim Chun-hee did. She is a defenseless North Korean woman who sought refuge at a school in Beijing last December, only to be sent back to her tormentors in North Korea. This happened despite the pleas of governments and the United Nations that she be treated humanely. It is not known if Ms. Kim is still alive. Nor do we know the fate of thousands of other refugees China has returned to North Korea.

Just as there are steps free nations can take to help the North Korean people, there are also policies we should avoid. One example of well-intentioned, but counterproductive, assistance is in the area of humanitarian aid. While the U.S. and other democracies stand ready to provide humanitarian assistance to the North Korean people, we properly insist on monitoring that aid to ensure it is not diverted to the military or sold on the black market where the cash can be used for other unintended purposes. By channeling large amounts of unmonitored aid to North Korea, some governments may actually worsen matters and unwittingly help prop up the regime.

America's friends in Asia must be careful not to squander whatever influence they may have to bring about change in North Korea. Near Kaesong, a city just north of the Demilitarized Zone, 15 South Korean companies recently opened an industrial park using North Korean labor. So far, the consortium has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into the North with more to come. A South Korean official enthusiastically described it as, "a cooperative project benefiting both the South and the North, and at the same time, a peace project overcoming the wall of the Cold War through economic cooperation."

But the world knows little about what actually goes on at Kaesong, and given North Korea's track record, there is ample cause for concern about worker exploitation. The South Korean companies apparently pay less than $2 a day per worker, and there is no guarantee that the workers see even this small amount. The North Korean government deducts a "social fee" from their wages and empowers "labor brokers" to control the rest. Moreover, the site is fenced in, and the North Korean workers must come and go through a single entrance manned by armed soldiers. While the conditions at Kaesong may be marginally better than elsewhere in the North, substantial economic assistance to North Korea should be linked to human-rights progress for all North Koreans. At a minimum, North Korea should allow an independent party, such as the International Labor Organization, to inspect and assess Kaesong and report its findings to the U.N.

The U.S. will strive to give hope to the people of North Korea and to help them claim their inalienable rights. As U.S. President George W. Bush said last November when he went to Asia, "The 21st century will be freedom's century for all Koreans." But the challenge to expand freedom across the entire Korean peninsula is one the U.S. cannot meet on its own. Those around the world who cherish freedom, and especially America's friends in Asia who stand to benefit most from a peaceful and productive peninsula, must also commit themselves to this goal.

In the spirit of President Hu's victory lap around the U.S., reader John Manley sends along two interesting links. This one searches for images of Tiananmen on Google.com, while this one does the same search on Google.cn.

By the way, no one knows what happened to the man, who Google.cn erases, in front of that tank. From Frontline's "The Tank Man":

From Yesterday's New York Times:

Alan R. Mulally, president of Boeing's commercial aircraft division, introduced Mr. Hu to a group of 5,000 Boeing workers in an event that had the aura of a pep rally. After Mr. Hu made a glowing tribute to Boeing's tradition of innovation, Mr. Mulally said simply, ''China rocks.''

No doubt "China rocks." A few years back the Danish government sponsored a United Nations resolution calling attention to the poor human rights record of Beijing. The Chinese foreign ministry countered, the Washington Post reported, with this cheerful note:

relations with Denmark would be "severely damaged in the political or economic and trade areas." In case that was too subtle, China added that the human rights resolution would "become a rock that smashes on the Danish government's head."

And today, Denmark and China are at odds over the atrocious human rights violations going on in Darfur:

From ABC News:

The U.N. Security Council remained divided...on imposing punitive measures over the conflict in Darfur despite calls for sanctions against Sudanese allegedly blocking peace in the region....

Most of the 15-member council were in favor of sanctions, led by the United States, Britain, France and Denmark but Qatar, China, and Russia were strongly opposed, council diplomats said. Qatar is the only Arab member of the council, China is a major buyer of Sudanese oil, and Russia traditionally opposes sanctions.

"China Rocks"!

Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian takes a shot at Google and Yahoo for kowtowing to Beijing. From ComputerWorld:

Taiwan President pans Google, Yahoo on free speech Strong criticisms on anniversary of activist's death

In a speech commemorating a local human rights activist, Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian accused Yahoo Inc. and Google Inc. of allowing the prospect of corporate profits to lure them into compromising free speech in China.

"I again call on China's Communist government and on multinationals that have sacrificed freedom of speech for corporate profits, including well known companies such as Yahoo and Google, to respect democracy and freedom, because it is the correct way to ensure continuous future development," Chen said in the speech Friday.

Taiwan's president used the 17th annual commemorative ceremony for human rights activist Cheng Nan-jung as a platform for his speech, arguing that countries should not compromise free speech or freedom of the press for any reason.

Cheng, former publisher of a weekly magazine dedicated to protesting government suppression of press freedoms in Taiwan, set himself on fire in 1989 during an attempt by police to arrest him.

Since the incident, Taiwan has developed one of the most vibrant democracies in Asia, with full press and speech freedoms. The island enjoyed its third free presidential election in 2004, with the incumbent, Chen, winning his second term in office.

Neither Google nor Yahoo immediately answered a request for comment about the speech.

Google launched a censored version of its search engine in China in January. It argued that it was better if it offered users there a compromised version of its search service rather than none at all. The company came under fire in the U.S. and elsewhere for the move.

Censors and strong firewalls in China slow the performance of overseas Internet sites. Only by locating servers in China can a company such as Google speed up its site, but putting servers in the country also gives Beijing control over how the company runs its business.

Yahoo has faced criticism for turning e-mails over to Chinese police that put a journalist in jail for 10-years....

It's not hard to find comparisons between President Bush and Hitler on anti-war web sites or on signs carried in anti-war marches. But this may be the first time I've read a comparison of Bush's thinking to Tojo's from a well-known politician. In reviewing an upcoming book by Sen. Ted Kennedy on the president's foreign policy, the Boston Globe notes:

Bush's decision to invade Iraq, Kennedy says, was an example of ''preventive war" -- attacking a nation to prevent it from developing the ability to threaten the United States. A similar manner of thinking led the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor in 1941, he writes, since Japan was seeking to block the US military buildup in the Pacific.

Wonder if the Democratic leadership agrees with the senior senator from Massachusetts? How about all those Democrats who voted for the war?

Here's an interesting New York Times piece on how China's growing labor shortage will impact the world economy and swell the ranks of China's middle class:

Persistent labor shortages at hundreds of Chinese factories have led experts to conclude that the economy is undergoing a profound change that will ripple through the global market for manufactured goods.

The shortage of workers is pushing up wages and swelling the ranks of the country's middle class, and it could make Chinese-made products less of a bargain worldwide. International manufacturers are already talking about moving factories to lower-cost countries like Vietnam....

