« July 2005 | Main | September 2005 »
This is not strictly about US-East Asia issues, but...
I have reviews of Asian restaurants I favored in Seattle at my other blog, Guns and Butter Blog. Now that I am located in Northern Virginia and have not yet had a chance to indulge in the ethnic cuisine scene in the area, I do miss the familiar restaurants of Seattle.
From the Korea Times:
The government plans to raise taxes on capital gains from home transactions and restrict mortgage loans...The response from those with any modicum of knowledge in economics has been predictable:On the demand side, the government will raise the capital gains tax on owners of two houses to 50 percent from the current 9 to 36 percent.
Property holdings tax on apartments and unused land will be raised to 1 percent by 2019 from the current 0.15 percent.
The assessment base of the comprehensive real estate tax, a national tax designed to crack down on real estate speculation, will be raised to 100 percent of the standard price gradually by 2009 from the current 50 percent.
And owners of properties worth more than 600 million won will be subject to a comprehensive real estate tax beginning next year. Currently, the tax targets people with homes worth more than 900 million won.
To offset significant increases in property holding and capital gains taxes, it also decided to lower taxes on real estate transactions between individuals by 1 percentage point to 3.5 percent from the current 2.5 percent.
But the government plans to save people with low-priced homes from heavier capital gains taxes. Under the plan, owners of homes worth less than 100 million won in the capital region and six metropolitan cities will not be subject to the new taxation.
In provincial areas, those with homes worth less than 300 million won will be excluded from the new taxation plan.
A taxation-oriented new real estate policy, scheduled to be unveiled today, will throw cold water on an economic recovery, according to international credit rating agencies.So why is the South Korean government doing this despite the obvious negative economic consequences?They said that the property boom is not serious enough for the government to employ macroeconomic policies.
On Monday, Fitch Ratings said in a report that the government has been overreacting to the real estate market, making its earlier economic stimulus measures futile.
"There is no evidence of a significant bubble in Korea’s residential real estate market beyond certain wealthy areas around southern Seoul," David Marshal said in the report. "The government has, in its economic policies toward the property market, been excessively antipathetic to any price rises."
"In threatening action to curb the market, the government may have undermined its own efforts to boost the stagnant domestic economy by maintaining low interest rates and raising consumer confidence," he added.
Standard & Poor’s said that although the real estate market was showing signs of overheating, a real estate bubble was limited to a few areas in southern Seoul.
It added that regardless of what measures the government takes, it would be hard to curb real estate speculation in specific regions without side effects.
"The government’s measures to curb property speculation continue to affect the construction sector," Morgan Stanley analyst Andy Xie said.
"The measures to double the property holding tax are likely to put construction investment in the doldrums," he added.
The answer is quite simple: the leftist Roh government is again engaging in a symbolic "populist" policy (read demagoguery). The idea is to attack the rich and those with income property in an effort to be seen as if it is "doing something" about a non-existent problem that is still propagated as a significant issue.
This has been the modus operandi of the disastrous Roh government, and shows no sign of abating.
According to Chosun Ilbo, a major Korean daily:
North Korea is not ready to come back to six-party talks on its nuclear program this week because they sense a lack of trust, Thai Foreign Minister Kantathi Suphamongkhon said Sunday. After a meeting with North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun in Pyongyang, Kantathi said, "The North Korean foreign minister told me what he had in mind, what had caused North Korea not to be able to participate in the six-party talks scheduled for Monday."According to another report, North Korea, which blames the delay to US-South Korea military exercise, may return to the negotiation table "depend[ing] on the United States":
North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun on Monday confirmed six-party talks on his country’s nuclear program could restart in mid-September.
Paek said the talks could return from recess "just before the end of September... If things are going well, mid-September is possible," Reuters reported.The minister said the talks, which had been scheduled to reconvene this week, were being delayed due to annual South Korea-U.S. military exercises.
Chietigj Bajpaee in an Asia Times Online article makes some keen observations of the shifting patterns of alliance and conflict in Asia:
Numerous recent and seemingly unconnected events have highlighted the emerging fulcrums of potential alliances in Asia, as well as the possible focal points of conflict.One such emerging alliance is that between Russia and China:
Third, Russia and China held unprecedented joint military exercises this month. Entitled "Peace Mission 2005" and comprising of 7,000 mainland troops and 1,800 Russian forces, the exercises have come under the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with the intention to prepare for intervention in a state overcome by ethnic conflict. While claiming that the war games were not targeted at any third party, they were held in the Shandong peninsula and the Yellow Sea, in close proximity to Japan, Taiwan and the Korean peninsula.Much of the tension is fueled by the rising might of China and the US response to this alteration in the balance of power:The exercises included a naval landing, which is unusual given that they come under the SCO framework, which would imply involvement in landlocked Central Asia. Furthermore, the US was not invited to observe the exercises although the four other SCO members (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) along with SCO observer states, India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan, were [emphasis mine].
