By Dawn's Early Light

US-South Korean relations: Where To?

Given South Korean government and youth opinion becoming increasingly negative towards the United States, and in some cases seeing the US as a larger threat than North Korea, I have given increased thoughts to a phased US pullout.

In attempting to reason through what is in the best interests of US foreign policy in Asia and secondly the best interests of our allies in the region, including South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and even Australia, I have looked at several areas.  The three main areas are 1) US strategic and military planning in the region 2) South Korea's newly announced Defense Reform Plan and 3) Effects on potential regional threats, including North Korea and China.

Preface - The Korean War

The Korean War started on June 25, 1950 as Communist North Korea launched a surprise attack against South Korea.  For over three years, until a cease-fire was agreed to in late July 1953, several million people died, including Koreans, Chinese, Americans, British, and Canadians, with massive civilian casualties.

Due to the surprise nature of the attack and the fact that South Korea was not prepared for war, the Communists nearly succeeded in overrunning the country.  The U.N. Security Council, at the time being boycotted by the Russians, condemned, by resolution, the action by North Korea and called for immediate withdrawal of the North Korean military from South Korea, requesting all members of the U.N. to render every assistance in support of the resolution, and, subsequently, to "furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack."  President Truman interpreted the U.N. call for support as an authorization to commit United States troops, which he did, albeit without submission to Congress, the branch of government which, under the Constitution, has the duty to declare war.  U.S. and U.N. troops were placed under the command of American Five Star General Douglas MacArthur.  On September 13 to 15, 1950, Gen MacArthur led a daring and successful counter-attack against the enemy-held port city of Incheon (or Inchon), located 20 miles west of enemy-held Seoul, thereby cutting off the North Korean supply lines and turning the tide of the war.  As the allies pushed towards the Chinese border with North Korea, the Chinese entered the war in October, 1950. 

One of many heroic battles by U.S. troops took place as Army and Marine forces fought at the Chosin Reservoir after being encircled by a numerically superior Chinese Army. This brave and tragic battle is recounted well in Martin Russ's gripping "Breakout: The Chosin Reservoir Campaign, Korea 1950". 

Political influences and apparently personal failings in Washington, D.C. led to the abandonment of the customary tradition of fighting a war to victory, and by mid 1951, the Korean War had entered a stalemate as casualties, both military and civilian, mounted.  The War was stabilized along the 38th parallel that today is the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) separating the two Koreas.  It is the most heavily armed and defended border in the world today.  The United States has kept its commitment to defending South Korea from any end to the cease-fire or from any attack by North Korea.

While there has not been active fighting between the two Koreas since 1953, the fact there is no negotiated peace makes the stability of the region a larger issue for US national security than other nations that enjoy a US security arrangement.

Prior to Sec of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's review and redeployment plans of US forces around the globe, the US had 37,000 soldiers committed to defending South Korea from within the country.  The Department of Defense will draw down this total by 12,000 military personnel by the end of 2008 to end up at 25,000 soldiers*, a reduction of nearly a third.  Along with the draw down, the US is transitioning greater responsibility for the defense of South Korea to South Korea's military and consolidating the remaining US forces between 2007 and 2008 in two bases further south. 

The reduction of US forces is likely motivated by some military and some political reasons.  Militarily, given the US technological supremacy on the battlefield, moving soldiers out of the way of an initial invasion by artillery and rockets is beneficial for a strong American and South Korean counterattack.  US weapons can increasingly fight at longer distances, reducing the need to be forward deployed.  From a political standpoint, American troops near Seoul were becoming more of a political liability as well as being expensive to base.  By moving the forces south, it allows an opportunity for US soldiers' families to potentially move to South Korea as well for the minimum year tour in the country, a net plus for a volunteer army seeking higher retention rates.  South Korean attitudes towards the Americans' presence does not have the same support among the younger generation as it does the elderly that remember the Korean War.  A Pew Global Research survey in 2003 demonstrated 71% of South Koreans aged 18-29 have an "unfavorable" view of the United States.  Even more shockingly, a majority of South Koreans were disappointed that Saddam Hussein's forces did not put up a greater resistance to the initial US invasion.  Given that over 53,000 Americans gave their lives in the Korean War and the US defends the country today, these are rather shocking results.

Why the Divide?

The current Roh administration has pursued a "Sunshine Policy" with North Korea, often at odds with US foreign policy goals for containing North Korea's weapons development, nuclear development, and exporting of weapons for hard currency.  South Korea is also pushing for operational control of military forces in their country (ie., control of US military forces under a unified South Korean commander instead of the current US unified command structure).  This position is unrealistic but could lead to two separate commands or, at the very least, an increase in friction in the alliance.  These differences between the Roh government and the Bush administration is putting a greater strain on the alliance.  Polls have shown a growing distrust of US unilateral action in the world, even right after the September 11, 2001 attacks against the US (see Harris Poll, December 26, 2001).