For all the complaints of factory owners, though, the situation has a silver lining for the members of the world's largest labor force. Economists say the shortages are spurring companies to improve labor conditions and to more aggressively recruit workers with incentives and benefits.

The changes also suggest that China may already be moving up the economic ladder, as workers see opportunities beyond simply being unskilled assemblers of the world's goods. Rising wages may also prompt Chinese consumers to start buying more products from other countries, helping to balance the nation's huge trade surpluses....

China's one-child policy is also aggravating the shortages. With the first generation of young people born under the one-child policy now emerging from postsecondary education, many of them see varied opportunities not available to an earlier generation.

You may also find this piece, "China Could Learn From India’s Slow and Quiet Rise" by MIT professor Yasheng Huang, of interest.

The History Channel notes that today is the anniversary of the March 20, 1995 sarin nerve gas attack in Tokyo -- an attack that might have killed tens of thousands if the gas had been more effectively disbursed.

At the height of the morning rush hour in Tokyo, Japan, five two-man terrorist teams from the Aum Shinrikyo religious cult, riding on separate subway trains, converge at the Kasumigaseki station and secretly release lethal sarin gas into the air. The terrorists then took a sarin antidote and escaped while the commuters, blinded and gasping for air, rushed to the exits. Twelve people died, and 5,500 were treated in hospitals, some in a comatose state. Most of the survivors recovered, but some victims suffered permanent damage to their eyes, lungs, and digestive systems. A United States Senate subcommittee later estimated that if the sarin gas had been disseminated more effectively at Kasumigaseki station, a hub of the Tokyo subway system, tens of thousands might have been killed.

And here's some more history.

Following that attack, the Clinton administration would cite the incident in explaining why Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. According to Time magazine, officials were deeply worried that Saddam might transfer wmd material to "radical Islamist groups." On November 15, 1997, President Clinton told an audience that Americans should not view the current crisis with Iraq [the administration was preparing the nation for possible military action] as a “replay” of the Gulf War in 1991. Instead, he told people to “think about it in terms of the innocent Japanese people that died in the subway when the sarin gas was released; and how important it is for every responsible government in the world to do everything that can possibly be done not to let big stores of chemical or biological weapons fall into the wrong hands, not to let irresponsible people develop the capacity to put them in warheads on missiles or put them in briefcases that could be exploded in small rooms.” I wonder if the former president recollects any of this?

Leadership matters. Tuesday's Globe and Mail has some interesting poll results on the Canadian troop deployment to Afghanistan.

Canadians' views have shifted sharply in support of the Afghan military mission even as troop casualties have mounted over the past three weeks, a new poll suggests.

A modest but clear majority -- 55 per cent of respondents to a nationwide poll taken for The Globe and Mail and CTV over the past four days -- now broadly support the decision to send troops to Afghanistan. Only 41 per cent oppose the deployment.

In late February, more than 60 per cent said that given a vote in Parliament, they would opt against sending troops to the war-torn country. Only 27 per cent said they would vote in favour.... Perhaps most surprisingly, a clear majority -- 59 per cent -- said they are willing to tolerate Canadian casualties to "help achieve security and stability in the region."

The poll results "suggest that a concerted public campaign in defence of the mission by senior military officers, as well as political figures from both the Conservative government and Liberal Opposition, has had an impact."

This change in public attitude doesn't surprise me. A while back, the German Marshall Fund released a poll that found increased European disapproval of President Bush's foreign policy but with an interesting twist. One exception was in Britain (I should note that Poland’s approval numbers mirrored those in the U.S.), “where there was a slight upturn in approval.” I doubt it was a coincidence that this “upturn” occurred in a nation where the national government most vigorously made the case for getting rid of Saddam and for promoting democracy in the region. Bush’s lowest ratings were in countries, namely France and Germany, whose leaders adamantly and very publicly opposed Bush's policies. Even so, Germany's Gerhard Schröder ran on an explicitly anti-American platform and lost to an opponent who forcefully countered his demagoguery. Canada's Stephen Harper did the same against the anti-U.S. rhetoric of Paul Martin. And, of course, Australia's John Howard won a fourth term, while Tony Blair was elected to an unprecedented third. Is there a message here?

From a Fortune magazine piece on Beijing's activities in Africa:

...African governments view China as a more cooperative partner than the West. China has refused to back regular Western rebukes of African corruption and human-rights abuses and last year used its permanent seat on the UN Security Council to block genocide charges against Sudan--source of about 7% of China's oil--for the massacres in Darfur. "The U.S. will talk to you about governance, about efficiency, about security, about the environment," says Mustafa Bello, head of the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, who has visited China seven times. "The Chinese just ask, 'How do we procure this license?'"

China has become the biggest foreign investor in Zimbabwe, where President Robert Mugabe's policies have beggared the country and left millions homeless. Zimbabwe doesn't have oil, but it is the world's second-largest exporter of platinum, a key import for China's auto industry. Chinese radio-jamming devices block Zimbabwe's dissident broadcasts, and Chinese workers built Mugabe's new $9 million home, featuring a blue-tiled roof donated by the Chinese government. While Western politicians railed against Mugabe last year for flattening entire shantytowns, China was supplying him with fighter jets and troop carriers worth about $240 million, in exchange for imports of gold and tobacco.

I'm sure Beijing will be more helpful on the other pressing issues facing the Security Council.

A word of warning from the archipelago:

A fierce debate over sweeping anti-pornography and morality laws that are backed by Islamic parties in the parliament have infuriated the vast majority of moderate Indonesian Muslims....

"People are angry, they are up to the neck, but they are afraid of them because they are militant and they are numbering hundreds, sometimes thousands," Harymurti said of the morality campaigners.

"But because they've created such bad will for a few years, when suddenly the tables turn, people are more than ready to basically slaughter."

...Other provinces like Aceh have moved to implement sharia laws, often without the wide support of ordinary people.

But the proposed morality crackdown is drawing fire from Muslim moderates, as well as most largely Hindu Balinese and Christian Papuans, who have accused Islamic hardliners of attempting to impose sharia law by stealth with the new bills.

From CNET News:

Yahoo and the other top U.S.-based search engines have come under fire for their practice of cooperating with the Chinese government in censoring information online. Yahoo has been accused of providing evidence to Chinese authorities that led to the imprisonment of two Chinese Internet users, including a journalist who was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

The arrests "are never things you go home and feel good about," Yang said. "We feel horrible about that...We have no way of preventing that beforehand....If you want to do business there you have to comply."

Later in the day, during a question-and-answer session at the JMP Securities Research Conference, he reiterated many of the same statements and added that Yahoo executives have raised the issue with the Chinese government. "We feel the government needs to work on it as a trade issue."

Internet companies have to deal with regulations that affect their business in other countries as well, even in the U.S., which has the Patriot Act, he said. "There is no 100 percent clean, no matter what country you're talking about."

