Membership Has Its Privileges: Top Chinese Communist Party Members Enjoy Purified Air Machines

Remember, communist societies are based on the supposition of equality, but the elite is more equal than others.

At New York Times, "The Privileges of China’s Elite Include Purified Air."

News that Chinese leaders are largely insulated from Beijing’s famously foul air comes at a time of unusually heavy pollution in the capital. In recent weeks, the capital has been continuously shrouded by a beige pall and readings from the United States Embassy’s rooftop air monitoring device have repeatedly registered unsafe levels of particulate matter.

Air purifiers were approved by the CCP's Politburo Standing Committee. Membership has its privileges.

Also at Astute Bloggers, "CHINA'S DISGUSTINGLY SELFISH RULING ELITE - (YES, THEY HAVE ONE AND IT'S NOT RIGHT-WING; IT'S LEFT-WING!)."

Chinese Toddler Dies Brain-Dead After Hit-and-Run Accident

It's hard to even call it a hit-and-run. How about kill-a-kid and who gives a damn?

Background at China Daily, "Hospital offers little hope for girl's survival."

The child was pronounced "brain dead."

And now the hand-wringing.

See USA Today, "Toddler's hit-and-run case prompts Chinese soul-searching," and Washington Post, "An injured toddler is ignored, and Chinese ask why."

China Backs Libya Rebels

Just now they're backing the rebels?



At Reuters, "China turns to Libya rebels, urges "stable transition'."

China urged a "stable transition of power" in Libya and said on Wednesday it is in contact with the rebel National Transitional Council, the clearest sign yet that Beijing has effectively shifted recognition to forces poised to defeat Muammar Gaddafi.

U.S. Debt Downgrade Leaves China in a Bind

At Los Angeles Times:

The Chinese government has built what is now the world's second-largest economy in part by keeping its currency cheap in order to subsidize exports. To do that, it has bought gobs of U.S. Treasury bills and other securities. Any big move on China's part to unload its $1.2-trillion-plus trove of American debt would only result in a self-inflicted wound: sinking the value of the dollar further and eroding the value of its own reserves.



For the moment, at least, the economic and political consequences of dumping dollars are likely to keep Beijing from taking any such drastic action.



"There really isn't a better choice than U.S. Treasury bonds," wrote Huang Yiping, professor of economics at Beijing's Peking University, in a commentary published Monday in the influential financial magazine Caixin. "The basic requirements for foreign reserves are safety, stability in value and liquidity. Although U.S. Treasury bonds might not meet the first two criteria right now, the problem is still that we do not have a better choice."

Authorities Shut Down San Gabriel 'Birthing Tourism' Maternity Center

This ought to feed the debate on birthplace citizenship. And these women are Chinese!!

At LAT, "'Birthing tourism' center in San Gabriel shut down":

From the outside, they looked like other recently built San Gabriel townhouses — two stories, Spanish style, with roofs of red tile.

Inside they were maternity centers for Chinese women willing to pay handsomely to travel here to give birth to American citizens.

Southern California has become a hub of so-called birthing tourism. Operators of such centers tend to try to blend in, attracting as little attention as possible.

But on quiet, residential Palm Avenue, neighbors had noticed an unusual number of pregnant women going in and out, and some complained about noise.

On March 8, code enforcement officials shut down three identical four-bedroom townhouses functioning as an unlicensed birthing center.

Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession? Or Just Too Pro-Business?

The main story's at LAT, "Obama Touts U.S. Innovation in State of the Union Preview." And at NYT, "Obama Urges U.S. Competitiveness Ahead of Speech."

What's interesting about this is how progressives are quick out of the gate attacking the agenda. You've got Robert Reich, who was President Clinton's Secretary of Labor, with "American Competitiveness, and the President’s New Relationship with American Business." And by some really bizarre tricks of witchcraft, Emptywheel is able to turn Reich's attack on the agenda as a diatribe against the military industrial complex. Seriously. "“Competitiveness” Is Peace":

If we want to be competitive ... we have to stop wasting so much money on our war machine and instead invest it in our own country.

This, for want of a better phrase, is rank unadulterated bullshit.