Given the continuing decline of the US reputation in South Korea, even when balanced against the constant antics and provocations of North Korea, the future of the relationship is a growing concern.  How should the US military plan for defending South Korea?  Should it continue to do so?  What effect will a declining alliance with South Korea have on US-Sino relations and US-Japanese relations? 

The next parts of this series will seek to address these questions.  Your comments and views are welcomed.

Recommended websites for additional reading:
1) The Korean Liberator - a top quality blog on freedom and democracy on the Korean peninsula.
2) Wikipedia - Korean War
3) Winds of Change - GEO Korea

* Thanks to Marvin Hutchens for catching a scribner's error.  The original post stated the final force would be 12,000 instead of 25,000, drawn down by 12,000.

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"

Chinese President Hu Travels to North Korea

Leading up to the upcoming November six-party talks over North Korea's nuclear weapons program, Chinese President Hu Jintao traveled to meet with Kim Jong Il.  The Associated Press reports:

"Hu's trip comes amid U.S. pressure on Beijing to do more to get its communist ally to stop developing nuclear weapons.

The agency said Hu arrived in Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, at midday. Hu was accompanied by China's Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing and other officials, it said.

Li spoke by phone Thursday night with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the foreign ministry said. It said they discussed international affairs but gave no details.

The visit is the first by a top Chinese leader since 2001 and is due to last through Sunday. It comes as China is trying to organize a new round of six-nation talks in November on demands that North Korea give up nuclear development."

This clearly demonstrates China's willingness to take a more complex and personal diplomatic approach to an issue that is at the forefront of US, Japan and South Korea's foreign policy discussions.  If China's president can reach an agreement with the North Korean leader that actually lasts through the talks, it will greatly increase China's position in Asia by helping solve an international issue of great importance.

Time will tell, but Dawn's Early Light wishes the Chinese well in their diplomacy to move North Korea away from giving the region one more reason for an increase in military spending.

What is Japan's Asian Strategy? (Part I)

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi recently completed his 5th visit to a Shinto war memorial shrine that contains the remains of 14 Class-A war criminals for WWII along with a memorial for over 2.5 million other Japanese that have died in the service of their country since 1869.  While Japanese opinion is roughly evenly split (according to this WaPo article) about the visits, Japan's neighbors are in complete agreement that the visits are inflammatory.  China, North Korea and South Korea have all condemned the visits.

So DEL asks, why did PM Koizumi visit the shrine?  (Part I)

And why did he choose now to do it? (Part II)

The Balance of Power in East Asia

Japan, the key economic and military power in East Asia, now finds itself confronted by a China that for over a decade has experienced massive economic growth and double-digit defense growth (see DEL here).  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently commented in China about their lack of transparency in their military buildup and questioned the purpose of developing their military capability (see DEL here and here).  China now has the world's third largest military budget after the US and Russia, according to Pentagon estimates. 

Japan has a population of 127 million that is set to decline within the next two years.  Given Japan's likely economic and potential military decline vis-a-vis China, why would they give the Chinese and democratic South Koreans a reason to stir popular unrest towards their neighbor?

Dawn's Early Light would argue that Prime Minister Koizumi's principal reason is to move Japan away from its pacifist history post World War II and to raise the discussion in Japan about its future security.  The visits have the effect of drawing negative Chinese and Korean reactions.  To build a stronger Japanese sense of self  defense is to pull the Japanese population together because of the external condemnation.

Only by raising Japanese domestic awareness to the potential growing threats in Asia can Japan move more aggressively to defend and promote its national interests.

Tomorrow: DEL looks at the timing of the visit and Japan's international position in Asia.

Update: For a detailed listing of the 14 Class-A war criminals mentioned above, Kushibo has a great summary. (November 25, 2005)

Rumsfeld Goes to China

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld arrives in China today.  His words will be very interesting to watch on three key areas: 1) the massive Chinese military buildup, 2) cross strait relations with Taiwan and 3) six party talks with North Korea.

DEL will follow the Defense Secretary's trip and report on his various speeches and events.  The Washington Post carries and AP story from Robert Burns with some good insight and quotes from Rumsfeld from on board the plane.  Mr. Burns writes:

"Rumsfeld questioned China's motives in underreporting its defense spending. He mentioned no figures, but the Pentagon said last summer that China may be spending $90 billion on defense this year _ three times the announced total. 'I think it's interesting that other countries wonder why they would be increasing their defense effort at the pace they are and yet not acknowledging it. That is as interesting as the fact that it's increasing at the pace it is.'"