(The AP reports that "the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said he was hopeful Monday about reaching an international agreement to defuse concerns about Iran's nuclear activities and make U.N. Security Council action unnecessary.")

Iran's talks with Moscow and now Beijing appear to be moving forward with Tehran "sounding more receptive to an enrichment joint venture with Russia...." But is any deal better than no deal?

Back in 1994, Sen. McCain was a vocal opponent of the deal President Clinton struck with North Korea. He told PBS's Robert MacNeil that the US would come to "regret [the deal] very, very much" because Pyongyang gets to keep the handful of nuclear weapons it had already likely produced but also much more. McCain continued that even though North Korea has "violated the nonproliferation treaty egregiously time and time again, ... we are now rewarding them.... And not only are we saying it's okay to Korea, but we'll be saying that it's okay to Iran and other countries who will demand a similar deal."

Today the Russians are doing the primary negotiating, but in the end Washington and Europe will have to make a judgment on whether to sign on to any deal struck. To this end, Gary Milhollin and Valerie Lincy of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control have offered some useful yardsticks in which to judge any "breakthrough" agreement.

From the February 1, 2006 New York Times:

...There is little doubt what this cooling-off period is intended for: further negotiations on a proposal that would have Iran shift its large-scale, energy-related uranium enrichment work to Russia.

The Americans, British, French, Germans and Chinese have all shown support for the Russian proposal. Iran, however, showed little interest before mid-January, when it became clear the West was intent on getting tough. Last Wednesday, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator called the Russian suggestion "positive" and predicted that it could be "perfected" through further talks.

While this may seem hopeful, the Russian deal actually poses more problems than it solves.

First, even if Russia took over Iran's nuclear energy work, the religious radicals in Tehran would be left with a huge amount of dangerous equipment. The deal covers only the commercial-scale enrichment program Iran has planned for its plant at Natanz. But Iran also has a string of shops for manufacturing centrifuges — which can be used to enrich uranium to weapon grade — a large inventory of centrifuge parts, a stockpile of uranium gas needed to feed the centrifuges (plus a factory to produce more), and a pilot-scale enrichment plant under construction.

Second, Iran draws a distinction between the energy-related work that would go to Russia and other enrichment activity that it likes to call "research." When Iran broke the international seals at three enrichment sites last month and resumed work, its Foreign Ministry said the move was done only for scientific interests and had nothing to do with weapons. Even with a Russian deal, Iran is likely to insist on its right to continue such research, which would allow its scientists to develop the skills necessary to process uranium for bombs.

Last, the proposal, if accepted, would shatter the coalition of states that is finally working together to restrain Iran. Russia would certainly end its tepid support for Security Council action and would agree to let the Iranians continue their "research." The United States is equally certain to refuse such a concession. The Europeans would be torn between the desire to see a successful end to their years of diplomatic effort and their belief that Iran's nuclear ambitions would not be adequately contained.

If we are going to negotiate with Iran, we must hold out for a solution like the one Libya accepted in 2003. Libya allowed everything useful for enriching uranium to be boxed up and carted out of the country. It also answered all questions about its nuclear past and it revealed the names of its shady suppliers, allowing the West to counter the nuclear smuggling network run by the Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan. Only greater pressure from the Security Council is likely to force Iran to accept a similar agreement.

The Russian proposal is a red herring aimed at helping Iran, a major trading partner of Moscow's, get out of harm's way at the very moment when the world is uniting against it. A Security Council referral came into play only because of Iran's recent behavior: the inflammatory anti-Israel statements of its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and its ill-timed decision to resume nuclear work. If Iran snaps up the Russian offer, our last, best chance to pressure Iran in the Security Council may be lost.

Today's Washington Post reports on a bipartisan report released by The Council on Foreign Relations on U.S.-Russia relations. The report makes some good points.

The Bush administration should stop pretending Russia is a genuine strategic partner and adopt a new policy of "selective cooperation" and "selective opposition" to the authoritarian government of President Vladimir Putin, a bipartisan task force has concluded....

The report crystallizes a growing reassessment of Russia in Washington five years after Bush first met Putin and looked into his soul, as the president put it at the time. Rather than champion democracy and Western values, the former KGB colonel has moved to reassert control over Russian society and eliminate opposition.

Administration officials have been disturbed by other actions in recent months, including Russian maneuvering to force U.S. troops out of Central Asia, Moscow's use of energy exports as a weapon against smaller neighbors, and Putin's outreach to Hamas, the radical Palestinian group that just won parliamentary elections.

At the same time, Moscow has moved closer to Washington in the effort to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Once considered a virtual accessory to Tehran's alleged nuclear arms program, Russia lately has turned around and collaborated with the Bush administration to pressure the Islamic state to renounce any such ambitions, although the Kremlin still resists sanctions.

China's leaders haven't acted much better. They have refused, so far, to put the screws on North Korea; they have cut energy deals with Khartoum and Tehran; and they have opposed any real action in the UN Security Council to end the atrocities in Darfur or pressure Iran to come clean on its nuclear program. UN Ambassador John Bolton isn't a threat to an effective Security Council. His critics should spend a little more time spotlighting the obstructionism of Moscow and Beijing.

(The corrupt strike back. From yesterday's Christian Science Monitor:

Masked, armed police Thursday stormed the offices of a leading Kenyan media company in a raid seen as punishment for reports criticizing the government's dismal record on corruption.

Dozens of officers carrying AK-47 assault rifles ransacked the Nairobi editorial headquarters of Kenya Television Network (KTN) and the downtown printing press of The Standard, Kenya's oldest newspaper....

Mr. Kibaki's administration has been under fire since an explosive report written by the country's former anticorruption chief John Githongo, who fled to Britain afraid for his life a year ago, was leaked to national and international media in January.

In the report, Mr. Githongo claims several serving and former ministers in Kibaki's Cabinet were extensively involved in a series of shady deals designed to loot $262 million of state funds, in a country where more than half the 31 million population lives on less than $2 a day.)

It was odd that one of the biggest barriers to lifting nations out of chronic poverty -- rampant government and business corruption -- didn't appear on the radar screen at the World Economic Forum at Davos a few weeks back. There wasn't a single panel discussion on a problem that some say costs poorer nations up to twenty-five percent of their national income. Nonetheless, instigated by people tired of empty promises, horrible living conditions, and out-right thievery an anti-corruption wave, has gathered some momentum. The BBC reported on this campaign over the weekend. While today's Washington Post reports on anti-corruption efforts in Kenya --

"'We're a thirsty land of empty promises. Other countries have droughts and you never see their people dying,' Ciira said in this town 50 miles northwest of Nairobi. As she spoke, people gathered around her, some waving copies of one of Kenya's daily newspapers, the Nation, with a three-page spread detailing the largest scandals."

