By Dawn's Early Light

Kim Jong-il in a Bunker Listening to the Smiths

"ASK ME, ASK ME, ASK ME
Because if it's not love
Then it's the bomb
the bomb, the bomb, the bomb, the bomb, the bomb, the bomb
That will bring us together" - The Smiths' song 'Ask'

On America's Independence Day, the North Korean Dear Leader, Kim Jong-il, attempted and succeeded in some fireworks of his own, with a failed ballistic missile launch.  I couldn't help but imagine frizzy hair, bugged-eyed Kim, in some North Korean bunker, listening to the Smiths' "Ask" song, once again miscalculating the world around him outside of his Hermit Kingdom.  While neither the world, or Kim's neighbors, may love him, his desire for a bomb surely can bring the world together.

The Context

The United States had tracked the fueling and preparation of a potential test launch of the North Korean Taepodong 2 ICBM over the past weeks.  This missile is an upgrade to the 1998 Taepodong 1 missile fired over Japan.  The Taepodong 2 has an estimated range of 6,700 km (4,200 miles) and can carry up to a 1,000 kg warhead. (For a history of North Korean missile development and its arsenal, see this excellent Asia Times story).  The North Koreans fired this missile along with 6 others (of lesser strategic value) over a two-day period.  This is in violation of their 2002 pledge not to test missiles.

What Does it All Mean?

1. North Korea's ability to sell "sophisticated" weapons for hard currency may be in greater jeopardy than before the test firing. The failure of the test is a great humiliation to the North Koreans. Possibly more North Korean missiles will rust in warehouses of weary buyers, like with the UAE in 1989.

2. North Korea has given the populations of South Korea and Japan one more great reminder of why a military partnership with the United States is in their strategic national interest.  While Russia and China will not support economic sanctions for the test firing, the international community has roundly condemned the launch.

3. Missile defense will only increase by regional players, including India, which is deciding between the US Patriot-3 system and the Israeli (with American support) Arrow missile defense system.

4. China, which blocked any UN announcement after the 1998 test firing, has allowed the issue before the whole Security Council, especially as they hold a critical seat as a sponsor of the 6-party talks that the North Koreans refuse to attend. 

5. US defense coordination with its allies in the region will only continue, along with the R&D required to continue to field a viable defense.

6. North Korean promises, statements and agreements are less reliable than their Taepodong 2 missile.

It is hard to see how the North Korean regime comes out ahead, based on this failed display of power.  For people who had no interest in the realpolitik arguments of deterrence and national security, they are taking another look and seeking protection from their governments.  This can only lead to greater international security cooperation in Asia with the United States.  A growing consensus is emerging that the threat of a North Korean nuclear "bomb" is bringing the world together.

International Commentary for additional reading

Australia - "Test Firing Linked to Closure of Foreign Banking Channels"
                "Rouge's Missile Menace"

Russia - "Russia blasts N. Korea over missile tests, balks at sanctions"

Philippines - "Politicians agree N. Korea missile launch worrisome"

India - "North Korean Missile tests Suit India"

Japan - "North Korea Launches 7 Missiles"
            "North Korean move triggers annoyance, bewilderment across Japan"

Asia Summary

For Dawn's Early Light readers interested in Asia, here are some articles worthy of mention, though due to my cold I will not be able to provide the normal longer commentary.  However, they are well worth reading and mentioning in this space.

Japan Draft Constitutional Changes Strengthens Military

"Japan's Draft Charter Redefines Military", Washington Post, November 23, 2005

"The governing Liberal Democratic Party on Tuesday released a draft revision of Japan's pacifist constitution that for the first time since World War II would recognize the country's armed forces as a fully functioning military...

The constitutional draft would broaden the government's ability to send forces overseas; such an order now requires special legislation in parliament.

The revision also opens the door to a broader interpretation of the constitution, permitting what some call "collective self-defense" -- or coming to the military aid of other countries. The most likely beneficiary would be Japan's closest ally, the United States, which has urged Japan to adopt such measures. Changes in Japan's constitutional status would have major significance in the region, particularly in the event of a conflict between China and the United States over Taiwan."

DEL posted on this development in "What is Japan's Asia Strategy? (Part II)" on October 29, 2005.  After PM Koizumi's crushing September 11, 2005 electoral victory and his ability to purge his LPD party members that were unsupportive, he is in a good position to continue steps towards strengthening the US-Japanese alliance as well as contain China over issues such as Taiwan and check China's growing military strength.