Sino-US tensions have also flared over a series of provocative statements by officials on both sides. On the Chinese side, Major-General Zhu Chenghu in a speech at the Hong Kong Foreign Correspondents Club in mid-July stated that China would initiate a nuclear first-strike on the US if it were to intervene in a conflict over Taiwan [emphasis mine].In response to such changes, Asian nations are largely refraining from action (from choosing sides) and are instead watching carefully and preparing for many contingencies:Whether this statement was made in a personal capacity as the Chinese government claims or as an attempt by the central government to test international reaction will only be verified in the coming months when it is established if Zhu has been censured or promoted for his statement.
At present there are no clear alliances in Asia. Instead, there are numerous permutations and combinations of alliances that may be formed. All sides are hedging their bets and preparing for every possibility...Bajpaee's analysis is overall very thought-provoking. One area in which I disagree with Bajpaee, however, is the idea of the "return to power politics," a cyclical return to the past, only with higher technology, better weapons and so on. Bajpaee neglects new variables such as the increasing democratization of parts of Asia that could fundamentally change the patterns of alliance and conflict (not necessarily for the better, of course).Nevertheless, certain combinations are more likely than others. In all likelihood, China and Russia will grow closer as will Japan and the US. Apart from disputes over Taiwan, China's exchange rate, quotas on Chinese-made textiles, intellectual property rights infringements and China's human rights record, the US is growing increasingly frustrated with China's relations with dictatorial regimes, including Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, King Gyandera in Nepal and Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan, as well as support for "rogue" or anti-US regimes such as Myanmar, Iran, Sudan and Venezuela. Russia and China have also opposed US unilateralism on the world stage.
India and South Korea are sitting on the fence and could go either way depending on how events play themselves out. For example, Chinese support for Pakistani aggression could put India on the side of the US against China, while aggressive and unilateral military action by the US could solidify an Asian alliance. The current Sino-Indian rapprochement could also be unraveled by a flare-up over their territorial disputes in Aksai China and Arunachel Pradesh, energy competition on the world stage and China's encroachment into India's "sphere of influence" as seen by its improving relations with Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka, attempts to join the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and growing naval presence in the Indian Ocean.
Nonetheless, the Bajpaee article is an interesting, coherent analysis and is worth reading in its entirety.
The six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, which took a three-week recess on Aug. 7, will likely resume on Sept. 2, China’s top delegate to the negotiation reportedly said in Japan Friday.I am not optimistic that the resumption of the talks would go any better than it did before. I am certainly opposed to the notion that Pyongyang ought to be allowed to keep a "civilian" nuclear program for "agriculture and medicine."But South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said the date has not been set.
Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei was quoted by a Japanese political party official as saying that the participating countries _ the two Koreas, the U.S., China, Russia and Japan _ are expected to reconvene on Sept. 2.
"We are now considering resuming the talks on Sept. 2 in consultation with the Japanese side," Kyodo News Agency quoted Wu as saying. "Our staffers are now talking with the U.S. side."
The Jiji Press, however, reported a conflicting story, quoting Wu as saying that the date he announced was his "personal idea."...
The hottest issue in the fourth round of the talks, which began July 26, was triggered by Pyongyang’s hope to retain nuclear facilities for civilian energy needs in such fields as agriculture and medical science.
North Korea's problems in food and medicine -- and indeed in just about everything else -- are very dire, but everyone knows that the United States, South Korea, Japan and even Europe would flood North Korea with aid and investment, if North Korea simply renounced any nuclear program and took real stept to implement it.
Instead, North Korea's desire to seek a "civilian" nuclear program appears to be nothing more than yet another ploy to keep a secret military nuclear program and to continue to engage in what academics call "rent-seeking behavior" (normal folks call that "blackmail").
From Xinhua.net via China Economic Net:
Japan will be engaged in building the rocket unit and the United States will be making the warhead in a joint missile defense project, Kyodo News reported Wednesday, quoting sources close to the project.
The two countries are tied up in developing for Japan a dual-level missile defense system based on current US interception missiles.Tokyo aims to start the deployment in fiscal 2006 which begins in April.
The two countries will conclude a new pact on the project to develop the enhanced Standard Missile-3 interceptor to be deployedon an Aegis vessel after the Japanese endorses the plan at the Security Council around the end of this year, the report said.
The SM-3 missile is designed to intercept target outside the atmosphere, while the land-based PAC-3 will be used against missiles at lower heights.
The project involves four key components of the enhanced SM-3 system -- the nosecone, infrared sensor, rocket engine and kineticwarhead.
The close allies decided to jointly develop the missile defense system after a rocket launched by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in 1998 flew over Japan. Tokyo and Washington deem it as a ballistic missile.
Japan eased its ban on arms exports last December and exempted the exports of missile defense-related arms components to the United States to pave the way for the project to move into the development stage.
Segei Blagov at Asia Times writes:
The truth is out. The joint war games on northern Chinese beaches, part of a military exercise between China and Russia, are not designed to send warning messages to the United States about the limits of its global unilateralism.Convergence of interests -- that is what it comes down to. For the moment, Russia and China have shared concerns (US influence, specifically, in Central Asia, North Korea, arms sales and etc.) that warrant cooperation of sorts.It's really all about China and Russia practicing for a joint occupation of North Korea, or so the Russian media will have us believe.
