nKorea Nuclear Test and ROK Defenses and China

For John, BLUF:  We should encourage South Korea to obtain a Missile Defense.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

As we know, North Korea conducted some sort of a nuclear test.  They claimed it was a thermonuclear weapon, a hydrogen bomb.  The US Government says it wasn't.

But, either way, life goes on.  And people hedge their bets.  Here is an article by Reporter Chung Ah-young of the Korea Times, in which is discussed the state of play between the US and Korea.

The lede plus three:

Washington may increase the pressure on South Korea for the stationing of a Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) unit on South Korean soil following the North's claimed test of a hydrogen bomb, experts said Thursday.

The United States discussed its measures with South Korea to deploy U.S. strategic assets on the Korean peninsula to deter the North's growing threats.

Defense Minister Han Min-koo and his U.S. counterpart Ashton Carter discussed ways they could tighten their security collaboration after the North conducted its fourth nuclear test on Wednesday.

"Secretary Carter reaffirmed the U.S.' ironclad defense commitment to South Korea, and this includes all kinds of extended deterrence assets," Han said in a joint press release with Carter.

The mention of THAAD drags in China, which is against the Republic of Korea (South Korea) getting this advanced weaponry.  And, frankly, weaponry that diminishes the Chinese nuclear threat to Korea and Japan.

Thus, if the NK test does, in fact, cause South Korea to accept THAAD, then this may cause the Chinese to reconsider their approach to North Korea, which seems to be fairly hands off.

So, if Korea moves to accept THAAD, acting in its own national security interests vis-a-via North Korea, which China would prefer it not do, then China may decide it is time to have a serious talk with North Korea.  This is not necessarily something that would have immediate public results, but it could have long term results we do see.  Signally will be involved.

North Korea may have gone a step too far this time.  Or not.

Regards  —  Cliff

Lee Kuan Yew RIP

For John, BLUF:  Good leaders are hard to find  Here was one.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Maybe few in Lowell, heck, in Massachusetts, know the name Lee Kuan Yew, but with his passing we lost a great statesman, from a small nation.  Lee Kuan Yew was the founding Prime Minister of Singapore.  At his passing he was 91.

Here is an appreciation by Parag Khanna in Foreign Policy Magazine.  Mr Khanna is the Director of the Global Governance Initiative at New America Foundation.

Regards  —  Cliff

SecState Threatens North Korea

For John, BLUF:  North Korea is a problem and we need to monitor it.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From Channel News Asia we have this 12 August item on US Secretary of State John Kerry.

US Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday (Aug 12) he was prepared to improve relations with North Korea, but warned of further pressure and isolation if it chose the path of confrontation.

Good luck.

Regards  —  Cliff

Asian Pivot Meets Confrontation

For John, BLUF:  Not every shooting incident leads to war, but…  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Yes, the Ukraine is in the news and we all know about the Russian "anschluss" of Crimea, but who knows about the ongoing confrontation at Second Thomas Shoal, in the South China Sea, and yesterday's specific action.

From Reuters we have an article by Erik de Castrol and Roli Ng, "Philippine ship dodges China blockade to reach South China Sea outpost".

Regards  —  Cliff

China, Japan, Korea

For John, BLUF:  Our history empowers us, but it also sometimes holds us back.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The relationships amongst the nations in the Far East are complicated.  One might think that Japan and Korea would be united against China, considering how China tries to bully the two, but it is more complicated than that, and we haven't even mentioned Viet-nam or other nations, such as Russia and India.

Over at Small Wars Journal we have an article by Colonel David Hunter-Chester, an assistant professor of strategy and operations at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, out in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.  A retired U.S. Army Foreign Area Officer, he has a Ph.D. in East Asian History from the University of Kansas, and he has lived in or studied East Asia for more than 30 years.  The article title tells a story in itself, It’s Not History, East Asia, It’s the Stories We Tell

Below are the first four paragraphs, and without the footnotes:

People do not live in history, they live in the narrative.  I wish I could find the name of the scholar who made this observation and the original source, but even in the age of Google both elude me.  Regardless of its origin, nowhere is this truth more evident than between three countries in East Asia.  Two of those countries, Japan and the Republic of Korea (RoK), by dint of shared values, national interests and sheer geostrategic necessity, are natural allies.  The third country, China, actively seeks to change the international status quo in the region, a status quo which has ushered in more than 60 years of peace and prosperity for millions. As two countries who have benefited so much from this long peace, China’s incremental, “probing and nibbling strategy” to change that status quo should be pushing Japan and Korea closer together. Instead each calls on the other to acknowledge the facts of history.  For China, as well, this prolonged peace has resulted in moving more people from absolute poverty to better living standards than anywhere else in history.  Yet China, pushing this change for domestic and strategic reasons, instead of working to maintain a system that has benefited so many for so long, uses a call for acknowledging correct history to rationalize its actions, and deflect attention from its actions.  While all three countries call for a correct view of history, the problem is not history, but narrative.

Japan’s narrative is centered on Japan as the real victim in World War II.  According to this narrative Japan, the only country ever to be attacked by atomic weapons, had only been trying to free Asia from Western domination, and it has been repaid with fire, death and calumny. According to this storyline, the Tokyo War Crimes trials were the worst kind of victor’s justice.  Japan loves peace more than other countries; this tale goes, as evidenced by the war-renouncing Article Nine in its constitution.

Korea’s narrative of victimization goes back even further.  A shrimp between whales, the Korean peninsula has often been invaded and occupied by its larger neighbors.  Independence Hall, outside of Seoul, emphasizes this narrative with paintings, plaques and full-size wax-figure reproductions.  While numerous invasions from China are memorialized, the most prominent depredations are the depictions of torture and oppression meted out by the Japanese during Japan’s colonial rule of Korea, from 1905 to 1945.

In China the story is about the Middle Kingdom’s century of humiliation, beginning with the first Opium War in the mid-nineteenth century and ending with the communist victory in the Chinese civil war, 1949.  Slicing up the Chinese melon with the Unequal Treaty System and doling out the humiliation was the West, and its proxy, Japan.  Here, again, Japan’s brutality, beginning in 1931 in Manchuria and extending to the rest of China in 1936, is singled out as particularly brutal and venal.

If we could only move past history.

Regards  —  Cliff

Buddhist-Muslim Violence in Burma

For John, BLUF:  Riven—"split or tear apart violently".  Nothing to see here; just move along.

A colleague of mine wrote in an EMail this morning:

While we tend to think of religious violence as being associated with the Middle East, it is useful to recognize that there are Muslim-Buddhist tensions, not only in Burma, but also an active insurgency underway in southern Thailand. This is in addition to the ongoing insurgency involving Abu Sayyaf (commonly associated with al-Qaeda) in the Philippines.

Southeast Asia, and Asia in general, remains riven by a variety of tensions, religious, territorial, etc. As the recent Malaysia-Philippines fracas shows, these tensions often express themselves in use of force--perhaps not high intensity (at least initially), but with the potential for escalation.

This was in response to an article in The Washington Post on violence in Burma (Myanmar), where Buddhist mobs attacked Muslims in the City of Meikhila.  The article is here—"UN envoy to Myanmar visits ruined city after Buddhist-Muslim violence kills dozens".  Not a major event, but 32 human beings were killed, some burned beyond recognition.

The lede for an article on Muslim-Buddist violence reads:

MEIKHTILA, Myanmar — The top UN envoy to Myanmar on Sunday toured a central city destroyed in the country’s worst explosion of Buddhist-Muslim violence this year, calling on the government to punish those responsible for a tragedy that left dozens of corpses piled in the streets, some of them charred beyond recognition.

We, as the United States, either alone or as part of some international agency or authority, are not going to be able to end this sort of thing, except by the example we provide in the way we conduct our own affairs.  That said, we need to be prepared to stamp out such sectarian violence if it should ever appear on our shores.  At the same time, we need to recognize that such sectarian violence is often not so much about religion as it is about economics or job opportunities or oppression of minorities or the imposition of minority rule on the majority.  Sometimes things are not what they appear to be.