India to unveil new thinking on foreign investment

The Financial Times (subscription required) writes an article on the above title that is important with respect to India's goals in catching up to China and put some extra horsepower into their economy.

"India’s Communist-backed government will on Thursday afternoon consider a sweeping liberalisation of foreign direct investment rules that would kick start a long-stalled programme of economic reforms.

Kamal Nath, India’s minister for commerce and industry, has proposed allowing 100 per cent foreign direct investment in a range of sectors, including airport construction, oil & gas infrastructure and cash & carry wholesale trading."

Indonesia to Again Receive US Military Support

The US wants Indonesia back in its sphere of influence and not that of the Russians or Chinese.  Goodwill created by the US in the wake of last year's devastating tsunami helped US standing in Indonesia.  This, coupled with its strategic importance as the largest Muslim nation, is the reason for the aggressive US diplomatic move.  The Asia Times Online reports:

"Citing 'national security interests' and noting that Indonesia plays a strategic role in Southeast Asia and is a 'voice of moderation in the Islamic world', the US State Department jumped the gun on Tuesday and lifted a Congress-approved arms embargo against Indonesia.

With East Timor now independent and Aceh no longer a theater of war, Indonesia's pressing need is to upgrade its armed forces to cope with internal security, fight terrorism, guard vital sea lanes, protect the country's numerous oil and gas platforms from terrorist strikes and enforce its maritime boundaries to prevent foreign trawlers from poaching its resources.

Smuggling, illegal fishing and maritime piracy are rife in Indonesian waters, and the addition of more sophisticated vessels will go a long way to curbing these threats...After discussions with President George W Bush, Yudhyono, an ex-general, told a news conference, "I am not pleading for a resumption. We deserve it because we have undergone a reform in our military, with an emphasis on respecting human rights and democracy."

The bulk of Indonesia's hardware is US-made and the TNI - as the army is called - suffers shortages as it can't get replacements and spares.

As a result, Jakarta has increasingly turned to Moscow. After Yudhyono's discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin, it was announced that both leaders had agreed to start up intensive negotiations on setting up a joint production facility for certain sophisticated military equipment and to develop a national defense industry in cash-strapped Indonesia."

Read the whole article for the details on Indonesia's Type 209-class submarines, Ahmed Yani-class ships, Tribal-class frigates, Claude Jones-class frigates, F-5 fighter and A-4 attack planes, F-16As, Su-27SKs Su-30MK fighters and Hawk 209 light attack jets.

China's Awkward Relations with the EU

DEL has written before on the failure of Chinese foreign policy to lift the arms embargo from the European Union (thanks to a strong US diplomatic effort against French profit motives).  Another Asia Times Online piece discusses the EU-French-Sino relationship.

"The recent state visits by President Hu Jintao to the United Kingdom, Germany and Spain are the latest steps in a continuing effort by the Chinese government and its European counterparts to strengthen their ties, but they also demonstrate some of the contradictions China faces in dealing with Europe and its constituent member states.

Both the European Union and China have described their relationship as strategic, although sometimes this seems no more than a hyperbolic way of saying each considers the other important. It is perhaps true that the relationship is more strategic for China than the EU. The promotion of multipolarity is one of the key foreign policy aims of the Chinese government, and the EU is a crucial element in the policy." 

The piece discusses UK, German and French positions within the EU trade and military policy regarding China. 

Hope you enjoy the articles.

Note to Brazil and India: Blame France!

Trade negotiations are tough between nations.  World trade negotiations are extremely difficult, painful, and often very public.  The Doha round of trade talks began in Qatar in November 2001 and is set for another meeting in Hong Kong in December.  The trade talks have not produced substantial results in reducing barriers.  However, the US, in a Zurich meeting of five trade members -- the US, Australia, Brazil, the EU, and India -- proposed a massive cut in trade tariff ceilings.  The Economist reports:

"America can currently spend up to $19.1 billion on farm-production subsidies, which heavily distort trade. The EU can spend over $75 billion. Robert Portman, America's trade representative, offered to cut his country's limit by 60%, if the EU agreed to cut its permitted subsidies by 80%. Mr Portman also suggested limiting other subsidies, which do not distort trade as heavily, to 2.5% of the value of agricultural production. These two limits provide plenty of scope for creative accounting. Even as America lowers the ceiling on the most trade-distorting subsidies, some of this money will be reclassified as something else.