More mundanely, the unprecedented display of Russian and Chinese combined military might also sends a signal to Central Asian countries that both Moscow and Beijing will no longer ignore American inroads into the strategically important region. However, Moscow has dismissed speculation of moves toward a new military bloc or joint armed groupings involving Russia and China.
In the mean time, Asia Times also has pieces (here and here) on the proposed Chinese acquisition of a Canadian-registered Central Asian oil company, PetroKazakhstan:
China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), China's largest oil and gas producer, reached an agreement with PetroKazakhstan Inc on Monday to buy the Canadian-registered company for US$4.18 billion. If the deal closes as expected in October, it would become the largest-ever overseas acquisition for a Chinese firm, breaking the record set when Lenovo acquired IBM's PC unit.My prediction of sorts about the Chinese move toward "north" unfolds!"CNPC, through its wholly owned subsidiary China National Petroleum Corporation International (CNPCI), has participated in acquiring PetroKazakhstan (PK)," the Beijing-based oil giant said in a statement Monday. CNPC, the state-owned parent of Hong Kong-listed PetroChina, and PetroKazakhstan, formerly known as Hurricane Hydrocarbons, have entered into an "arrangement agreement" whereby the Chinese oil firm will pay US$55 a share, or 21% more than its closing share price on Friday, PetroKazakhstan said in a statement.
It has been known for sometime that North Korea supplements its meager revenues by engaging in drug dealing, counterfeit currency manufacturing and other manners of organized crime (and if there ever was a organized criminal state, it is North Korea today).
Andy Jackson at the Marmot's Hole has more on the story:
Another source of financing for Pyongyang has just dried up. An international smuggling ring with links to North Korea, China and Thailand has been busted by American law enforcement officials...This particular criminal group was apparently a little more sophisticated than the bunch who got caught while trying to smuggle Nork drugs into Australia.
Of course, Nork drug smuggling and counterfeiting is nothing new. Such criminal activity could be seen as a sign of a breakdown in government authority, except in this case at least some of the smuggling is being run by the North Korean government.
Earlier today, I blogged about Wrigley's and China and wrote:
Yes, you can make money in China and, yes, you can dominate the local market despite all the obstacles of conducting business in a byzantine "communist" quasi-capitalist dictatorship.Note that I called China's political system what it is: a "communist" quasi-capitalist dictatorship.
But here is what the Left calls China's government -- an "inelastic political system":
China, to be sure, still has very many problems of its own, including an inelastic political system, a daunting rich-poor gap, the ever-volatile Taiwan issue, demoralizing corruption problems and those extremely unfortunate and counterproductive tensions with Japan.Tom Plate writes occassionally interesting bits about Asia, but he is clear about his orientation as a China apologist. Only a Leftist would apologetically call a brutal dictatorship that executes political prisoners as having a merely "inelastic political system."
According to Interfax News Agency via Ferghana.ru:
SKODA COMES TO KAZAKSTANSkoda, by the way, is a Czech automaker.The factory that assembles Nivas in Kazakhstan intends to market over 500 Skodas this year and almost 5,000 in 2006. Skoda Superbs will account for 20% of the output, Skoda Octavias for the remaining 80%.
"Ferghana" in Ferghana.ru refers to the Ferghana Valley, a land with ancient history where Greeks, China, Islam, Russia and steppe nomads clashed -- a fascinating, if now neglected (in the West), corner of the world.
Earlier I wrote about Singapore.
Now Todd Crowell at Asia Cable writes:
Wrigley’s is slowly working its way back into Singapore after having been shut out, along with every other gum maker after the island country famously banned the import and sale of chewing gum for sanitary reasons in 1992. The company was deeply involved in the negotiations leading to the 2003 Free Trade Agreement with the United States. Two issues dominated the negotiations: Singapore’s participation in the Iraq War coalition and chewing gum. Of the two, gum was by far the stickiest.The rest of the article, by the way, is about how Wrigley's is dominating the China market unlike some Western firms struggling there:Somewhat grudgingly, Singapore compromised, agreeing to allow the importation and sale of what it called “therapeutic” gum. “They were tough,” said former Rep. Philip Crane ® of Illinois, who was involved in the negotiations. This opened the way for sales of Wrigley’s Orbit brand of sugar-free gum, which contains calcium lactate intended to strengthen tooth enamel. Another beneficiary of the deal is Pfizer, which makes Nicorette, a nicotine gum meant to help smokers kick the habit.
At the moment, Wrigley’s gum can only be obtained through a licensed pharmacist, and the buyer must provide his name and identity card number. In Singapore, chewing gum is still very much a controlled substance.