Last week, dramatic details of two of the largest scandals have implicated high-level officials, some of whom allegedly pocketed a total of $1.3 billion in public funds, money that critics say should have gone to irrigation and road projects to help protect farmers from the devastating effects of recurring droughts.

As the country's worst drought in 20 years wears on, many Kenyans are blaming government corruption, not Mother Nature, for their dire situation. The crisis highlights how government fraud and mismanagement can worsen, and in some cases create, food shortages.

-- and at the World Bank under the leadership of Paul Wolfowitz.

The bank has frozen lending to Chad, whose government had reneged on a promise to spend its oil revenue on poverty reduction. Although Chad is a small country, the frozen loans were high-profile: They were an attempt to defy the "curse of oil" and make petrodollars serve development. It took some courage to admit that the curse of oil remained unbroken.

The bank has canceled 14 road contracts in Bangladesh because of corrupt bidding. Two government officials have since been fired, and Wolfowitz plans to ban the private firms involved from future World Bank contracts.

The bank has frozen five loans to Kenya because of corruption, though it did go ahead with a project to improve Kenya's financial management. On a recent stopover in London, Wolfowitz made a point of having dinner with John Githongo, a senior Kenyan official who left the country after issuing a report exposing cabinet ministers' corruption.

The bank has interrupted a project in Argentina that topped up the wages of poor workers. Some of the money seems to have greased the ruling Peronist Party's electoral machine before elections in 2003, and the government has brought charges against one senior official and fired 10 others. The bank's Argentina team responded by building in a few corruption safeguards and pressing to resume lending. But Wolfowitz has demanded that the safeguards be expanded further still. The project has yet to be reauthorized.

Finally, the bank has postponed debt relief for Congo. A team from the International Monetary Fund had certified that the country deserved relief, and the bank was supposed to fall in line last Thursday. But a newspaper report about the Congolese president's extravagant hotel bills was passed around by Wolfowitz's top staff, who noted that KPMG, the firm that audits Congo's state oil company, had refused for three years running to sign off on its financial statements. On Tuesday Wolfowitz called the IMF's boss and asked whether Congo really merited debt relief. On Thursday he refused to go ahead with it.

Former Deputy Secretary of State Armitage has some tough words for the new boss of Foggy Bottom. Of course, I bet Secretary Rice has racked up more international travel miles than her predecessor at this point in his term. But Armitage does have a point. Australia has been a great ally in Iraq and the War on Terror. Why has the post of US Ambassador to Australia been vacant for more than year now?

(Update II: Matthew Yglesias has responded to my updated post. I disagree with his assessment for many reasons but nonetheless thought it only fair to post his response here (scroll down to the March 3 posts). Be sure to also read the comments section for some interesting debate.)

(Update: Some now claim (I'll leave aside the ridiculous remark related to Sen. McCain's Castro comment) that North Korea absolutely didn't have nukes during the Clinton administration. This must come as news to the Clinton folks and just about every other official involved in the North Korean nuke debate in the 1990s. Here's what Amb. Robert Gallucci had to say at a May 2003 Senate hearing.

In 1994, the intelligence community, our intelligence community assessed that North Korea more likely than not had wanted two nuclear weapons. That was based on an assessment that they had reprocessed or could have reprocessed as much as eight or 10 so kilograms of plutonium, in that range in any case and so, we had that assessment and we didn't in the agreed framework provide for the immediate inspections that would help us determine how much plutonium they actually had.

In addition, Sen. McCain, in October 1994, stated, "the accounting for the plutonium that was diverted, that could have, and in the view of the CIA, did result in the construction of two nuclear weapons." On October 20, 2002, the New York Times reported: "Several years ago the Central Intelligence Agency estimated that North Korea already had reprocessed enough plutonium at Yongbyon to make one or 2 nuclear weapons, and that the fuel in storage could be fabricated into 5 or 10 more." There are many other similar examples.

About those fuel rods "in storage" that were supposed to be transferred out of North Korea during the Clinton years under the agreement, Pyongyang never gave them up. And, yes, these would be the same rods that the North has likely extracted plutonium from during the Bush years. Oh, at least since 1996 North Korea was also running a secret uranium enrichment program while getting lots of free oil under the deal. Finally, I'm still waiting to hear if Howard Dean wants a North Korean-style "Framework Agreement" for Iran. Given the Bush administration's lack of progress and incoherence on North Korea, you would think at least one heavyweight Democrat would make the case for such an agreement to the American people.)

Posted on February 28, 2006:

During a speech today accusing President Bush of being weak on defense, Dean stated that,

under no circumstances will a Democratic Administration ever allow Iran to become a nuclear power.

What is Dean exactly saying here? Why use the phrase "nuclear power"?

Is this a "no tolerance" policy that Democrats would not allow Iran to acquire a single nuclear weapon?

Or, is Dean saying Democrats would allow Iran to build nuclear weapons so as it didn't build enough of them to qualify as a "nuclear power"?

Also, let's remember that it was the Clinton administration that rewarded North Korea -- see here -- by letting that government keeps its nuclear weapons and cheat on the "Framework" it signed. Republicans should ask Dean if he has something similar in mind for Iran.

Though hardly mentioned by the media nowadays, al Qaeda had set-up a global network long before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Richard Clarke told PBS' Frontline that by the end of 2000 al Qaeda had a presence "in probably between 50-60 countries [and] that they had trained thousands, perhaps over 10,000 terrorists at the camps in Afghanistan." Many ended up in Southeast Asia.

From the Associated Press:

Official Ties al-Qaida to Indonesia Terror

By ZAKKI HAKIM, Tue Feb 28, 12:23 PM ET

The al-Qaida terror network helped fund suicide bombings in Indonesia over the past four years through a courier system set up by the reputed mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, a senior police official said Tuesday.

Former al-Qaida No. 3 Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was captured in 2003, was personally involved in setting up the courier system, in which money was carried from Thailand to Malaysia and finally to Indonesia's Sumatra island, said Col. Petrus Reinhard Golose of Indonesia's counterterrorism task force.

Golose said the money was used to help the regional militant group Jemaah Islamiyah launch attacks in the world's most populous Muslim country from 2002-2005.

Jemaah Islamiyah is blamed for the 2002 nightclub attacks on the resort island of Bali that killed 202 people, attacks in the capital Jakarta in 2003 and 2004 that together killed 21, and triple suicide bombings on Bali in October that killed 20.

Indonesian authorities have claimed for years that al-Qaida helped finance the terror network, but never before provided the level of detail given by Golose, who was directly involved in the investigations of the bombings.

Golose said several members of Jemaah Islamiyah met directly with bin Laden in Afghanistan and signed agreements with him before launching the attacks, but he did not elaborate. He also did not say from where the al-Qaida funds originated or the nationalities of the couriers.