Regards  —  Cliff

Diplomatic Problems in the Future

For John, BLUF:  Diplomacy is going to be busy in the next few years.  Our choice of a new Secretary of State is, as usual, important.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

In a discussion of Ambassador Susan Rice's long record and its impact on her Confirmation chances, in another forum, we wandered over into what is happening in Asia.  Here is a short insightful comment on the problem of who own which islands and the ongoing tensions along the edge of China.

There is a fair amount of concern among Asian observers, and an increasing number of American ones, that the Chinese are not just pushing hard, but are seen as winning, or at least changing the terms on the ground.  Two major ongoing points of concern:

1. Scarborough Shoal.  The Chinese and Filipinos were in contention over who should own this particular sandspit, and it now appears the Chinese control it.  They pushed the Filipinos out, and much like they did with Mischief Reef back in the late 1980s, established a de facto permanent presence.  The Philippines had limited capacity to challenge, but it was exacerbated by the Administration apparently advising them to pull out, in the belief that if they did, then so would the Chinese.  (It is, after all, the heart of tit-for-tat negotiating, deescalation, and all the other standard lines of diplomacy, no?)

The Philippines left, the Chinese didn't.

2. Senkakus.  The Chinese have now maintained a substantial maritime presence (law enforcement-type ships only) for some 25 days.  With no end in sight.  The Japanese, by contrast, are wondering how long this will last.  The longer the Chinese are present, the more they can challenge Japan's "administrative control," and therefore the US commitment (which is based on "administrative control").

Here, we see that the Chinese are presenting the Japanese with an ugly dilemma.  Pull back/reduce presence, and therefore concede the islands?  Put forces ashore (probably police or coastguardsmen), in which case, you are seen as escalating?

What no one hears is where the CHINESE are in deescalating the situation.  No legal alternatives, no diplomatic alternatives.  No compromise.  We will stick it out until you give us what we want.

The next SecState will find this an ever thornier thicket, I suspect.

Just a thought...

Regards  —  Cliff

Island Disputes

Here is a short article on the current confrontation going on between China and Japan.  This is all fun and games until a real war breaks out.  The article begins:

WASHINGTON: Relations between China and Japan continue to worsen as a Hong Kong Chinese group promised major protests in September.  And two of America's top Peoples Liberation Army analysts tell us things may well get worse, given the long-simmering enmities between the two countries and the "toxic brew" of the region's unresolved territorial claims and misunderstandings.

Larry Wortzel, longtime member of the U.S-China Economic and Security Commission, and Dean Cheng, analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said in an exchange of emails over the last two days that the situation bears close watching.

"Disputed borders (no Helsinki accords equivalent), longstanding hatreds, contradictory historical accounts, all of which add up to LOTS of sources of tension, whether it's with Japan or among other states. Throw in Chinese government willingness to manipulate said accounts and problems (to build up the CCP's reputation), and it's a very toxic brew, indeed!" Cheng wrote.

The article is preceded by a video that cartoons the current situation.  You will notice that it includes not just China and Japan, but also Taiwan (Nationalist China) and the Republic of the Philippines.  It might have included Viet-nam and South Korea, but I missed it if it did.  These confrontations are over claims to islands here and there, but also about historical grievances and Japanese actions during and before World War II.

What to do?  In the following poll you can pick multiple responses—all that reflect your feelings.

What does the US do?
	The US should back our friend Japan on this.
	The US should remain strictly neutral on this.
	The US should back China, the big dog in the fight.
	The US should pull all its forces out of Japan.
	The US should back Viet-nam and the Philippines against China in the "South China Sea".
	The US should expect Japan to develop nuclear weapons if the US doesn't back Japan.
	The US should slow down its pivot to the Far East.
	The US should speed up its pivot to the Far East.
	The US should just whistle along, pretending this is all going to work out fine.
pollcode.com free polls

Regards  —  Cliff

China's Surging Defense Budget

Analyst Dean Cheng provides us some insights about China and China's "double digit" increase in its defense budget, here.

In some quarters, the latest boost in Beijing's defense spending is already being blamed on the United States.  The U.S. announced a "pivot to Asia" in January, so China promptly increased its defense budget.  This line of thinking underscores the truth in the old adage that, for every problem, there is a solution that is neat, plausible - and wrong.