To the big agricultural exporters, such as Brazil, handouts to rich-world farmers, however galling, matter less than access to rich-world consumers. The trade powers appear to have settled on how to cut farm tariffs, if not by how much. Following a scheme outlined in July, tariffs will be divided into four “tiers”, according to their height. Those in the top tiers will be cut by more than those in the bottom. This week, Mr Portman proposed that rich countries should cut any tariff over 60% by as much as 90%, and any under 20% by more than half. No rich country should impose a tariff above 75%, he said."

This proposal woke up the trade negotiations and required a global response.  The US approach definitely supports a more liberal economic view of trade, and it is encouraging to see the US champion an approach that can help the developing world improve its economic lot while making a major American concession.

Background on Trade and the Developing World

It is common knowledge that the US, Japan and Europe have massive farm subsidies that are politically dear to the governments in power.  These subsidies greatly distort the ability of the developing nations to compete with their crops.  Additionally, it applies negative pressure on developing nation farmers as they cannot make their farms profitable, which, of course, does not benefit the developing nations.  The US, Japan and Europe then provide large subsidies, loans and grants to the developing world in attempting to move them out of their economically poor condition.  DEL understands this is a simplified argument and that it doesn't take into account other large inefficiencies in the developing world, like corruption and other policies and practices that keep the poorest people from rising out of their predicament.

Brazil and India wait on Europe

Brazil and India have much to gain by seeing the US proposal advanced.  This left first the potential for Japanese obstruction.  But given Koizumi's September electoral victory, which depended far more on urban support than rural support, it is likely that Japan can find some room for compromise.

The European Union responded with a proposal that is about half of what the US was proposing.  The Financial Times writes:

"The EU said its offer would cut European farm tariffs by an average of 46 per cent and reduce its highest tariffs by 60 per cent, against the 50 per cent cut tabled earlier this month.

However, the US said the average tariff cut would actually amount to 39 per cent and concluded: 'If the final Doha agreement on agriculture were to go no further than this, other areas would also be weak and the Doha round would not approach its potential for promoting development, opportunity and global economic growth.'

The US criticised in particular the EU's continued demand to maintain steeper tariffs on 8 per cent of its 'sensitive' imports. The US and others have called on the EU to reduce the list of sensitive products to only 1 per cent of the total and have also set 54 per cent as the minimum average tariff cut that the EU should offer."

While the EU proposal is not strong enough, the irony is that France's Chirac has vowed to veto even the EU proposal now on the table. FinFacts of Ireland reports:

"'It is totally out of the question for us to go a single step further,' Chirac told a news conference after the EU's informal summit at Hampton Court Palace, near London today. France would have a veto over any agreement, he added."

For background and analysis on Chirac and EU trade negotiator Mandelson's political maneuvers with each other, see this Financial Times piece.

So the EU response yesterday was to table the entire agriculture portion of the debate and move directly towards industry and services, an area of concern more to the developed world and less to the developing world. 

Blame France

The European Union, by French veto power, is the stumbling block in making major agriculture trade reform.  This apparent arrogance directly impacts Brazilian and Indian farmers and should be a good reminder of where French interests lie:  with Chirac's short-term best interests.  France's actions are like a spoiled child who has been indulged for far too long.  The US, Eastern European farming nations, Brazil and India, along with the African nations, should continue to apply pressure on France to reform its farm policies and rightfully link other issues of international relations to produce change.

An Engaging Debate on an Indian Blog

I came across the Indian blog Sepia Mutiny from a link reported on Site Meter.  A reader of the site, KXB, referred to Dawn's Early Light as a source of an American perspective on India. I followed up with a comment on the site's post "Will they or won't they?".  The post is written by Abhi, who is also the blogger from Inside the Mind of Madness

In an over 50-part exchange, KXB refers to DEL in comment 38.  I have written long replies to several readers in a "Realism" vs. "Idealism" vs. "anti-Americanism" in posts 38, 41, 43, 44, 48, 50, 56 and 57.

Please feel free to add to the comments on Sepia Mutiny or leave your thoughts on the dialogue here at DEL. I hope you enjoy the exchange. 

India Passes Law to Curb Corruption

"Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today." - Mahatma Gandhi

"Corruption is a major cause of poverty as well as a barrier to overcoming it. The two scourges feed off each other, locking their populations in a cycle of misery. Corruption must be vigorously addressed if aid is to make a real difference in freeing people from poverty." - Peter Eigen - Transparency International Chairman

India ties for 88th place with the likes of Armenia, Benin, Bosnia Herzegovenia, Gabon, Iran, Mali, Moldova and Tanzania in Transparency International's recently released 2005 Corruptions Perceptions Index.  Compare this to China (also a failing score) at 78th place, but ahead of Pakistan in 144th place.