"Thirty thousand U.S. dollars was sent for the first Bali bombing," Golose said, adding that "tens of thousands of dollars" was sent for the 2003 bombing of the J.W. Marriott Hotel in Jakarta.

Some of the leftover cash was used for the 2004 attack on the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, he said. He said he was uncertain how much al-Qaida money was used for the latest attack on Bali, targeting three crowded restaurants.

Jemaah Islamiyah, which has roots back to the 1980s, is believed to be fighting for an Islamic state across Southeast Asia. It has been hard hit by a regionwide crackdown in the last four years, resulting in at least 200 arrests, including Abu Bakar Bashir, a Muslim cleric who allegedly helped co-found the terror network.

Golose said Indonesian militant Abu Dujana has replaced Bashir, who is eligible for release from prison in June, as Jemaah Islamiyah's top leader. Dujana's whereabouts are not known.

During a speech today accusing President Bush of being weak on defense, Dean stated that,

under no circumstances will a Democratic Administration ever allow Iran to become a nuclear power.

What is Dean exactly saying here? Why use the phrase "nuclear power"?

Is this a "no tolerance" policy that Democrats would not allow Iran to acquire a single nuclear weapon?

Or, is Dean saying Democrats would allow Iran to build nuclear weapons so as it didn't build enough of them to qualify as a "nuclear power"?

Also, let's remember that it was the Clinton administration that rewarded North Korea -- see here -- by letting that government keeps its nuclear weapons and cheat on the "Framework" it signed. Republicans should ask Dean if he has something similar in mind for Iran.

If Iran strikes a nuclear agreement with Russia, it won't be a shock to learn that Moscow also agreed (perhaps in a Gore-like secret side deal) to block any substantial Security Council action against Tehran. Beijing may also be in on the deal given China's huge energy interests in Iran. Such a deal would help Iran guard against the possibility that the West rejects the nuclear agreement and goes for UN sanctions against Tehran. To see the Moscow-Beijing alliance in action, look no further than Sudan.

From ABC News:

The U.N. Security Council remained divided Monday on imposing punitive measures over the conflict in Darfur despite calls for sanctions against Sudanese allegedly blocking peace in the region.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, on the next to last day of the U.S. presidency of the council, scheduled a closed-door meeting to discuss a report by a U.N.-appointed panel that recommended sanctions against key figures from all groups.

Most of the 15-member council were in favor of sanctions, led by the United States, Britain, France and Denmark but Qatar, China, and Russia were strongly opposed, council diplomats said. Qatar is the only Arab member of the council, China is a major buyer of Sudanese oil, and Russia traditionally opposes sanctions.

Perhaps Bolton haters can lighten up a bit and support him on this one.

Iran's talks with Moscow and now Beijing appear to be moving forward with Tehran "sounding more receptive to an enrichment joint venture with Russia...." But is any deal better than no deal?

Back in 1994, Sen. McCain was a vocal opponent of the deal President Clinton struck with North Korea. He told PBS's Robert MacNeil that the US would come to "regret [the deal] very, very much" because Pyongyang gets to keep the handful of nuclear weapons it had already likely produced but also much more. McCain continued that even though North Korea has "violated the nonproliferation treaty egregiously time and time again, ... we are now rewarding them.... And not only are we saying it's okay to Korea, but we'll be saying that it's okay to Iran and other countries who will demand a similar deal."

Today the Russians are doing the primary negotiating, but in the end Washington and Europe will have to make a judgment on whether to sign on to any deal struck. To this end, Gary Milhollin and Valerie Lincy of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control have offered some useful yardsticks in which to judge any "breakthrough" agreement.

From the February 1, 2006 New York Times:

...There is little doubt what this cooling-off period is intended for: further negotiations on a proposal that would have Iran shift its large-scale, energy-related uranium enrichment work to Russia.

The Americans, British, French, Germans and Chinese have all shown support for the Russian proposal. Iran, however, showed little interest before mid-January, when it became clear the West was intent on getting tough. Last Wednesday, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator called the Russian suggestion "positive" and predicted that it could be "perfected" through further talks.

While this may seem hopeful, the Russian deal actually poses more problems than it solves.

First, even if Russia took over Iran's nuclear energy work, the religious radicals in Tehran would be left with a huge amount of dangerous equipment. The deal covers only the commercial-scale enrichment program Iran has planned for its plant at Natanz. But Iran also has a string of shops for manufacturing centrifuges — which can be used to enrich uranium to weapon grade — a large inventory of centrifuge parts, a stockpile of uranium gas needed to feed the centrifuges (plus a factory to produce more), and a pilot-scale enrichment plant under construction.

Second, Iran draws a distinction between the energy-related work that would go to Russia and other enrichment activity that it likes to call "research." When Iran broke the international seals at three enrichment sites last month and resumed work, its Foreign Ministry said the move was done only for scientific interests and had nothing to do with weapons. Even with a Russian deal, Iran is likely to insist on its right to continue such research, which would allow its scientists to develop the skills necessary to process uranium for bombs.

Last, the proposal, if accepted, would shatter the coalition of states that is finally working together to restrain Iran. Russia would certainly end its tepid support for Security Council action and would agree to let the Iranians continue their "research." The United States is equally certain to refuse such a concession. The Europeans would be torn between the desire to see a successful end to their years of diplomatic effort and their belief that Iran's nuclear ambitions would not be adequately contained.

If we are going to negotiate with Iran, we must hold out for a solution like the one Libya accepted in 2003. Libya allowed everything useful for enriching uranium to be boxed up and carted out of the country. It also answered all questions about its nuclear past and it revealed the names of its shady suppliers, allowing the West to counter the nuclear smuggling network run by the Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan. Only greater pressure from the Security Council is likely to force Iran to accept a similar agreement.

The Russian proposal is a red herring aimed at helping Iran, a major trading partner of Moscow's, get out of harm's way at the very moment when the world is uniting against it. A Security Council referral came into play only because of Iran's recent behavior: the inflammatory anti-Israel statements of its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and its ill-timed decision to resume nuclear work. If Iran snaps up the Russian offer, our last, best chance to pressure Iran in the Security Council may be lost.

And these are the kind of people the University of Washington "wants to produce" nowadays? I hope not. From the Wall Street Journal's John Fund:

'Pappy' Shot Down by Campus Ignoramuses

It's well known that college students today aren't as educated in our nation's history as they should be, but it's still hard to grasp the mind-bending political correctness just displayed by the University of Washington's student senate at its campus in Seattle.

The issue before the Senate this month was a proposed memorial to World War II combat pilot Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, a 1933 engineering graduate of the university, who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his service commanding the famed "Black Sheep" squadron in the Pacific. The student senate rejected the memorial because "a Marine" is not "an example of the sort of person UW wants to produce."