Almost unnoticed, the Chicago-based Wrigley’s, the world’s largest maker and marketer of chewing gum, has built a dominating presence in China. With 60 per cent of the market and a million retail sales outlets, Wrigley’s has probably come closer than any other American company to fulfilling the century-old mythic dream: “If every one of China’s one billion people bought just one …”Yes, you can make money in China and, yes, you can dominate the local market despite all the obstacles of conducting business in a byzantine "communist" quasi-capitalist dictatorship.In five years Wrigley’s has built an awesome distribution network, making sure that the little green packages of Doublemint gum are available in almost every corner of the country. The company is said to have the widest distribution and sales network of any food manufacturing and consumer packaging company in China, foreign or domestic, a staggering one million outlets, 30,000 in Shanghai alone.
No foreign or domestic gum company comes close to Wrigley’s market share or sales volume. Indeed, the domestic Guangdong Fanyu Candy Co., the once prosperous and well-known maker of Yiqing chewing gum and Dada bubble gum, had to fold its operations in 2002. It could not compete. The only significant competitors left are the South Korean Lotte and the Italian Perfetti Van Melle.
Since 1999, China has become the second-largest market for Wrigley’s, behind only the U.S. “I don’t think people know how global [Wrigley’s] is,” fund manager Rose Papp told Forbes.com. Wrigley’s now counts 14 percent of its sales in Asia, up from 3.3 percent in the year 2000. Industry analysts estimate that the Chinese chewing gum market is worth about $250 million now and may reach more than $800 million by 2008.
I posted about the joint Russian-Chinese military exercise earlier.
Elizabeth Wishnick writes in Asia Times Online that Russia and China may be "brothers in arm" in wishing to counter the US dominance, but have different strategic goals:
While Peace Mission 2005 may be a joint exercise, China and Russia are pursuing different goals, and there is little chance of future coordinated military interventions in third countries. Russia sees an opportunity to train its pilots, test its equipment, and, most importantly, showcase its technology for China's purchase. For China, the exercise provides an important training function, but is also designed to demonstrate its naval power to Taiwan and other neighbors.With the development of the Sino-Russian strategic partnership in the 1990s, Russian officials have consistently expressed their support for a one-China policy. Nevertheless, leaders in Moscow have been equally consistent in their refusal to become involved in any Chinese military confrontation over Taiwan, as their rejection of a location in southern China for the exercises indicates.
Peace Mission 2005 also enables China to send Japan a message regarding Beijing's capability to defend its interests in offshore territorial disputes, but Moscow has quite a different set of concerns there. The Russian government has been successful in recent months in creating a bidding war between China and Japan over first access to Siberian oil. With President Vladimir Putin scheduled to visit Tokyo in November to discuss the territorial issue as well as energy cooperation, Russia may be seeking to prove that it has another option in the form of the Sino-Russian partnership should talks with Japan not go well.
Finally, Russia has its own long-term concerns about the strategic implications of a rising China. As a lead-up to Peace Mission 2005, in late July the Far East military district in Russia held the Vostok-2005 exercise near the Chinese border, involving 5,000 troops and 14,000 personnel from the Interior Ministry, the Federal Security Service and the Emergencies Ministry, to prepare for threats from separatist and terrorist groups. While the Russian Federation faces many separatist threats, this is not true of the Far East district. In this part of Russia, security concerns revolve around defense of extended peripheries and demographic imbalances, especially vis-a-vis neighbor and strategic partner China.
Singapore has long prided itself on being a unique international city of varying ethnicities, languages and cultures and being perhaps the cleanest and the most modern city-state in the world.
Now, Asahi Shimbun reports of its attempt to become the international education hub:
Try googling "Singapore" and chances are the word "hub" will appear alongside any mention of the city-state-whether in regard to transport, aviation, tourism, business, finance, even shopping.With one eye on the sagging birthrate, and the other on its reputation as a safe, clean and prosperous nation, the government has come up with a plan to establish Singapore as Asia's premier "education hub."
Even at the primary level, Singapore has long been a popular destination for thousands of Asian students keen to draw on the island's English-speaking culture.In fact some 20,000 primary and junior high school students-four percent of the country's total 530,000 students-are from overseas. Boarding schools here attract kids as young as 7-years-old...
When Song Jong Fun, 15, first arrived at the dormitory five years ago from Pusan, South Korea, he says he was homesick and miserable.
But as he got used to his surroundings and the language, things started to click.
Now he says he feels like English has become his first language, and worries about his Korean ability...
Students can learn English yet remain an easy flight away from home; parents can breathe easy-conservative Singapore is said to be one of the safest countries in the world; it also has a squeaky-clean reputation for its spotless streets and amenities; and, it's not too hard on the wallet.
Alas! it is also an authoritarian confucianist state (some call it proto-fascist) where the government tightly regulates lives of its citizens (instead of resorting to government violence to enforce its rule, however, it does act in a more civilized fashion -- it launches libel lawsuits against dissidents and bankrupts them). It is the not the kind of place that freedom-livng Americans would make a permanent home.
In any case, the education hub policy has had some unintended side effects:
But the "education hub" project still has a way to go as there are problems on the other side of the school gates.Some mothers who accompanied non-scholarship students have been caught working illegally-in the sex industry.
The scandal caused a major stir in the outwardly chaste government, which has since refused to issue work permits
When Lee Kuan Yew passes from the scene, perhaps.