If India desires catching China economically and becoming a 20th century major world power, corruption must be seriously addressed. 

Prime Minister Manmoham Singh has a major legislative victory in putting forward a piece of legislation much like the American Freedom of Information Act, but with ruthless penalties for government agencies that do not meet the mandate of the law.  The Asia Times Online reports:

"The Right to Information Act (RTI) came into force last week, giving Indians the legal right to seek information from government and aiming to curb corruption.

The new law is meant to curb corruption and inefficiency in the government at various levels and covers all central and state administrations, panchayats (traditional village institutions), local bodies and non-governmental organizations that get public funds. Under the act, the authorities are required to respond to queries in as little as 48 hours, if it is a matter of life and liberty.

The law aims to ingrain accountability and transparency in public functioning, as it specifically provides for hefty fines and disciplinary action against erring officials. The act becomes even more relevant as the government has planned a huge employment-generation program estimated to cost more than US$40 billion per year to be implemented at the behest of public functionaries across the country."

If properly implemented, this law can help the ordinary public fight back against rampant corruption by demanding government accountability and breaking the hold of the Indian mafia on contracts, and India can expect to receive larger foreign investments, a better government, and ultimately a higher standard of living.

The Acorn has another interesting piece on legislation in India that seeks to thwart companies using names that appear to be government related.

Time will tell if it is properly inforced. 

Natural Disaster Creates Opening

The horrific tradegy of the Kashmir earthquake that killed tens of thousands in Pakistan and in India as well has also created a diplomatic opportunity.  The Indian government today responded to Pakistani President Gen. Musharaff's call yesterday to open routes between Kashmiris living and struggling to cope on both sides of the infamous Line of Control (LoC). 

India agreed to allow a few routes to be opened and is providing cell phone access for both sides of the LoC.  According to the Deccan Herald:

"Earlier on Tuesday, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf called on India to allow earthquake-stricken Kashmiris cross the LoC. 'We will allow any amount of people coming across Line of Control,' he told a news conference in the destroyed PoK capital of Muzaffarabad.

'If India agrees, we would like to work out the formalities.... We would like to open many other points. We will allow every Kashmiri to come across the Line of Control and assist in the reconstruction effort,' he said."

Such steps by both governments to reduce tensions in the region will help the long-term security and economies of both nations.  Nevertheless, India needs to maintain the ability to keep Islamic terrorists from crossing over into India.  Confidence-building steps such as these, especially in a time of great need, hopefully will lead to further Indian-Pakistani engagement.

Update: Pakistan and India are in negotiations over opening 5 points across the LoC (see here).  October 22, 2005. 

Update 2: India announces the planned establishment of 3 relief camps on the Indian side of the LoC for Pakistani refuges (see here). October 22, 2005

Rising Asia, but which model? (Part I)

Survey Intro - "Democratic Peace"

There is no greater challenge to American security and ensuring the advancement of individual liberties than winning the War on Terror.  Like the Cold War, the Greater War on Terror will be at least a "generational" struggle.  The ultimate end to the war cannot come by negotiation, treaty or unilateral withdrawal from the field of battle.  Victory can only be achieved through the advancement of democratic principles around the world, the ending of regimes that support and supply terrorists, and the encouragement of liberty in every part of the globe.  This belief in "Democratic Peace" or the notion that democratic nations do not war against one another and have far more stable relations has a long-proven record of empirical success.  This author strongly believes that free people around the world can safeguard and defend their own freedom by advancing freedom for others. 

Based on this premise, I will engage with you, the readers, in a multi-part series on regional and global perspectives on how best to spread Democratic Peace.

Survey Part I - Democratic Peace in Asia

While China and India are not considered the center of gravity in the War on Terror, the two nations combined represent two-fifths of the world's population with dynamic and growing economies in the heart of Asia.  One of these two nations will become a regional hegemon within the next 20 years or so.  While similar in many respects, their systems of government represent two conflicting styles: communist rule, and a British-based democratic system.  How US foreign policy evolves with both nations and how they interact with each other and their neighbors will be a significant factor in ensuring security in the future.

India is a diverse democracy with over 216 different languages, 4 major religions, and a growing economy.  The United States is the number one market for Indian companies, capturing 21.2% of total trade, followed by China in second position with only 6.6% of total trade, while the US is the largest exporter to India [Source Economist].  India's GDP per capita is US$3,040 (Purchasing Power Parity "PPP").  The population of 1.1 billion is growing at a 1.5% rate.  Based on this rate of growth compared to China (see below), India will overtake China in population within approximately 20 years, when both countries have roughly 1.5 billion people.