Digging themselves in deeper, the student opponents of the memorial indicated: "We don't need to honor any more rich white males." Other opponents compared Boyington's actions during World War II with murder.

"I am absolutely bewildered that the Student Senate voted down the resolution," Brent Ludeman, the president of the UW College Republicans, told me. He noted that despite the deficiencies of the UW History Department, the complete ignorance of Boyington's history and reputation by the student body was hard to fathom. After all, "Black Sheep Squadron," a 1970s television show portraying Colonel Boyington's heroism as a pilot and Japanese prisoner of war, still airs frequently on the History Channel. Apparently, though, it's an unusual UW student who'd be willing to learn any U.S. history even if it's spoonfed to him by TV.

As for the sin of honoring a rich white male, Mr. Ludeman points out that Boyington (who died in 1988) was neither rich nor white. He happened to be a Sioux Indian, who wound up raising his three children as a single parent. "Colonel Boyington is luckily not around to see how ignorant students at his alma mater can be today," says Kirby Wilbur, a morning talk show host at Seattle's KVI Radio. Perhaps the trustees and alumni of the school will now help educate them.

Somehow I doubt Director Negroponte actually believes this. From The Washington Times:

A new Pentagon strategy report and recent congressional testimony by the director of national intelligence show the Bush administration remains divided on the threat posed by China's rise. The Quadrennial Defense Review report made public last week bluntly states that China is the greatest potential challenge to the U.S. military and is rapidly building up its military. John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, by contrast, stated in an annual intelligence threat briefing for Congress that China's rise is similar to that of democratic India.... Mr. Negroponte's softer comments on China contrast with those of CIA Director Porter J. Goss last year when he told the same committee that China's modernizing military forces 'threaten' U.S. forces and interests in Asia.

Oh, and here's the latest on China's missile build-up opposite democratic Taiwan.

"Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party defeated the long entrenched Liberal Party in Canadian elections on Monday," the New York Times reports. "A Conservative victory is a striking turn in the country's politics and is likely to improve Canada's strained relations with the Bush administration."

But it wasn't supposed to be this way. Remember after the March 14, 2004 Spanish election when voters replaced Prime Minister José María Aznar with the Socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero? Liberal editorialists and politicians claimed that other pro-Bush leaders were likely to follow Aznar's fate. The president's misadventure in Iraq had sparked a wave of anti-Americanism that would also topple other governments in Australia and Britain. But Australia's John Howard won a fourth term, while Tony Blair was elected to an unprecedented third. Subsequently, Germany's Gerhard Schröder ran on an anti-American platform, as did Canada's Paul Martin. And guess what? They lost.

No doubt President Bush will gladly welcome Prime Minister Stephen Harper to the White House, just as he did when Germany's Merkel paid a visit a short time ago.

Kin-ming Liu, former Washington-based columnist for Hong Kong’s Apple Daily, writes in to the Worldwide Standard with some suggestions. He states:

"The time is now to place Hong Kong on the front burner of President Bush's democracy enlargement agenda.

The administration of Chief Executive Donald Tsang, squeezed by the growing demand for democracy in Hong Kong and ongoing disdain for it in Beijing, proposed some Beijing-backed political 'reforms' that were defeated recently by pro-democracy members of the Legislature Council.

Beijing officials reacted to the defeat by accusing the U.S. of making 'rash comments on Hong Kong affairs for quite a period of time, violating the principle of non-interference in other countries' internal affairs.' Referring to Hong Kong as 'China's Hong Kong' and 'China's internal affairs,' Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang asked the U.S. to refrain from any comments or acts that would interfere in China's internal affairs and place obstacles in the way the Hong Kong government operates. A Hong Kong government official also expressed 'disappointment' with the U.S.: 'We would not wish any foreign governments to give the impression that they were meddling in Hong Kong's affairs.'

Of course, the comments of U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack the day after the vote were, in truth, quite ordinary and tame: 'We believe the people and the Government of Hong Kong should determine the pace and scope of political reform in accordance with the Basic Law. The people of Hong Kong have repeatedly expressed their aspiration for progress towards democracy and their desire for a firm commitment to the implementation of universal suffrage. We support those goals and believe that the sooner a timetable for achieving universal suffrage is established, the better.'

One could dismiss the above exchanges as diplomatic routine. But I believe the fact that China would even choose to rebuke such a non-revolutionary statement is telling. What Washington thinks of Hong Kong must matter to Beijing. Otherwise, why bother? In fact, to Beijing, what Washington thinks of Hong Kong always matters more than what the people of Hong Kong think of their own home.

Chinese protests mean America is hitting where it hurts. Washington should increase and not decrease pressure at this point. It can’t be overemphasized that what the outside world is trying to do is simply to ask China to fulfill its own pledges on Hong Kong, not to make new demands or create new issues. Here are a few suggestions for consideration.

1. The issue of democracy in Hong Kong should be added to the sundry list of issues American officials raise with their Chinese counterparts every time they meet.

2. The U.S. Consulate-General in Hong Kong should raise its profile and be the first whistle blower of any further violation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

3. Washington can always use the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 as the basis to stop treating Hong Kong as a separate entity from China should Hong Kong lose its autonomy. Afterall, why should Hong Kong receive special treatment from the U.S. if its political climate is indistinguishable from that of other Chinese cities?

4. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House International Relations Committee should hold hearings on Hong Kong on a regular basis, particularly after the release of the annual U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act report and the State Department human rights report. Nothing beats congressional scrutiny on how China is treating Hong Kong and, more importantly, what the U.S. administration is doing about it.

China no doubt wants to keep Hong Kong as an internal matter. But the Joint Declaration, signed in 1984, was an international agreement registered at the United Nations. Support of the agreement from the international community, America’s included, was widely sought and obtained by China. When China promised Hong Kong 'one country, two systems,' Beijing wanted the whole world to applaud. But when China breaks the promise of letting 'Hong Kong people run Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy,' Beijing now expects everyone to turn a blind eye.

Will the world's governments blindly obey?"

A friend of the Worldwide Standard sends along some thoughts on the recent op-ed piece, "The Real Choice in Iraq," penned by President Carter's national security advisor.

He writes:

In his January 8, 2006 op-ed in the Washington Post, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in enumerating his criticisms of the Bush Administration, wrote this:

The administration's definition of 'defeat' [regarding Iraq] is similarly misleading. Official and unofficial spokesmen often speak in terms that recall the apocalyptic predictions made earlier regarding the consequences of American failure to win in Vietnam: dominoes falling, the region exploding and U.S. power discredited.

I thought it might be interesting to find out specifically who Mr. Brzezinski may have had in mind in ridiculing the "apocalyptic predictions" (dominoes falling, the region exploding and U.S. power discredited) if America failed to win in Vietnam. It turns out he might have had in mind someone like the Director of the Research Institute on Communist Affairs and professor of law and government at Columbia University in the 1960s: Zbigniew Brzezinski.