That said, you gotta love Paul Krugman's piece, "Competitiveness." Krugman's mostly just agreeing with Robert Reich. That is, the attacks on Obama's agenda are mostly attacks on American business, which is the enemy of the progressive left. The administration is way too cozy with Wall Street and the big corporations like GE, and it drives lefties crazy. What's interesting is that Krugman links to his one-time classic article at Foreign Affairs, "Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession." Published in 1994, the piece was a big deal at the time, since it broke with the orthodoxy on the epic challenges of head-to-head competition with Japan. And the actual analysis is straightforward, that nations are not firms, and the problems of competitiveness arise from a range of factors beyond mere worker productivity, currency values, and high value-added manufacturing sectors. But I'll leave that to the economists (and Krugman was a respected economist on one time). What's so funny about Krugman is what a sexist troglodyte he is (or was back in the day). I'll never forget how he spoke of Laura D'Andrea Tyson as President Clinton's "Chairman" of the Council of Economic Advisors:

Most writers who worry about the issue at all have therefore tried to define competitiveness as the combination of favorable trade performance and something else. In particular, the most popular definition of competitiveness nowadays runs along the lines of the one given in Council of Economic Advisors Chairman Laura D'Andrea Tyson's Who's Bashing Whom?: competitiveness is "our ability to produce goods and services that meet the test of international competition while our citizens enjoy a standard of living that is both rising and sustainable." This sounds reasonable. If you think about it, however, and test your thoughts against the facts, you will find out that there is much less to this definition than meets the eye.

Laura Tyson is, of course, a woman. I guess that didn't occur to Krugman, or the editors at Foreign Affairs, for that matter. More recently, Christina Romer served as "Chair" to President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors. But by 2008 most media commentators spoke appropriately of Romer as the "chairwoman of Pres. Obama's Council of Economic Advisers."

My how times change.

It's good for a laugh, in any case. And big time radical progressives like Paul Krugman and Firedoglake's Marcy Wheeler come off looking like dolts one more time.

Here Come Chinese 'Trophy Acquisitions' in the U.S.

In 1989, the editorial board of the New York Times asked, "Is the transfer of American assets to Japanese ownership something to worry about?"

The answer was no, "of course." But the Times board when on to suggest that this was "a sharp reminder of Japan's growing economic strength." So true, but within just a few years, by the mid-1990s, those fears of "Japan as Number One" quickly dissipated as that nation floundered in the fallout from its overheated bubble economy.

I'm reminded of this by the news this morning that China's Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd. (ICBC) has made a bid for ownership entry into the U.S. financial market. See WSJ, "China's ICBC Bids for U.S. Entry":

CHICAGO—Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd. on Friday signed an agreement here to acquire a majority stake in Bank of East Asia Ltd.'s U.S. subsidiary, becoming the first state-owned Chinese bank to make an acquisition of a U.S. deposit-taking institution.

The deal, signed on the last day of Chinese President Hu Jintao's state visit to the U.S., represents what could be the start of big expansions by Chinese financial institutions in the world's largest economy.

The deal comes as both Beijing and Washington are calling for greater commercial ties between the two countries. China is prodding the U.S. to ease its export controls, especially those involving high-technology products, while the U.S. is asking for more Chinese purchases of made-in-America goods and services.

Still, the Bank of East Asia transaction promises to be carefully scrutinized by U.S. regulators, including the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, known as Cfius, because of the state-controlled nature of ICBC, China's largest lender. Bank of East Asia is a publicly traded bank based in Hong Kong.

RTWT.

And also at WSJ, "Why China’s ICBC Bank Deal is Important."

The Chinese are coming to America. And we'll soon see, no doubt, some "trophy acquisitions" that raise hollers far and wide. But as we've learned from previous experience, this hardly means the end of American world preeminence.

In any case, Daniel Drezner has a roundup on those "writers who vastly exaggerate China's rise!" See, "The most absurd edge of the 'China as behemoth' meme."

Related: Paul Krugman on China (via Memeorandum).

I'll have more later ...

Why China Will Not Overtake U.S. as Top Leading Power

Well, not anytime soon, at least.

And, yeah, I know.

I've admitted I'm not as bullish on continued American preponderance as I used to be, but stories like this remind us that China is seriously FUBAR on freedom --- and hence, innovation. At Telegraph UK, "China Makes Skype Illegal."

China on Thursday announced that it had made illegal the use of Skype, the popular internet telephony service, as the country continues to shut itself off from the rest of the world.

In the latest move dashing Western internet company hopes of breaking into China, it was announced that all internet phone calls were to be banned apart from those made over two state-owned networks, China Unicom and China Telecom.