China too is a diverse country, with a growing capitalist class and nationalist tendencies, especially concerning Taiwan and islands in the Pacific, with a centralized communist system of government.  China's GDP per capita is US$5,811(PPP) and has grown at a faster rate than its Indian neighbor.  The population of 1.3 billion is growing at a small 0.7% rate [Source Economist].

Both emerging nations benefit from a healthy educational system and governments focused on economic growth in a global economy.  While China has enjoyed greater economic success in the past two decades, Indian reforms are enhancing the country's outlook.  Energy is the catalyst for future economic growth, and ensuring its supply is vital to which country will ultimately succeed. This struggle is being witnessed in the CNOOC bid for Unocal and India's desire to build a pipline to Iran.  The edge goes to India, due to sharing with the US core democractic values that are a part of the "Democratic Peace" concept.

Indian Prime Minister Singh was invited to the US for a first-class reception earlier this month.  As a sign of respect and the importance the Administration is placing on the partnership, the President hosted only his fourth black tie formal dinner party, along with honor guard review, and the closest event to a royal reception that a country lacking in royalty could bestow.  The massive US diplomatic ovetures towards India [See Sec. Rice's efforts here, here and here] have set in motion a change in the balance of power of Asia. 

The US and India agreed on the following points [For a greater description see the White House]:

• Moving forward on the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP) to make India a "21st Century World Power" including civil nuclear energy transfers.
• A Revitalized U.S.-India Economic Dialogue Covering Trade, Finance, The Environment, And Commerce to promote trade between the democracies.
• A U.S.-India Energy Dialogue To Strengthen Energy Security And Promote Stable Energy Markets. 
• An Initiative To Enhance Joint Activities In Space Cooperation.
• A U.S.-India Global Democracy Initiative To Aid Developing Democracies. This is a part of the expanding liberty concept of Democratic Peace.
• A U.S.-India Disaster Response Initiative.
• A U.S.-India HIV/AIDs Partnership.
• A U.S.-India Agricultural Alliance.

While military sales were not announced, it is still likely that a growing relationship between the US and India will enhance, ultimately, India's robust defense capabilities.  This has already been seen on the civil side as India purchased a large order of jetliners from Boeing over a rival and public diplomatic push from Airbus and Jacques Chirac.

The US-India partnership, especially if it delivers on the civil nuclear technology while bringing India into an international inspection regime, will go a long way to supplying relatively cheap electricity to a growing industrial economy.  India's growth is also being supported by Japan, which is making large investments in their economy, in part to invest in an alternative to a potential Chinese rival. 

While the US has not publicly committed to supporting India's bid for a UN Security Council seat, the partnership is an important step in supporting an alternative development model in Asia that promotes liberty.  The best hope is that India does succeed in economic growth, thereby giving the Chinese people the desire of a free press and representative government, which is denied them by their current political leadership.

A stronger India will also be a deterrent to an increasingly nationalistic China.  Hopefully, the example of Hong Kong and an emerging Chinese middle class will create the necessary internal pressure to bring about substantive democratic reform.  To keep the focus elsewhere, the Chinese leadership has made Taiwan and Japan the domestic and international villains respectively.  A powerful India will temper regional aspirations from China.

Economic prosperity for the roughly 13% of India's population that is Muslim will be another reason for reform in the Middle East, from Egypt to Lebanon to the Gulf States.  With 2.4 billion people, ensuring and encouraging democracy in China and India is vital to securing our long-term freedom and influencing the South Pacific and thereby winning a front on the Global War on Terror. 

A View of America from Abroad (Part I)

The Pew Global Attitudes Project has released their annual survey on world opinions regarding the United States.  This annual survey over the past 3 years (the survey has run longer) has sampled anywhere from 6 to 44 nations ranging 5,520 responses to as many as 38,263.  This year's survey sampled 16,766 people from 16 nations.

The nations included are predominately from Europe with China and India representing the non-Muslim Asian countries and a collection of Muslim countries from the Middle East to Pakistan and Indonesia.

The responses are an improvement from last year's survey, but not by much.  However, there is significant data to be mined in the study.

India

US diplomacy in South East Asia is paying off.  Even with the US sale of F-16s to Pakistan, 71% of Indians had a favorable view of the United States.  This is striking given their multi-religious emerging democratic society and bodes well for future relations between to the two countries.  Additionally, US support after the December 2004 tsunami left 54% of India's citizens with a more favorable view of the US as well.