Recently, I had a chance to read an op-ed in the Asian Wall Street Journal about the recent surge of anti-Americanism in South Korea. In it, the author argues that the anti-Americanism is not caused by the oft-repeated mantra of a "generational shift" in Korea (older Koreans with experiences of the Korean War giving way to younger Koreans without).
With the permission of the author, I reproduce it in entirety here:
The Decay of the U.S.- South Korean Alliance
By WON JOON CHOE
June 10, 2005
Today's summit between President George W. Bush and his South Korean counterpart Roh Moo Hyun brings two interwoven foreign-policy crises to center stage. The first crisis involves North Korea's announcement that it has nuclear weapons. And the second crisis limits the Bush administration's options in dealing with this first crisis, because it involves the decay of the alliance between the U.S. and South Korea.
Although it's a mistake to see this decay as irreversible, there's understandable pessimism about the future of the alliance. That's because Mr. Roh, a leftist whom the local press dubs the "reformist dictator," is a man America has great difficulty doing business with. He won the presidency by exploiting an ugly wave of anti-Americanism following the accidental death of two teenagers in a collision with a U.S. military vehicle.
On the eve of his Dec. 2002 victory, Mr. Roh laid bare his true intentions by brazenly declaring that he would maintain neutrality in the event of a war between the U.S. and North Korea. His latest foreign policy initiative reflects that, by casting South Korea in the role of a "Northeast Asian balancer" -- which could see Seoul siding with China against the U.S. in some circumstances.
Mr. Roh's foreign policy clashes most discordantly with American interests over North Korea, where he has embraced his predecessor Kim Dae Jung's "Sunshine Policy" of one-sided concessions toward Pyongyang. That's based on the fallacious notion that, rather than being a belligerent totalitarian menace, North Korea is simply an ordinary state that is only developing nuclear weapons in order to protect itself.
That hamstrings the Bush administration's options when it comes to North Korea. While there is debate regarding the wisdom of military strikes, there is little debate that Seoul's cooperation would be necessary to launch them. The military option was on the table during a prior nuclear crisis in 1994 because then President Kim Young Sam, a lifelong anti-communist, would have gone along with launching pre-emptive strikes against Pyongyang. But it is inconceivable that Mr. Roh would do so today. His bankrolling of Pyongyang also makes it far more difficult to impose workable economic sanctions.
Seoul's cozying up to Pyongyang may also frustrate what many in the Bush administration officials regard as the best remaining alternative: relying on China to pressure North Korea. According to Park Jin, a prominent opposition parliamentarian, a Chinese diplomat recently complained that Seoul's appeasement emboldens Pyongyang and renders it less amenable to Beijing's influence.
The Bush administration's policy on North Korea will continue to be plagued by problems so long as Mr. Roh and his allies remain in power. But that should not be allowed to induce a pervasive fatalism that South Korea is already a lost cause and prevent the Bush administration from reaching out to its wayward ally.
Such fatalism is fueled by the myth of a "generational shift" in South Korean politics, a myth which finds an unthinking acceptance among many foreign observers. According to this myth, the elections of Mr. Roh and his predecessor Mr. Kim represent the emergence of a new, permanent political majority in South Korea. Often referred to as the "386" generation, this new majority is said to be young, leftist, anti-American, and pro-Chinese.
The reality is there is no such new majority. Rather than an ideological realignment, Messrs. Roh and Kim owe their victories to the failure of the conservatives to coalesce around a single candidate who could defeat them. The conservative candidate Lee Hoi Chang would have beaten Mr. Kim by a landslide in the 1997 presidential election had former provincial governor Rhee In Je not bolted from Mr. Lee's party to run on his own. Again in 2002, a third candidate split the conservative vote. Chung Mong Jun, a pro-American industrialist, initially stood as a third candidate and then pledged his support to Mr. Roh in a most bizarre ideological alliance.
Nor is anti-Americanism or pro-Chinese sentiment so deep-seated among the young. Attitudes toward America and China are far more complex, and often vacillate wildly depending on the political news of the day. For instance, pro-Chinese fervor cooled dramatically during the recent rhetorical tussle over Beijing's claims that the ancient kingdom of Koguryo was actually part of China.
In fact, the recent incarnation of anti-Americanism in South Korea is a product of government propaganda. The Roh government and its allies have done their best to fan suspicions of the U.S., while striving to keep the true character of the North's monstrous regime hidden from view.
Mr. Roh's effort to re-educate the South Korean public sometimes eerily mimics the methods used by Pyongyang. His intelligence agency, the National Intelligence Service, routinely intimidates those who would speak out against the abuses of Kim Jong Il's regime, including North Korean defectors and foreign humanitarian aid workers such as Dr. Vollertsen. Perhaps more shocking, Mr. Roh's Uri Party recently ram through a "media reform" law designed to limit the circulation of the opposition newspapers that are critical of his appeasement policy.