"[This] is expected to make services like Skype unavailable in the country," reported the People's Daily, the official mouthpiece of the Communist party.

Websites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are already blocked in China and Google closed down its Chinese servers last year after heavy government pressure.

Stand Up to China

And stand up for the defense budget.

Ambassador Bolton on Fox Business Channel:

Japan Shifts Military Posture to Defend Against Chinese Threat

I like it.

At New York Times, "Japan to Shift Its Military Toward Threats From China":

TOKYO — In what would be a sweeping overhaul of its cold war-era defense strategy, Japan is about to release new military guidelines that will reduce its heavy armored and artillery forces pointed northward toward Russia in favor of creating more mobile units that can respond to China’s growing presence near its southernmost islands, Japanese newspapers reported Sunday.

The realignment comes as the United States is making new calls for Japan to increase its military role in eastern Asia in response to recent provocations by North Korea as well as China’s more assertive stance in the region.

The new defense strategy, likely to be released later this week, will call for greater integration of Japan’s armed forces with the United States military, the reports said. The reports did not give a source, but the fact that major newspapers carried the same information suggested they were based on a background briefing by government officials.

The new guidelines also call for acquiring new submarines and fighter jets, the reports said, and creating ground units that can be moved quickly by air in order to defend the southern islands, including disputed islands in the East China Sea that are also claimed by China and Taiwan. These disputed islands are known as the Senkakus in Japanese and the Diaoyu in Chinese.

Details of the realignment, which had been delayed a year by the landmark change of government in September 2009, have been leaking out since large joint military drills earlier this month between Japan and the United States that included the American aircraft carrier George Washington.

More at the link.

This is especially interesting since I've been blogging East Asian security issues. Japan issued some of the most forceful statements on the recent North Korean artillery attacks, for example. And this discussion of Japan's emerging posture reminds us of realists argument on the constraining and shaping forces of international power dynamics. China's growth is clearly triggering some strategic thinking in Tokyo, and the growth of Beijing's power --- combined with the ambiguity surrounding the intentions of the Chinese leadership --- is pushing Japan even tighter into its alliance with United States. I've written more often on regime change North Korea, and not to mention some reflections on China's influence on the peninsula, but I just saw this recent piece from Elizabeth Economy, and it makes Japan's moves look quite natural considering: "The End of the 'Peaceful Rise'?"

Americans No Longer Think U.S. Economy No. 1

From Ronald Brownstein, at National Journal, "Down From The Pedestal" (via Memeorandum):

In the global race for jobs and economic prosperity, the United States is No. 2. And it is likely to remain there for some time. That’s the glum conclusion of most Americans surveyed in the latest Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll. Henry Luce famously labeled the 20th century the “American Century.” This survey suggests that most Americans now doubt that this new century will bear that name.

In the poll, only one in five Americans said that the U.S. economy is the world’s strongest—nearly half picked China instead. Looking forward, Americans are somewhat more optimistic about regaining primacy, but still only about one in three expect the U.S. economy to be the world’s strongest in 20 years. Nearly three-fifths of those surveyed said that increasing competition from lower-paid workers around the world will keep living standards for average Americans from growing as fast as they did in the past. Ruben Owen, a retired Boeing engineer in Seattle who responded to the survey, spoke for many when he said, “We’re still in a reasonably good place … but it’s going to get harder because other places are growing stronger.”

Across a wide range of issues, the poll found the traditional American instinct toward optimism straining against fears that the nation’s economic struggles may extend far beyond the current slowdown. On many fronts, particularly the quality of higher education and scientific research, large majorities of Americans still believe that we lead the world. And most say that the U.S. can remain a manufacturing leader.

RTWT.

We discussed exactly this topic in the conclusion to my World Politics course on Wednesday. China still has quite a ways to catch the United States on a number of measures. China's GDP in 2009 was roughly $5 trillion. The U.S. economy was nearly three times as large, at rougly $14.2 trillion. And while breathtaking, I doubt China can maintain its growth trajectory indefinitely (see, "China Is Not Another Ascendant Superpower"), and the nation's quality of life is still mired by its Third World standard of living for much of the population (see, "Cost of Living Increasingly a Struggle for China's Poor").