The survey also looked at three overall positive attributes of the United States (along with 4 negative traits) and ranked perceptions.  81% of India's population view Americans as "Hardworking" (5th highest view), 86% as "Inventive" (1st of 16) and 58% as "Honest" (2nd of 16). 

With respect to the negative attributes, India sees America as significantly less "Greedy" than Americans do at 43% vs. 70%.  Only 39% of India sees Americans as "Violent" compared to 49% in the States.  For being "Rude," India's people thought Americans rude at 27% compared to domestically at 35%, a rather good outcome, especially considering all of the India call centers that have to deal with frustrated Americans regularly.  On "Immorality" the Indian consensus was 36% to 39% in America.

The highest result for a foreign nation believing that US foreign policy is concerned about others was from India with 63% answering in the affirmative compared with only 26% who answered "no". 

The only country to name the US as their top rated foreign country to go to "to lead a good life" was India, with 38% of respondents opting for the States, a higher percentage overall than any other destination for any nation's respondents.

Strikingly, Indians and Americans have almost identical views in what influences American foreign policy, ranking them in order for both nations: 1) News Media (40% US - 36% India), 2) Business/Corporations (23% -21%), 3) the Military (7% - 6%), 4) Jews (1% - 2%), 5) Conservative Christians (6% - 5%), 6) Liberals (2% - 2%) and 7) Ordinary Americans (13% - 4%) the largest difference. 

On the issue of Iraq, India topped the list as the country that most believed that the world was safer without Saddam, 45% to 26%, ahead of even American views.

On protecting the environment, Indians gave the US its highest ranking from foreign nations.

While most of the responses from the Indians were pro-US, this one statistic stands in sharp contrast.  Would the world be better if "Another Rivaled U.S. Military Power"?  81% of Indians said "yes" while only 15% said "no".  This could be in large part to a history of US support of Pakistan that has only been further highlighted because of the War on Terror.  Additionally, 45% of Indians believe that China becoming a military rival to the US is a positive development.  This could be explained from two perspectives, the first being that Indians are comfortable with growing Chinese power in the region.  However, I suspect a second perspective is a more realist approach from the Indians.  A rising China only increases the value of a strategic US-Indian partnership that would cover economic, military and political areas of mutual support that would further India's strategic and economic importance. 

Overall, the study does point to Bush Administration successes in reaching out to India. 

In my next part of this series I will address US and French views of each other.  They are not what would be expected and point to some positive areas of diplomatic growth in the relationship.

Rumsfeld's Asian Perspective

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave an important speech in Singapore at the International Institute for Strategic Studies on June 4, 2005.  His message to the 19 other defense ministers from around the Pacific Rim and parts of Europe and North America is important from many perspectives.  Sec. Rumsfeld expanded on 1) democratic progress, 2) the the War on Terror, 3) future threats to the US from China and 4) the US effort to grow Pacific alliances.

Democratic Successes

"Much has changed in the world since we met here last year.    The past year has been a time of promise as the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine,  Kyrgyzstan,  Lebanon,  and elsewhere have demanded at ballot boxes the freedom that they deserve.    Dictatorships around the world are losing sway, as more and more people recognize the greater opportunities a life of freedom affords  --  economic freedom and political freedom as well."

Mr. Rumsfeld affirms the core focus of US foreign policy in promoting democratic reforms.  The first two of the five countries he lists were the direct result of US military intervention, the other 3 are a byproduct and response to US efforts in Afganistan and Iraq.  The fruits of American military efforts have spread beyond just the countries with US forces deployed by encouraging a democratic movement through the Middle East and beyond.

War on Terror

Sec. Rumsfeld, while giving a speech on the US focus beyond the War on Terror, was quick to point out:

"But that might have suggested that the War on Terror  --  the struggle against extremism  --  is over.    It is not over.    Violent extremists continue to pose a danger to civilized nations,  and we need to work together to recognize that the threat is a serious one.

The United States is working with many of the nations represented here in this room in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan,  helping their people build countries that will no longer pose a threat to the international order."

The threat of WMD, unstable regimes such as North Korea, and terrorist organizations may have been reduced, but by no means eliminated.

"Perhaps the greatest impetus for modernization and cooperation is the specter of lethal threats confronting all free nations.    Among them is the toxic combination of dangerous weapons,  rogue regimes that seek to export those weapons,  and violent extremists determined to destabilize civilized societies and kill men, women, and children."