All that can be countered by engaging the Roh government in a struggle for the hearts of the South Korean people. The Bush administration can seek to speak directly to ordinary South Koreans about the horrors of Kim Jong Il's gulag state, explain why the world cannot allow it to possess nuclear arms, and also remind South Koreans of how their alliance with the U.S. has protected them for more than half a century.
America taught South Korea's long oppressed people to yearn for the intoxicating beauty of freedom. And President Bush could do no better than to remind them of the fragility of freedom, and that freedom's preservation requires unblinking courage in the face of those who would seek to trample it.
Mr. Choe is a commentator on Korean politics and a former associate at the law firm of Allen & Overy.
This site (hat tip: Keith Pennock at Discovery Institute) would be so hilarious if it weren't for the fact that the content is a database of actual, real, live propaganda from the North Korean "media" (which many outlets of the South Korean media increasingly resemble).
Check it out, it's worth more than a chuckle.
Leftist South Korean groups are in ecstasy over the visit from North Korean officials for the joint celebration of Korea's liberation from Japanese colonial rule (hat tip: Judith Apter Klinghoffer):
Joint Liberation Day celebrations of the two Koreas in Seoul are turning into a platform for North Korea to publicize its views as the South Korean hosts are going out of their way to avoid offending their guests. The North Koreans are unabashedly airing demands for the withdrawal of the U.S. military and the rejection of “foreign influences,” while in the heart of downtown Seoul, participants from pro-North Korean labor, civic and student groups openly shout slogans in that vein. On Tuesday, the North Korean delegation gleefully waved sashes given them by South Korean supporters that read, "Withdraw USFK!"
In fact, as the eminently sensible Andrei Lankov points out, what is often ignored in the South Korean intellectual circles is that the North Korean government of Kim Il-Sung started out as a pure puppet regime of the Soviet communists:
The textbook dedicates quite a few pages to the 1946 land reform in the North, whose radicalism is favorably contrasted with the sluggishness of similar measures in South Korea. Basically, it's true: the South Korean government of 1948-1950 included too many landlords to be enthusiastic about land redistribution. But there was something in the story that made one laugh: the book failed to mention that from beginning to end, land reform in North Korea was planned by Soviet military authorities.Land reform was promulgated in the name of nascent North Korean authorities, but Kim Il-sung simply signed the documents that had been prepared for him by Russian officers. This is evident from Russian papers on land reform, which were declassified and published in South Korea years ago. But these facts do not fit the authors' concept and hence are not mentioned in the textbook.
More from Lankov:
South Korea was once the domain of knee-jerk anti-communism, but nowadays "progressive" (left-wing) academics increasingly have come to dominate the South Korean intellectual world. And these people badly want to play down the impact the Soviet Union once had on the North. They want it so badly that they sometimes even pretend to be ignorant of new material that clearly contradicts the version of history they want to have...Thus, the left wants to show the illegitimacy of its opponents, insisting that the South Korean state from its inception was not "authentically national", instead it was compromised by the wide employment of former pro-Japanese collaborators and by close cooperation with the US military. Needless to say, such collaboration is always emphasized.
But to advance their ideas even further, those political intellectuals also need a positive example, which would be able to stand for everything good in their picture of national history. Hence, they chose to believe that the early North Korean state was a complete opposite to the allegedly corrupt and dependent Seoul government of the era. There are hard facts that demonstrate that until 1950 for all practical purposes the North Korean state was a Soviet puppet, but these facts do not fit into their world picture nicely, and hence are not mentioned.
Even a cursory look through now-available historical documents clearly indicates: In 1945-1950, the North Korean regime operated under complete control of Soviet supervisors. Who drafted the above-mentioned land reform law? Soviet advisers. Who edited and, after some deliberation, confirmed the North Korean constitution of 1948? Joseph Stalin himself. Who arrested all major opponents to the emerging communist regime? The Soviet military police. Where were the dissidents sent to do their time? To Siberia, of course.
The available papers leave no doubt that even relatively mundane actions of the North Korean government needed approval from Moscow. The Soviet politburo, a supreme council of the state, approved the agenda of the North Korean rubber-stamping parliament and even "gave permission" to stage a parade in 1948. The much-trumpeted conference of politicians from the North and South in spring 1948 was another Soviet idea, even if the leftist historians now love to depict it as yet another expression of Pyongyang's willingness to negotiate based on its alleged national feelings. The most important speeches to be delivered by the North Korean leaders had to be read and approved in the Soviet Embassy.
If all these do not give us a right to describe the North of 1945-1950 as a "puppet regime", what further evidence is needed. But such facts do not fit the agenda of many South Korean intellectuals who are allergic to the anti-communist propaganda of their youth.
There are also indications that the current leftist government in South Korea is not nearly as popular as the left-leaning American media portray -- in fact, it never was all that popular (more on that later). We should stick around in the region, but some judicious political maneuvering is in order.
Peter Brookes at Heritages writes about the Russian-Chinese joint military exercise:
This week will see an ominous precedent: The first- ever joint Chinese-Russian military exercises kick off Thursday in Northeast Asia.The exercises are small in scale — but huge in implication. They indicate a further warming of the "strategic partnership" that Moscow and Beijing struck back in 1996.