Especially problematic is Chinese authortarianism. I noticed today this piece yesterday at NYT: "China Moves to Block Foreign News on Nobel Prize." And earlier at WaPo, "On eve of Nobel ceremony, China cracks down and lashes out." The research on democracy and economic productivity suggests that non-democracies perform as well as democratic states, but given the information-driven nature of coming first-mover industries, I doubt China will compete effectively against the United States as long as it remains a closed, repressive regime.

That said, there's always the potential for increased conflict in U.S.-Chinese relations. The Economist reported on that this week: "The dangers of a rising China," and "Friends, or else: A special report on China's place in the world."

More on all of this later.

RELATED: "The Road to Ruin? American Profligacy and American Power."

WikiLeaks Reveals China's Fear of the Web

I've been meaning to post this piece at Foreign Affairs, "The Digital Disruption," by Google's Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen. What's interesting is that the authors hit most of the key themes of the digital revolution in world politics, but with WikiLeaks topping the charts this last week, something was missing, and I held off on posting it. Now though we've got the clearest indication of how China views web technology in the New York Times' report, "Cables Discuss Vast Hacking by a China That Fears the Web." (At Memeorandum and Techmeme.) The Times indicates the members of China's Politiburo Standing Committee (almost as high as one goes in the Chinese party government) directed hacking operations against Google's servers in the United States. This seems almost unreal from the perspective of power politics and traditional concerns over geographic spheres of influence and market shares in key industrial sectors. But this is the information age and Chinese officials don't like what they're finding. Schmidt and Cohen put some of this in perspective in their Foreign Affairs article:

Realists describe international relations as anarchic and dominated by self-interested states. Although there is little doubt about the dominant role states will and should play in the world, there is a great deal of debate about exactly how dominant they will be going forward. In these pages in 2008, Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, described a "nonpolar world" that is "dominated not by one or two or even several states but rather by dozens of actors possessing and exercising various kinds of power." In the interconnected estate, a virtual space that is constrained by different national laws but not national boundaries, there can be no equivalent to the Treaty of Westphalia -- the 1648 agreement that ended the Thirty Years' War and established the modern system of nation-states. Instead, governments, individuals, nongovernmental organizations, and private companies will balance one another's interests.

Not all governments will manage the turbulence left in the wake of declining state authority in the same way. Much remains uncertain, of course, but it seems clear that free-market and democratic governments will be the best suited to manage and cope with this maelstrom. The greatest danger to the Internet among these countries -- perhaps best defined as the members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development -- will be the overregulation of the technology sector, which has thus far thrived on entrepreneurial investment and open networks.

Perhaps no country has more carefully considered the implications of allowing its citizens access to connection technologies than China. The regime's goals are clear: to control access to content on the Internet and to use technology to build its political and economic power. Beijing has arrested online activists and used the country's thriving online bulletin boards to spread its propaganda. All of this is part of a strategy to ensure that the technology revolution extends, rather than destroys, the one-party state and its value system. Around the world, the Chinese model of Internet control has been copied by nations such as Vietnam and actively promoted in Asian and African countries where China is investing heavily in natural resources. And Beijing has moved to co-opt international institutions, such as the International Telecommunications Union, in order to gain global credibility and rally allies behind its efforts to control its citizens' communication.

But thanks to the work of activists and nongovernmental organizations operating inside and outside China, Beijing has learned that its attempts to establish total control of the Internet will not always work. The regime has recently been caught off-guard by the use of cell phones, blogs, and uploaded videos to encourage labor protests and report on industrial accidents, environmental problems, and incidents of corruption. The July 2009 demonstrations by ethnic Uighurs in Xinjiang drew international media attention even after Beijing completely shut down all Internet connections in the region; Uighur activists used social networks and so-called microblogs to spread news among targeted audiences abroad, including the Uighur diaspora. These kinds of cat-and-mouse games will no doubt continue, but in the short run there is doubt that Beijing's attempts to control access to information will largely succeed.

China and Korean Reunification

Update to my earlier post, "Prospects for Regime Change in North Korea."

It turns out that the cable dump has some interesting information on Beijing's strategic thinking. See Simon Tisdall, "Wikileaks Cables Reveal China 'Ready to Abandon North Korea'." Check the link. China's ready to deploy troops to the border to prevent a massive influx of North Koreans. Personally, I doubt Beijing would let Pyongyang go so easily, and so is Professor Daniel Drezner (who rarely takes a controversial position while blogging). That said, here's this at LAT, "Beijing Support for Korea Reunification Not So Clear, Despite Leaked Cables":

Is China really willing to dump its old ally, North Korea? Would Beijing support a German-style reunification of the Korean peninsula in which economic powerhouse South Korea absorbed its wretchedly poor communist neighbor?