In a March 1, 1964 op-ed in the Washington Post ("'Neutral' Viet-Nam a Chinese Backyard: Noted Student of Communism Says De Gaulle Suggestion Would Be U.S. Defeat and A Handover to Peking"), Mr. Brzezinski responded to a press conference by French President Charles de Gaulle, who concluded that the United States was neither capable nor had the will to stay in Southeast Asia. President de Gaulle argued for the "neutralization" of South Viet-Nam -- de Gaulle's gracious way of handing the area over to the Chinese, Mr. Brzezinski said. And what did Mr. Brzezinski think of this recommendation? Not much.

In his op-ed, Mr. Brzezinski wrote that it would "be nothing less than an American defeat. Furthermore, it would leave Southeast Asia without any countervailing political force to that of China. In effect, it would transform that area into a Chinese political back yard."

And then, under the heading "A Row of Dominos" (!), Mr. Brzezinski wrote this:

As a result it is certain beyond question that there would be immediate political instability in Thailand, whose northeast is already exposed to insurgency and whose politicians are already fearful that American commitments are not to be trusted. Malaysia, until two years ago an area of Communist insurgency, would be certain to fall, and the collapse of these states would have a direct impact on the present insurgency in Burma.

The collapse of the small Southeast Asian states would not only benefit China politically and economically but it would be likely to have further unsettling effects on India and Indonesia. One cannot predict precisely what would happen -- but it is clear that stability is not to be sought through neutralization.

Mr. Brzezinski concludes his op-ed this way:

The effect of the policy of neutralization would be an escalation of international tension. One may also add that the loss of South Viet-Nam would be likely to have a very negative impact on the American domestic scene. It would reawaken extreme right-wing claims that there has been a new betrayal, and it could result in a new wave of extremism in two or three years from now.

Next time Mr. Brzezinski might want to consult his own past writings in order to avoid sharply criticizing them.

From today's New York Times.

Microsoft has shut the blog site of a well-known Chinese blogger who uses its MSN online service in China after he discussed a high-profile newspaper strike that broke out here one week ago.

The decision is the latest in a series of measures in which some of America's biggest technology companies have cooperated with the Chinese authorities to censor Web sites and curb dissent or free speech online as they seek access to China's booming Internet marketplace.

Microsoft drew criticism last summer when it was discovered that its blog tool in China was designed to filter words like "democracy" and "human rights" from blog titles. The company said Thursday that it must "comply with global and local laws."

The move by Microsoft comes at a time when the Chinese government is stepping up its own efforts to crack down on press freedom. Several prominent editors and journalists have been jailed in China over the last few years and charged with everything from espionage to revealing state secrets.

With a belligerent North Korea on its doorstep, Tokyo announces that it will jointly develop with the United States a sea-based interceptor missile for a missile defense system.

Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso states the obvious. From the AP:

Japan has long listed China's military expansion as a top security concern in the region but the remarks by Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso were unusually blunt and echoed U.S. concern about Beijing's military spending.

''It's a neighboring country with nuclear bombs, and its military expenditure has been on the rise for 12 years. It's beginning to pose a considerable threat,'' Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso told a news conference....

''China is fanning threat and anxiety,'' Aso said. ''The content of China's military expenditures is difficult for outsiders to know, and that fuels suspicion.''

See comments of Dan Blumenthal, former senior director for China, Taiwan and Mongolia in the Secretary of Defense's Office of International Security Affairs and current AEI fellow, here.

Heritage Foundation scholars John J. Tkacik Jr. and Dana Dillon make their case in the latest issue of Policy Review.

What Beijing Wants

In early 2000, Condoleezza Rice wrote, “China resents the role of the United States in the Asia-Pacific Region. This means that China is not a ‘status quo’ power but one that would like to alter Asia’s balance of power in its own favor. That alone makes it a strategic competitor, not the ‘strategic partner’ the Clinton administration once called it.”

While Dr. Rice has become a bit less direct in her locution during her tenure as secretary of state, her observation remains valid. Johns Hopkins professor Francis Fukuyama, writing in the Wall Street Journal (March 1, 2005), sees a similar trend in China’s ambitions: “The Chinese know what they are doing: Over the long run, they want to organize East Asia in a way that puts them in the center of regional politics. They can succeed where [then-Malaysian Prime Minister Mohammed] Mahathir failed because they are an economic powerhouse capable of doling out favors.” Of course, they can also mete out sanctions.

In the view of numerous analysts, a desire to demonstrate to Asia that China, not Japan, is the dominant regional power was the animating force behind the government-organized anti-Japanese riots and boycotts of Japanese goods in the spring of 2005. It is clear that Beijing intends to become the predominant force in Southeast Asia by constructing a framework of relationships that place Beijing in positions of leadership and influence while isolating the United States from its traditional role and its allies in the region.

"The communist state, meanwhile, responded to U.S. critiques with predictably strident rhetoric -- but also took the unusual step of inviting Western tourists to visit in 2006," reports today's Washington Times.

If you ever get the chance, go visit this outstanding tribute to America's World War II generation.

The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting piece on Chinese espionage methods inside the United States.

China has spent more than two decades creating a large and varied intelligence infrastructure in the United States, according to US counterintelligence documents. High-profile prosecutions in recent years related to alleged Chinese espionage may merely hint at the depth and breadth of China's collection efforts....

Recent cases involving the People's Republic of China (PRC) "are just the tip of the iceberg of an already-large and increasingly capable PRC intelligence effort," concludes a US government Intelligence Threat Handbook, an unclassified manual for security officers produced by an arm of the National Security Agency.

On Saturday, the New York Times published an editorial, "A Cold War China Policy," criticizing the president's approach to Beijing. Dan Blumenthal, former senior director for China, Taiwan and Mongolia in the Secretary of Defense's Office of International Security Affairs and current AEI fellow, responds:

The New York Times gets the order of events in Asia exactly backwards: the Bush Administration is generally continuing the policy of the Clinton Administration in its response to China's destabilizing military build-up -- an expansion characterized by annual double-digit increases in defense spending for over a decade. China now has the military capability to coerce and intimidate Taiwan into submission and make any U.S. intervention on Taiwan's behalf costly in lives and treasure.

The Bush Administration is seeking to transform the US-Japan alliance to make it more effective in countering China's military power. The same holds with US-India relations. Despite what the Times' editors may believe, there is a US government consensus that China's military build-up is serious and changing the balance of power in the region. Both conclusions are reflected in recent Pentagon reports, as well as the latest report of the bi-partisan U.S.-China Economic and Security Commission.

Too call the Japanese government "nationalistic," as the Times does, is simplistic and facile. After years of North Korean provocations and, in the last year, frequent Chinese naval incursions into its territorial waters, Japan has now taken small steps to strentghen its defense. The fact that Tokyo is a liberal democracy with a post-War pacifist tradition means that the public debate about such a defense reorientation has been slow, deliberate and responsible.