More importantly, they signal the first real post-Cold War steps, beyond inflammatory rhetoric, by Russia and China to balance — and, ultimately, diminish — U.S. power across Asia. If America doesn't take strategic steps to counter these efforts, it will lose influence to Russia and China in an increasingly important part of the world.
Unimaginable just a few years ago, the weeklong military exercises — dubbed "Peace Mission 2005" — will involve 10,000 troops on China and Russia's eastern coasts and in adjacent seas.
For instance, although Russia nixed the idea, the Chinese demanded the exercises be held 500 miles to the south — a move plainly aimed at intimidating Taiwan.Beijing clearly wanted to send a warning to Washington (and, perhaps, Tokyo) about its support for Taipei, and hint at the possibility that if there were a Taiwan Strait dust-up, Russia might stand with China.
The exercise also gives Russia an opportunity to strut its military wares before its best customers — Chinese generals. Moscow is Beijing's largest arms supplier, to the tune of more than $2 billion a year for purchases that include subs, ships, missiles and fighters.
Rumors abound that Moscow may finally be ready to sell strategic, cruise-missile-capable bombers such as the long-range TU-95 and supersonic TU-22 to Beijing — strengthening China's military hand against America and U.S. friends and allies in Asia.
Russia and China are working together to oppose American influence all around their periphery. Both are upset by U.S. support for freedom in the region — notably in the recent Orange (Ukraine), Rose (Georgia) and Tulip (Kyrgyzstan) revolutions — all of which fell in what Moscow or Beijing deems its sphere of influence.
Japan’s Nihon Keizai reported that some in Japan’s defense establishment believe the exercise to be practice for a possible intervention in North Korea, or more specifically, to determine whether in the wake of a North Korean collapse, Sino-Russian forces can get to the DMZ faster than ROK-U.S. forces can get to the Yalu. I’m not sure if that’s actually the case, as the LAT reported that Russia originally wanted to carry out the exercise in Central Asia and China near Taiwan, with Shandong being the resulting compromise. Still, the Japanese suspicions are at least interesting to think about.
That's right, $100 per fighter jet (hat tip: The Lost Nomad):
South Korea is to sell supersonic fighters at $100 (101,000 won) per jet. It may be hard to believe, but it’s no lie.The fighter jets to be sold at such a giveaway price are F-5A/Bs, which are being retired from their 40-year-long service this month.
The Ministry of National Defense and Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) said Sunday they considered selling the retired aircraft, which opened the era of supersonic fighters for the Korean Air Force in 1965, to foreign nations including Mexico and Poland.
We have about 50 F-5A/B fighter jets at the moment, half of which are used for educational and demonstrational purposes. The ministry will consider selling the remaining half to foreign nations at $100 per unit, a KAI official said. It’s a nominal price.
He hinted that the virtual donation is part of a sales strategy to export KT-1 and T-50 supersonic trainers developed and produced by KAI to the foreign nations. "We have also sold F-5A/B fighters to the Philippines at $100 each in the past.
Here are some pictures of F-5A/B Freedom Fighters, and the stats including the procurement saga and other information can be found here at GlobalSecurity.org.
I've got $100. I wonder whether the ROK government would sell one to me. I think it would make a wonderful gift for my best friend, Jack, who is a pilot.
In a row over US criticism over the bloody Andijan repression, the US forces are leaving a strategically useful Central Asian base.
Not strictly East Asia, I know, but still interesting: see the entry in my other blog, Guns and Butter.
Ted Turner wants to turn the DMZ into a "nature preserve." See the full coverage on The Marmot's Hole.
Hundreds of thousands are perishing through communist-induced famine and political repression in North Korea, but Turner apparently cares more about creating a "nature preserve" than diligently working toward, if not the end of the repugnant North Korean regime, some sort of reform aimed at reducing political repression and economic improvement in North Korea.
Guess what, Ted? The DMZ is already a nature preserve of sorts, because people can't venture there (or perhaps that is what Turner has in mind for a nature preserve, all mines and barbed wires).
What the two Koreas really need is for the DMZ to be habitable again -- hopefully through the end of North Korea's bizzaro-communist regime.
Todd Crowell at Asia Cable has a good review of the latest electoral gambit from Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi:
The political pressure on some of Japan’s legislators to pass the postal privatization bill was so great that one legislator actually committed suicide. Now many believe that Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi is committing the equivalent of political hara kiri by dissolving parliament and calling for new elections next month.Koizumi made good on his threat to call a special general election after the House of Councilors, Japan’s equivalent of the Senate, defeated his bills to privatize Japan’s post office, including its banking and insurance branches which contain assets equal to about $3 trillion (that’s with a “T”).
One thing that gives Koizumi some hope is his approval ratings going into the election. The last poll gave his cabinet a 47.3 percent stamp of approval. For Americans that may seem low, but in Japan it is, in fact, a very high rating. Several LDP premiers have had approval ratings that fell into single digits.Though almost ignored in the U.S., the election could have serious foreign policy consequences. If Katsuya Okada, leader of the Japan Democratic Party, forms a government, he very likely would end the visits to the Yasukuni Shrine that irritate China and Korea. Indeed, there is evidence that the public at large is nervous about Koizumi’s annual visits, so it might be a good issue to run on.