These may have been the impressions left by a stash of U.S. diplomatic cables relating to North Korea made public this week by WikiLeaks. But analysts who have followed the long entanglement of China and North Korea say that much of the information in the outed memos amounts to little more than dinner party chatter that reflects outdated opinion or wishful thinking.

RTWT.

Turns out that:

The reclusive Kim Jong Il has made two trips to China in 2010, receiving lavish red carpet welcomes, and in October, Chinese Politburo member Zhou Yongkang had a front row seat at a military parade where Kim's son and designated successor made his public debut.

Right.

And next they'll be throwing these guys out on their asses?

At the video, John Bolton's fairly sanguine on all of this — which is amazing for an EVIL NEOCON WARMONGER!!

Prospects for Regime Change in North Korea

At the clip below, with Donald Kirk of the Christian Science Monitor. He speaks toward the end on the extreme dangers of a military overthrow in North Korea, especially a refugee crisis. Interesting how these dangers are raised primarily in the context of outside intervention, and not in the case of an implosion of the dictatorship in Pyongyang. Most problematic is the size of the North Korean forces, with nearly 1,000,000 troops under arms. A military incursion from the south would only be feasible with a combined contingent of American and South Korean units. The U.S. would provide air support off shore through carrier battle groups. Tokyo has indicated its support for military retaliation --- and Japanese military forces were deployed to Iraq in the first outside operations since WWII --- so perhaps the operation could be multilateralized. And then there's China. We can only speculate, but it's unlikely any force options would be available without some kind of support from Beijing. Regime change North Korea would require buy-in from all the major actors, and so far I don't see much realistic discussion of it on the Chinese side. (But see, "Is China About to Throw North Korea Under The Bus?") Certainly China relishes the regional prestige from propping up its NoKo client. But should the Kim dynasty continue its bellicose actions, perhaps leading to the additional loss of life, the situation will be an increasing reminder of the false peace of 1930s Europe. A huge blowout of historic proportions could be expected.

Kirk's got a report from yesterday: "Disillusioned South Korea Weighs Response to North Korean Flare-Up."

And New York Times has another installment on the diplomatic cables: "Leaked Cables Depict a World Guessing About North Korea." And related news at Memeorandum.

John McCain Calls for Regime Change in North Korea

I've been out in front on this issue: "Regime Change North Korea." But I'm not pussy-footing around the military option. The story's at Politico and CNN (at Memeorandum):

"I think it's time we talked about regime change in North Korea, and I do not mean military action, but I do believe that this is a very unstable regime" ...

China Calls for North Korea Talks

At WaPo:

SEOUL - South Korea and the United States on Sunday began joint naval exercises that will include live fire and bombing drills as hermetic North Korea deployed missiles close to the Yellow Sea and warned that it will turn the region into "a merciless shower of fire" if its territory is violated.

With tensions high in the region, China on Sunday called for an emergency session in December of the long-suspended six-way talks over North Korea's nuclear program. The call for new talks, announced at an unusual Sunday afternoon foreign ministry briefing in Beijing, came from Wu Dawei, China's top nuclear negotiator.

China has been under intense pressure to rein in its often erratic ally, North Korea, and Beijing this weekend was engaged in an intense round of diplomacy to try to prevent the recent crisis -- the most serious in months -- from escalating into a full-scale conflict. The six party talks include China, Japan, Russia, the two Koreas and the United States.

PREVIOUSLY: "Korean Joint Exercises in Futility."

Korean Joint Exercises in Futility

The government in Seoul is frustrated: "With Limited Options, South Korea Shifts Military Rules." (At Memeorandum.) It's a war footing, frankly. And think about the implications of this passage amid calls for increased diplomatic engagement:

North Korea has already weathered years of economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation. In fact, the tough economic conditions appear only to give the North motivation to continue its brinkmanship, to extract aid as it faces a winter of food and fuel shortages. Some analysts say the North is also using the provocations to burnish the military credentials of Kim Jong-un, the youngest son of the North’s leader, Kim Jong-il, and his heir apparent.