It isn't always about us.

As for the Analyst, Dean Cheng, he is an interesting person to talk with.  I commend his work to you.

Regards  —  Cliff

Taiwan and the Future

The Obama Administration is wrestling with the issue of arms sales to Taiwan.

Here is a CBS analysis of the situation, with some good information.

Beyond the arms sale issue is the question of US long term support for the independence of Taiwan, which [Mainline] China claims as one of its own provinces.  For instance Professor Charles Glaser, a theorist in the area of International Relations, thinks we should abandon Taiwan rather than let the island become a problem between us and China.  From an article in Foreign Policy we have this item:

To Glaser, Taiwan is different. China's belief that Taiwan is part of it is non-negotiable, and Beijing and Washington have very different views of what constitutes the status quo across the Strait. The Taiwan dispute has no diplomatic solution and the risks of nuclear war are getting too high, particularly with China's advancing second strike capability. His answer is for the United States to make the necessary "adjustments" and abandon Taiwan.

The problem is, what will Japan and South Korea think?  Will they accept that it is just the US making a small adjustment with a China that is not expansionist or will they see it as the US accommodating a China which wishes to to reassert its former domination of the area surrounding the "Middle Kingdom".

I think that Taiwan would only whet the appetite of China.  Just like the conquest of Austria or the Sudeten German portion of Czechoslovakia only encouraged the desire of Germany for expansion.  Even now China asserts its desire for the South China sea and to assert that it should be the patron of the Philippines.

We abandon Taiwan at the risk of a Japan that acquires nuclear weapons.

Regards  —  Cliff

Khmer Rouge Prison Warden Appeals Sentence

Interesting last line.

What is a fair sentence?

Is "following orders" a reasonable defense?

Regards  —  Cliff

Staying in the Background

From a link at The Instapundit we go to an article at The New York Times, talking about the US, and in particular, the US Navy, supporting relief efforts in Japan following the earthquake and tsunami.

At the same time, the American military has found itself trying to achieve a delicate balance.  The United States has played a role in many aspects of the response to the recent crisis in Japan, including sending fire trucks to the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.  But the Americans seem keen to avoid embarrassing the Japanese, or suggesting that the United States is running the show.

This approach is what we should be doing half way around the world, in the efforts to put up a "No Fly" zone over Libya.  We have wonderful capabilities that enable or extend the capabilities of others.  We can achieve a lot more if we are prepared to allow someone else to (1) take the credit, but also (2) provide actual leadership (that means we don't go behind their back to get things done, like we did to then Lt Gen Çevik Bir, appointed as commander of UN Operations in Somalia).

Regards  —  Cliff

North Korea and China

Here is welcome news.  Over at the International Herald Tribune was this article on the US pressuring China over North Korea.  Simple description is that the Obama Administration said the US would have to redeploy forces in Asia if China wasn't able to convince North Korea to tone it down.

China wouldn't be keen on us sending more forces to the Korean Peninsula, or anywhere close to China.

Regards  —  Cliff

Vang Po, RIP

Surprisingly, over at the Ann Althouse Blog we have a report on the death of former Laotian General Vang Po.  The few comments on the Althouse post can be found here.

This is all part of the legacy of our involvement in Southeast Asia.  The political and military operations were larger than just Viet-nam.  In my time in SEA I dropped bombs in North Viet-nam, South Viet-nam, Laos and Cambodia.  And flew missions out of both South Viet-nam and Thailand.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Two Koreas

Meanwhile, over on the Korean Peninsula, we have the ROK (South Korea) standing up to the DPRK (North Korea).  This is a change in the way things have happened in the past and the bully (DPRK) is not taking kindly to it.

Today's focus is on a planned artillery drill from the island of Yeonpyeong. North Korea is promising dire consequences if this goes on.  China and Russia have been counseling moderation and the avoidance of confrontation.

Here is the view from Night Watch.