He would likely withdraw Japanese soldiers from Iraq. Unfortunately for Koizumi, Samawah, where the Japanese are stationed, is in turmoil. One dead soldier might turn the entire election around. A new government would probably drop any plans to amend the country’s peace constitution and may not be as eager as Koizumi to move Japan militarily closer to the U.S., especially in helping come to the defense of Taiwan.
Then there is the issue of postal privatization itself. This is really the subject of an article by itself. It’s safe to say that any tinkering with a pot of wealth roughly equal to a third of the entire gross domestic product of the United States cannot help but have enormous implications for Japan and the rest of the world.I’ll simply quote a key passage from a study by Jetro [Japan External Trade Organization]: “If the Japanese public . . . begins to invest their postal savings in private banks and other investment vehicles, the country’s economy will never be the same. Huge amounts of pent-up household capital would be moved into private financial markets. This would help to bolster not only Japan’s incipient economic recovery but, over time, financial markets around the world.”
Asahi Online reports:
As part of the transformation of the U.S. forces, plans are progressing in the Asia-Pacific region for a fundamental realignment of the command and control structure as well as the deployment of new combat capabilities.Those moves are designed to create a more effective force posture to fight terrorism and to maintain and enhance deterrence capabilities against China and North Korea.
In the background is the recognition that the strategic environment in the region is deteriorating due in part to the rapid modernization of China's military.
American officials are placing greater expectations on strengthening cooperation with Japan on a deterrence strategy in the Asia-Pacific region as well as the global war against terrorism.
One symbol of the transformation of the command and control structure is an establishment of a new warfighting headquarters in Hickam Air Force Base outside of Honolulu...Plans call for establishing 10 such warfighting headquarters around the world...
That network would allow the U.S. Air Force to become more effective and efficient. According to Major General Gary L. North, director for operations at Pacific Command, one possibility would be to "have the work being done for planning for Iraq done by the Kenney warfighting headquarters" in Hawaii.
Pacific Command is one of nine unified commands in the U.S. military. It has the largest area of responsibility (AOR), which extends from the west coast of the United States to the east coast of Africa. There are 43 nations, including Japan, within that area. The total number of troops under the command is about 300,000.
The AOR of Pacific Air Forces was divided into four. Japan is covered by the 5th Air Force headquartered at Yokota Air Base; the Korean Peninsula is covered by the 7th Air Force headquartered at Osan Air Base; the northern Pacific is covered by the 11th Air Force headquartered at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska; and the south Pacific and Indian Ocean was covered by the 13th Air Force, previously headquartered at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam.Of course, this means that the danger of a new war in Korea merits a separate warfighting headquarters of its own in the Korean peninsula, but it could also mean that the US could deactivate the headquarters and withdraw completely from South Korea with minimal disruption to the rest of the "network," something that ought to give some pause for thought for our South Korean "allies."Under the latest realignment, all areas with the exception of the Korean Peninsula falls under the command of Kenney Headquarters. A separate warfighting headquarters will be set up in South Korea.
Then there is the issue of preparing for the current war (the so-called War on Terror) while pondering a future warfighting scenario (a potential war against China):
Meanwhile, analysts have pointed to the difficulties facing the Pacific Command to deal with two separate strategic tasks, the war against terrorism as well as serving as a deterrence against China and North Korea."A concentration (of forces) on Northeast Asia is at odds with the emerging threat (of terrorism) in Southeast Asia," said Thomas A. Bowditch, a special assistant to the deputy commander of the Pacific Command. Bowditch is involved in the discussions on the realignment of U.S. troops in Japan as well. "The commander is pulled in two directions. This is his most difficult dilemma with regard to his force posture."
From the Chosun Ilbo, a conservative South Korean daily:
The Korea Foundation has ended its support for the American Enterprise Institute, a rightwing U.S. think tank credited with being the brains behind the war on Iraq, Foreign Minster Ban Ki-moon told the National Assembly's Unification, Foreign Affairs and Trade Committee on Monday. It reportedly did so at the ruling party’s request.The AEI is the leading neoconservative think tank with close links to the Bush administration. Its brain children include the invasion of Iraq, tax cuts and planned redeployments of U.S. forces around the world. Vice President Dick Cheney, former Deputy Secretary of State John Bolton, and "Axis of Evil" speechwriter David Frum all have AEI backgrounds. Reviled by critics as a neocon bastion, President George W. Bush has called it a collection of America's best minds.
The Korea Foundation, a body under the Foreign Ministry, has given US$1.4 million to the AEI since 1992. A foundation official said it gives money to major Washington think tanks to support research on Korea. He said the National Assembly had asked it to end contributions to the AEI.
...for the intermission in the last several weeks. During my relocation to Northern VA, I had no access to a secure computer, so I could not post entries.
The site is back up and the content should flow!