Now reports indicate that North Korea is escalating the tensions. Pyongyand launced a provocative volley of artillery fire following the visit of U.S. Gen. Walter L. Sharp at Yeonpyeong Island. Mainstream outlets suggest the peninsula's on the "brink of war" (at Christian Science Monitor and New York Times, via Memeorandum). Meanwhile, domestic criticism of Seoul's response is growing:

Hundreds of South Korean veterans demonstrated in the border town of Paju today, accusing the government of being too weak.



"The lazy government's policies towards North Korea are too soft," said Kim Byeong-su, the president of the association of ex-marines.



"It needs to take revenge on a bunch of mad dogs. We need to show them South Korea is not to be played with."

I criticized the futility of diplomacy earlier. See, "Regime Change North Korea." As noted, the threat to use force should be backed with international support embodied in a U.N. Security Council resolution. Interestingly, the administration has rebuffed such calls, for example, earlier this week from Japan, "Washington Spurns Tokyo's Demand for Reprisal Against North Korea":

Washington roundly condemned the North Korean Nov. 23 artillery attack on the populated South Koreanislandof Yeonpyeong on the Yellow Sea border, calling on North Korea to halt its belligerent action and abide by the terms of the 1953 armistice agreement. But the Obama administration was clearly not about to meet Japanese pressure for joint military action in support of Seoul or reinforce its fighting forces on the peninsula – even as a deterrent. Two South Korean marines were killed and 17 soldiers and 3 civilians injured as the flames engulfed the targeted island.



A Pentagon spokesman also said it was too early to discuss redeploying US tactical nuclear arms to South Korea, a possibility raised by South Korea's Defense Minister Kim Tae-young Monday when North Korea's parade of its uranium enrichment and light water plants came to light.



The Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan's second demand in his call to President Barak Obama after the North Korean attack was to convene an urgent UN Security Council meeting. That too went unheeded. The session France announced would take place Tuesday night was indefinitely postponed.



The Japanese prime minister maintained to Obama that North Korea must not be allowed to get away with two armed attacks on the South in the space of eight months without a military response. On March 26, North Korean torpedoes sunk the South Korean Cheonan cruiser. At least 46 seamen were lost.

And at the conclusion:

... Obama's lack of response to the Japanese call, despite the presence of 28,000 US troops on the Korean Demilitarized Zone border – even with limited military action - is bound to devalue the defensive umbrella against North Korea the US has pledged South Korea and Japan. U.S. unresponsiveness is already resonating loudly in the Middle East and Persian Gulf which is beginning to take it as betokening feeble resolve in dealing with Iran and its nuclear weapons aspirations.

Of course, the administration thinks appeasement will lessen tensions in those regions, and according to reports out today, the White House is worried about China. See WSJ, "China Protests U.S.-South Korea Exercises." But see Stephen Hayes comments on U.S. deference to Beijing, "The Sixty Years War":

It is up to the White House to break the cycle of futility ....



For years, U.S. policy on North Korea has been outsourced to China. Successive presidents have asked that Beijing use its muscle to control its combative ally. It hasn’t worked, because the Chinese believe that the status quo is preferable to escalation. The Obama administration needs to flip that equation by making the status quo less acceptable. Rather than asking China politely to do our diplomatic spadework, why not use our diplomatic and economic leverage over China to demonstrate that there are consequences for Beijing’s recalcitrance?



In the short term, we can reimpose the tough sanctions that were unwisely lifted by President Bush in the summer of 2008, and immediately return North Korea to the list of state sponsors of terror. The administration could also urge South Korea to end its participation in the Kaesong Industrial Complex—a zone of joint economic cooperation with North Korea in which South Korean companies provide capital and North Korea provides labor. Beyond that, America can aggressively seek to interdict North Korean ships suspected of carrying illicit materials, and increase the number of regular, high-profile joint naval exercises we conduct with South Korea.



No doubt, it will be tempting for President Obama to take the easier path—to pursue meaningless nonproliferation agreements, to offer platitudes about a nuclear-free world, to restart the six-party talks and otherwise seek dialogue about disarmament with regimes committed to nuclear weapons. But as French president Nicolas Sarkozy reminded Obama at the U.N. Security Council last year:

The people of the entire world are listening to what we’re saying, to our promises, our commitments and our speeches. But we live in a real world, not a virtual world. We say: Reductions must be made. And President Obama has even said: ‘I dream of a world without [nuclear weapons].’ Yet before our very eyes, two countries are doing the exact opposite.