If anything, the Bush Administration has been overly cautious about countering Chinese power. It is quick to emphasize areas of shared cooperation but downplays areas of disagreement, such as China's support of regimes in Sudan, Zimbabwe and Iran.

A brief review of China's activities in the last year alone would have helped the editors of the New York Times convey what's really going on in East Asia to its readers.

Weekly Standard contributor and German Marshall Fund fellow Daniel Twining on the incompatibility of restricting free speech in a globalized information age:

Freedom of the press is under attack in much of Asia -- in countries that should know better, like Thailand and Singapore, and perhaps most importantly in China. China's leaders apparently believe their country can continue to flourish in a globalized world economy increasingly dependent on free flows of information, even as they restrict free speech at home. But as Victor Mallet points out in this Financial Times piece (sub. req'd), "Asian authoritarians are repeating their mistake of a decade ago, seeing the free flow of information as a preventable evil promoted by misguided western liberals. In fact, it is an inevitable adjunct of global modernisation."

Democratic South Korea and Taiwan, once dictatorships themselves, demonstrate that economies dependent on information and services -- rather than manufacturing, which sometimes rewards organization and hierarchy -- require freedom of speech. That's a lesson other Asian leaders should heed, if not for the sake of their people's rights than for the continued growth of their economies, in an age when businesses everywhere profit from free flows of information and lack of government interference. Mallet is right: "Repression and censorship will put awkward people in jail and keep awkward news off the state television channels, but they will not stop the sharing of information.... Authoritarians typically accept the need for free speech on economic matters, but not in their own sphere of politics. Yet business and politics are intertwined. Freedom of information is indivisible." The Asian economic miracle may increasingly depend on a new level of openness in controlled societies.

American Enterprise Institute resident scholar and frequent Weekly Standard contributor Gary Schmitt writes:

Sunday’s Washington Post ran a story, “Bush Carries to China a Delicate Diplomacy,” by Peter Baker and Glenn Kessler in advance of President Bush’s upcoming trip to Asia. The Post article began with the fact that the president had met with the Dalai Lama last week but that the visit was not put on his official advance schedule nor were pictures of the visit posted on the White House website. As Baker and Kessler report, the visit by the Dalai Lama was designed “to signal” Bush’s “commitment to human rights in the world’s most populous country.” Pretty weak signal.

Of course, what the White House was trying to do was avoid looking like the cold-hearted realists of the Ford White House, who ignored Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn on his visit to Washington, but, at the same time, not upset the one-party dictatorship that is present day China. According to one White House official, “Bush raises human rights issues in a ‘constructive spirit’ and is optimistic that China will see that freedom is necessary to build a successful society.” Well, one can hope, but certainly, as demonstrated by the Chinese government’s own recent, Orwellian white paper on Chinese-style "democracy," it hasn’t seen the light as of late. To the contrary, virtually every major indicator of civil and human rights has shown no improvement or has declined in China in recent years.

The fact is the administration has a host of issues and problems it wants to address with China in the weeks and months ahead. And, as Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick’s recent speech on US-China relations suggested, all is not well here. Now, it may be that the administration is simply not prepared right now – perhaps even reasonably so – to admit openly that a new great power competition is underway with China. Yet anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear can see that is precisely what is going on.

For a more accurate depiction of the current state of play in U.S.-China relations and what policy initiatives might be needed to begin to create a coherent and realistic strategy vis-a-vis China, folks should check out the most recent report by the U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission.

Ellen Bork, a frequent contributor to the Weekly Standard, emails:

Donald Tsang, Beijing’s man in Hong Kong, recently completed a pleasant visit to Washington where he faced little criticism over his (read: Beijing’s) plan to tweak the process by which Beijing controls the executive and the legislature and call it progress toward democracy.

The reception to these so-called reforms has been much frostier in Hong Kong where religious leaders have taken a particularly vocal stand. Bishop Joseph Zen condemned the "reform" package proposed by Tsang. Reaching full democracy "is just like climbing up a mountain--our goal is to reach the peak," Bishop Zen said. "This proposal is just guiding us round and round making pleasure jaunts rather than moving towards the peak. It is a waste of time."

Currently, Beijing’s choice of chief executive is approved by a rubber-stamp committee of 800. The new Tsang proposal would double that number. ”So what if the election committee (to choose the city's leader) is expanded to 1,600 people? What is the next step? There is no direction," Zen said, according to the local Ming Pao Daily. Zen’s call was joined by other religious leaders, including the president of the Methodist church.

Under Communist Party rule, Beijing will not provide direction or lead the way. Hong Kong’s diverse democracy movement, which includes free labor unions, as well as organizations of teachers, social workers, lawyers and other professionals, will have to prepare their own program for democracy.

The blog dealt with "sensitive subjects" like freedom and democracy. Beijing is also having a problem with too much democracy in its "village elections" nowadays.

The BBC has an interesting piece on China's "village elections."

China's tough handling of recent protests by villagers in Taishi, southern Guangdong province, has thrown into fresh doubt its claims to be introducing genuine democracy "from the bottom up".

"China has reacted angrily to a decision by the internet search engine Google to stop calling Taiwan a Chinese province," reports the BBC.

Of course, the Google folks got off easy. In 1997, the Danish government sponsored a United Nations resolution calling attention to the poor human rights record of Beijing. The Chinese foreign ministry countered, the Washington Post reported, by warning that

"relations with Denmark would be 'severely damaged in the political or economic and trade areas.' In case that was too subtle, China added that the human rights resolution would 'become a rock that smashes on the Danish government's head.'"

Today's Financial Times reports on "a scathing denunciation of the US portal Yahoo for its role in helping Communist authorities to prosecute an independent-minded local journalist, jailed for 10 years for 'leaking state secrets.'"

Dan Twining writes in that China isn't the only big story in East Asia these days:

China's rise in Asia is real, and is transforming Asia's strategic landscape. But breathless scholars and analysts already heralding a new political order in Asia centered on Chinese power and influence are missing part of the picture. Asian countries are deeply concerned, and worried, about China's rise: in Japan, for example, 78% of the public views China's growing military power negatively, according to the BBC. Japan still has Asia's largest economy, which is growing again after a decade of stagnation. Japanese forces have deployed to the Afghanistan and Iraq theaters. Moreover, a new, assertive nationalism is emerging in Japan, partly in response to China's rise.

As this editorial in the Economist points out, Japan may be a tortoise to the Chinese hare, but if Japan's economic reforms are successful and its diplomacy skillful, 'it could face up to China on equal, or even superior, terms.' China's rise is one of the stories of our time, but so is Japan's reemergence as a strategic actor in East Asia.