Winning the War on Terror is vital for US and our democratic allies' national security.  Losing focus on this war will only make America more vulnerable to future threats.

Freeing the Rising Dragon

China, as a non-democratic nation, is a potential threat to US security interests and the economic and strategic interests of its Asian neighbors.  Mr. Rumsfeld expands on the US desire for greater liberty and reform in Asia:

"A nation that expects its people to unleash their productive energies into the economy  --  but stifles free expression  --  will eventually have to choose between tyranny and progress.    A society that supports political reform  --  but fails to protect its citizens or provide security for them  --  encourages instability and civil strife.    And a secure state that permits neither political nor economic freedom is a system that, in the end, may fall to its understandably restive people."

The heart of his speech with respect to China tackles the double-digit growth in Chinese military spending.

"Although the Cold War is over, this region,  unfortunately,  is still burdened by some old rivalries;  and military budgets are escalating in some quarters.  These are matters that should be of concern.

China’s emergence is an important new reality in this era.   

Indeed, the world would welcome a China committed to peaceful solutions and whose industrious and well-educated people contribute to international peace and mutual prosperity. 

A candid discussion of China, however,  cannot neglect to mention areas of concern to the region.

The U.S. Congress requires that the U.S. Department of Defense report annually on China’s perceived military strategy and its military modernization.     The Department’s 2005 report is scheduled to be released soon. 

Among other things, the report concludes that China’s defense expenditures are much higher than Chinese officials have published.    It is estimated that China’s is the third largest military budget in the world, and clearly the largest in Asia.
 
China appears to be expanding its missile forces, allowing them to reach targets in many areas of the world, not just the Pacific region, while also expanding its missile capabilities within this region.  China also is improving its ability to project power,  and developing advanced systems of military technology.

Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder:

• Why this growing investment?
• Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases?
• Why these continuing robust deployments?"

The three questions asked and the concerns raised by their potential answers are driving other Asian nations into the US sphere of influence to counter a more aggressive and assertive China.  From Japan's strengthening of military ties with the US to Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia's agreement to have the US patrol the oil rich Malacca Straits, to major US overtures towards India, China's emergence is not bringing stability to the region.  This is leading to the US having a golden opportunity to expand its alliances and partnerships in Asia.

Expanding Alliances

While tragic, the December 2004 tsunami afforded the US military an opportunity to work towards humanitarian goals with its Asian neighbors and build goodwill.  It is important to note the countries Mr. Rumsfeld points to in working to solve the crisis outside of the regular NGO and UN organizations:

• "India not only met the needs of its own people;  but,  to its credit,  it also sent troops to help to distribute aid in Sri Lanka;
• Thailand,  despite its own casualties and tragedy,  quickly consented to the use of its bases to serve as the combined support facilities for the relief efforts;
• Malaysia made its airfields available,  facilitating logistical support;  and
• Singapore was first on the scene with life-saving aid,  offering the use of its airfields and port facilities.

Years of bilateral and multilateral meetings and cooperative operations made possible this swift,  team response  --  as  America’s military joined quickly with Australia,  Singapore,  Thailand,  Indonesia,  and many others to provide assistance."

The countries in bold are important for they all are nations that the United States has advanced  diplomatic and military ties with in 2005 from Sec. of State Rice's and Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick's 12-nation tours, to US military vists as well.  These nations represent old and new allies not only in the War on Terror but in the US efforts to contain China.

"From time to time,  some question the priority America places on its Pacific partnerships.    Yet the atmosphere in the tsunami’s aftermath  --  as well as the recent earthquake in Nias  --  demonstrated again that whenever friends and allies in this region confront threats or hardship  --  whether caused by man or by nature  --  we stand at their side.   

These long relationships among nations -- the nations of the Pacific -- led many in this hemisphere to pledge support to the American people after the attacks of 9/11.    And we are deeply grateful.    I am confident that our long friendships will continue to unite us against the common threats ahead."

While it is easy to pass by this statement, it is important.  The US stands by its allies and Mr. Rumsfeld is making clear that the US will continue to work strategically to build a prosperous Asia by backing our allies from future threats.

This year will be a very important year in US foreign policy as we seek to consolidate our successes in the Middle East and promote democracy around the world.  The alliances the US strengthens this year, because of the example demonstrated by its steadfastness in supporting its allies, will be pivotal for securing a leadership role in the new century.