And what have the repeated offers for dialogue produced? Sarkozy answered his own question.



“Nothing.”

More at USA Today, "N. Korea: Joint Exercise Pushes Countries to 'Brink of War'." (And Memeorandum.)

Regime Change North Korea

I joked about it the other night, but frankly toppling the Kim dictatorship is the only way to solve the never-ending nightmare of North Korea. And now Max Boot is taking that possibility seriously, "North Korea & Iran: Containment vs. Regime Change." After some background on the limited options vis-à-vis Pyongyang — with discussion of the Cheonan incident, which killed 46 South Korean sailors — Boot notes the obvious solution:

The ultimate solution is plain: regime change. But how to achieve it is another matter. China is North Korea’s major remaining lifeline, but unfortunately it is hard to see how to persuade the Chinese to cut off their client state. They may not like Pyongyang’s powerplays, but they are even less wild about the notion of a unified Korea allied with the United States.

Actually, the way to achieve it is clear: The Obama administration should go to the United Nations requesting a resolution condemning North Korean aggression under international law. The U.S. should invoke Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, declare a breach of international peace and call for a "police action" to preempt further North Korean attacks. This is not idle armchair analysis. South Korea's Foreign Ministry yesterday accused North of violating the 1953 armistice, and Seoul "has decided to sharply bolster its military arsenal in the tense Yellow Sea to counter any possible additional attack from North Korea." And the government has directed the military to revise its rules of engagement. Of course, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has already warned that Beijing "opposes any threat of force" on the Korean Peninsula, so we know the difficulties ahead. But we shouldn't blink. Given the Obama administration's soft-peddling responses to global threats so far, the U.S. needs to move beyond the current pleasure cruise gunboat diplomacy now under way off the Korean peninsula. The Washington Post reports on U.S. goals in the naval deployment, "U.S. Aircraft Carrier's Arrival Off Korean Peninsula Also Sends a Message to China":

In dispatching the aircraft carrier USS George Washington to the Korean Peninsula on Wednesday, the Obama administration said it was putting on a show of U.S. support for South Korea.

South Korea was attacked Tuesday by a deadly North Korean artillery barrage, days after the North revealed what could be a new nuclear weapons program, and President Obama said he wanted to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with an American ally.

But the carrier - with 6,000 sailors and aviators and 75 warplanes - has another audience: China. Exasperated with a lack of help from Beijing on the Korean Peninsula, the Obama administration is trying to pressure China to constrain North Korea.

That should be just a start. Developing news earlier today indicated that South Koreans were badly shaken by reports of civilian casualties in the Yeonpyeong attacks. And things won't get better with more patty-cake diplomacy and meaningless démarches from the Hillary Clinton State Department. B.R. Myers' essay at NYT is suggestive: "North Korea Will Never Play Nice." But to be even more explicit: Topple the regime in Pyongyang or be prepared for the next generation of deadly hostilities as Kim Jong-il prepares to cede the stage to his successor.

U.S. Weighs Options After North Korean Attack

Interesting piece at Business Insider, "North Korea May Be Too Dangerous to Attack."

And at WaPo, "North Korean Attack on South Korean Island Leaves U.S. With Few Good Options," and NYT, "Korean Clash Forces the U.S. to Weigh Options."

Korean Peninsula on Brink of War

A big write-up at WaPo, "After attack, Koreas on brink of conflagration."

North Korea launched a massive artillery barrage on a South Korean island Tuesday, killing two South Korean marines, wounding at least 19 other people and setting more than 60 buildings ablaze in the most serious confrontation since the North's sinking of a South Korean warship in March.

South Korea immediately responded with its own artillery fire and put its fighter jets on high alert, bringing the two sides - which technically have remained in a state of war since the Korean armistice in 1953 - close to the brink of a major conflagration.

RTWT.

Saberpoint has a nice summary: "North Korea Fires on South Korea." Plus, from Instapundit, "JUST WHAT THE WORLD NEEDS NOW" (via Memeorandum). Actually, I'd like regime change, but who's to quibble? And interesting comments from John Hawkins, "Are North Korea And South Korea Going To War? Probably Not."

And at Wall Street Journal, "Japan on High Alert Following North Korea's Attack."