I realize it is wrong for me to think this way, but if North Korea were to again shell Yeonpyeongdo, as they did on 23 November of this year, killing several South Koreans, I would like to see the US support South Korea by conducting an exercise using the USS PUEBLO (AGER-2) as a target ship, sending it to the bottom and allowing it to be decommissioned and stricken from roster.  It is currently located in Wonsan Harbor, in North Korea.  But, maybe there is some secret protocol that prevents such a thing.

But, that won't happen and North Korea will continue to try and bully the rest of the world into helping it meet its economic, including energy and food, requirements.  And, we will continue to help them out, but given their government and its hermit kingdom approach, it will never get up on the step and speed forward.  And the cycle will repeat until North Korea does something really stupid to get attention, or implodes, or our side does something really stupid in response to some provocation.  Let us, as citizens, encourage our government not to overreact, like taking out the USS PUEBLO.

Regards  —  Cliff

Speaks for Itself

A friend of mine sent along this link by a group that normally does political satire, but in this case takes a serious look at a Nobel Prize winner.

Regards  —  Cliff

North Korea, Again

From The Washington Post we have a report on North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) dropping 90 shells on a South Korean (Republic of Korea) Island, which includes a ROK Marine base).

In an official statement, government spokesman Hong Sang-pyo called the North's action a "clear military provocation." In the United States, a White House spokesman said President Obama was "outraged" by North Korea's "provocative" action, adding that the nation stands by South Korea.

The latest conflict comes at a particularly tense time on the Korean Peninsula, just days after the reclusive government in Pyongyang revealed to a visiting American scientist the existence of a new uranium-enrichment facility, and just weeks after North Korean leader Kim Jong Il began laying the groundwork for his youngest son to succeed him.

Fortunately, the rhetoric has deescalated from earlier today, when it was more indicative of war than not.

Over at Night Watch they tell us that this is not such a big deal.

A review of diplomacy, international relations and leadership activities confirms that North Korea is not preparing for war. Its volleyball team just advanced to the quarter finals at the Asian Games in Beijing. Senior officials are receiving foreign diplomats as usual. Kim Chong il and his son were reported on 23 November visiting a plant together and Kim visited two others without his son.

The number and detail of the activities show that the North does not expect the shelling incident to escalate. There also are no reports of increased civilian or military alerts in North Korea, which would be mandatory precautions if the North expected or intended an escalation.

I trust this analysis.

But, to the long run, an anonymous analyst had this to say:

The problem is not that Kim JI and his advisors are idiots.

Rather, it is that we have trained them improperly.

Since the 1968 "Assault on the Blue House," when North Korean commandoes tried to assassinate the ROK President Park Chunghee, through various attacks such as the axing of two US servicemen at the DMZ and the bomb that wiped out the ROK cabinet in Burma, to the recent sinking of the ROK frigate, the US and the ROK have not responded.

We have protested, we have corraled international condemnation, we have said mean things to the DPRK, but we have not made it clear that such actions have meaningful consequences.

Indeed, as Tim Hoyt noted, we have even sent food aid (which was promptly seized by the military and the Party leadership, aka Kim Jong-il and family).

If you were the North Korean leadership, and your track record of assassinations and other such actions were met w/ such responses, would you believe that your opponents were going to respond forcefully?  Or that they would capitulate, if you were to push hard?

In this regard, it is worth noting how, in one year, we have seen an attack on a South Korean warship, open announcement of a uranium enrichment program, and now an attributable attack w/ land-based artillery.  The DPRK is being more and more brazen, not even bothering to try and provide plausible deniability.

I would submit this is an unhealthy trend.

And there you have it.

But, for a news cycle it looked terrible.

Regards  —  Cliff

Trouble is Brewing in the Far Pacific

Note the top article, which talks to Japan's opposition party reacting to China's actions regarding the most recent incident at sea over fishing rights and territorial waters and spheres of influence.  It seems that things will be unsettled for a while out there, as China sorts out who it is and how powerful it is.  This will slowly suck in the US.  Once we move out of Iraq and Afghanistan and the Philippines we will still need a strong Navy and Air Force.  The other option is to abandon Japan and South Korea and Taiwan to their own devices, which in the case of Japan may well include nuclear devices.

Regards  —  Cliff