US Center of Gravity Continues to Shift in Asia

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is on his way today to Singapore to meet with 19 other defense ministers to discuss regional Asian security concerns, including North Korea.  Sec. Rumsfeld has added China to the list of topics he will be discussing with American allies at the Shangri-la Dialogue 2005 Conference hosted by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. 

Sec. Rumsfeld is to give a speech on "The US and Asia-Pacific Security Beyond the War on Terrorism" (conference schedule).  This will be an important address before a diverse body of regional players interested in the future of Asia.  Mr. Rumsfeld made some interesting comments regarding North Korea, China and India prior to leaving on Friday:

North Korea

• "Our policy is what it is, and it's well-known." [2]

China

• "With respect to China, it's not completely clear which way they're going because of the tension... between the nature of their political system and the nature of their economic system." [1]
• "With respect to the Peoples Republic of China, it is what it is. It's a big country, with a fairly rapid growth rate.... Its defense budget is growing apace with their economy, and they are a major weapons purchaser in the world, largely from Russia but from other countries as well, and have been deploying a great many ballistic missiles and ships and other military capabilities over a period of years now.... The tension will grow as they move through the years. To the extent that the Republic of China leans toward a freer political system, they will be a considerably more successful country and a more influential country in the world. To the extent they don't do that, there will be pressures against their economy, they will grow less fast, and they will be a less influential country in the world." [1]
• "As a matter of fact, a portion of our Quadrennial Defense Review has to look at the more conventional threats in the world, and we all know that China's economy's growing rapidly.  We know it's been investing in double digits in its military capabilities, that it's been buying a great deal of weaponry from Russia.  And it's a country that is going to reach a fork in the road.  It wants to grow its economy, and to do that it has to have a relatively free economic system, and it wants to maintain its strong control over the political side of its government, which is inconsistent with having a free economic system. So they're going to feel that tension, that stress in the years ahead." [3]

India

• "It's pretty clear where India's going, and one would anticipate the relationship with India will continue to strengthen as we go through the period ahead...."[1]
• "'We have what I would characterize as an excellent relationship with India. From a military-to-military standpoint it has improved in strength every year over the past four and a half years.' The military relationship, which has included joint exercises, 'has been very much leading the other aspects of the relationship, which is a good thing. We are finding many things to cooperate on,' he said. Calling India a 'major power,' the secretary highlighted its standing as the world's largest democracy, its 'relatively free economic system,' and its educated population."[1]

What is important to note in the reports above (the AP and AFP reports completely missed Sec. Rumsfeld's quotes on India) is that it demonstrates the US long-term policy of promoting democratic India over Communist China.  His comments are in line with Sec. of State Rice's comments and overtures towards India (See DEL here).  The title of Mr. Rumsfeld's speech also speaks to a forward-looking US position after the War on Terror.  The terrorism address for the conference is being given by defense ministers from Australia, Singapore and the Philippines.  It is also interesting to note that the only other US-given speech is from Admiral William Fallon, Commander, US Pacific Command, on "Enhancing Maritime Security", which includes the Malaysian defense minister.  Since the US and Malaysia just came to terms about the US patrolling the oil-important Malacca Straits (see here and here), their joint presentation can be seen as a signal to China as well.

The US is shifting forcefully its center of gravity in Asia to India with a firm commitment and alliance with Japan and Australia to contain China at worst and hopefully encourage greater democracy in China at best.  Mr. Rumsfeld's speech, given his comments, will be very telling indeed of US foreign policy goals "after the War on Terror".

Bonus Report on North Korea:  ABC News is reporting

"Rumsfeld would not discuss whether the Pentagon is planning for military options if North Korea goes ahead with a nuclear test. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other Bush administration officials have said they are worried such a test could set off a nuclear arms race in Asia.

North Korea has condemned a U.S. plan to send 15 F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighters to South Korea. The Pentagon said last week the move was part of a long-planned training exercise. Also last week, Washington suspended its program to search for Korean War dead in North Korea, saying the situation there was too dangerous for the American search teams.

Statements from the North's official Korea Central News Agency have been in conflict this week. North Korea first called Vice President Dick Cheney a 'bloodthirsty beast' in response to his telling CNN that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il was irresponsible and oppressive. Then North Korea offered rare praise of President Bush for referring to Kim as 'Mister' during a news conference."

The US is sending 15 F-117As to South Korea and suspending its Korean War dead operations in the North, and then North Korea praises "Mr." Bush.  Could the US be sending a more clear signal to North Korea to come back to the six-party talks?

Sources:

[1] Times of India
[2] ABC News
[3] DOD News (This was a part of a radio interview on June 1, 2005)