"In his remarks to reporters traveling with him from Washington, Rumsfeld said he would not have waited so long to accept China's repeated invitations to visit if not for the April 2001 collision of a Chinese fighter jet and a Navy EP-3 surveillance plane over international waters. The incident infuriated Rumsfeld, who responded by breaking off U.S. military contacts with China for a time."

"The Chinese, however, denied Rumsfeld's request to visit the Western Hills command center, an underground facility that serves as a national military command post. No foreigner is believed to have been inside Western Hills.

Rumsfeld told reporters on Monday that he was not disappointed that he would not see Western Hills. Of his hosts' decision not to permit the visit, he said, "'It tells something about them.'"

Rumsfeld will be meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao and on Wednesday will meet with Gen. Cao Gangchuan and give an address to a Chinese Communist think tank that was formerly run by President Hu.

Chinese Public Comments Prior to Rumsfeld's Arrival

CRI online reports today the following regarding Rumsfeld's visit:

"Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said Tuesday that China is firmly opposed to all kinds of military exchanges between the United State and Taiwan.

The Chinese government is also firmly opposed to any form of US-Taiwan military cooperation including US arms sales to Taiwan, Kong said.

Replying to questions concerning the visit of US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Kong said that the Taiwan issue is the core in the overall Sino-US relations."

This focus is matched by what the Department of Defense (DoD) reported to Congress in its annual China report (for information from the 2003 and 2004 reports see this DEL post).  From the Executive Summary:

"The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is modernizing its forces, emphasizing preparations to fight and win short-duration, high-intensity conflicts along China’s periphery. PLA modernization has accelerated since the mid-to-late 1990s in response to central leadership demands to develop military options for Taiwan scenarios.

In the short term, the PRC appears focused on preventing Taiwan independence or trying to compel Taiwan to negotiate a settlement on Beijing’s terms. A second set of objectives includes building counters to third-party, including potential U.S., intervention in cross-Strait crises. PLA preparations, including an expanding force of ballistic missiles (long-range and short-range), cruise missiles, submarines, advanced aircraft, and other modern systems, come against the background of a policy toward Taiwan that espouses 'peaceful reunification.' China has not renounced the use of force, however. Over the long term, if current trends persist, PLA capabilities could pose a credible threat to other modern militaries operating in the region."

These thoughts were echoed in Sec. Rumsfeld's comments in Singapore earlier in June (DEL post here).  I believe the Defense Secretary will push forward US concerns over growing China's military growth and its potential effect in Asia on his visit.  The Secretary will also discuss efforts the two nations can agree on in the War on Terror.  As the American Forces Press Service writes:

"He expressed hope that China will lend its influence and military capability to other constructive efforts as well. 'Certainly we are looking for ways that we can cooperate to a greater extent in the war on terror and other common interests,' he said.

China is already showing strong indications of that cooperation. Immediately following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States, China offered strong public support for the war on terror and has since been an important partner in U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

China supported U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373, publicly supporting steps to combat international terrorism. It also contributed $150 million of bilateral assistance to Afghan reconstruction following the Taliban's defeat. China also pledged $25 million for Iraq's reconstruction."

While his phrasing will be clear and direct, likely as usual, what the Chinese say and how they say it may be a better indicator of where US-Sino relations are heading.

Update: The UPI is reporting that China announced prior to Sec. Rumsfeld's visit a "white paper" on the "Building of Political Democracy in China".  This white paper seems focused on grass roots areas of democracy, most probably a city-council style approach to democracy for rural and possibly urban areas.

Update 2: tdaxp has a post about the American Arleigh Burke class destroyer, the USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG 54) performing a goodwill visit in China that overlaps Sec. Rumsfeld's visit.

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)

US and Japan Expand Their Military Partnership

Japan and the US signed the US-Japan Security Treaty in 1951 and last updated the treaty in 1960.  This treaty has provided the framework for the defense of Japan by US forces and the vast amount of land provided by the Japanese for American bases.  The Japanese Foreign and Defense Ministers met with their American counterparts in Washington recently to discuss updating the alliance (prior DEL posts here and here).

Many thought the dialogue in DC was principally to sort out the growing unease of American soldiers in Japanese areas like Okinawa and their sometimes criminal behavior that has upset the relationship.  These issues are being addressed but would not alone be the reason for such a public meeting of Sec. Rice and Sec. Rumsfeld with the Japanese last month.  The US-Japanese strategic relationship is quickly maturing as it has to deal with three primary threats to the security of both nations:

• The Immediate - North Korea, its nuclear weapons program and weapons proliferation.
• Mid-Range to Long Term - Checking Chinese hegemonic goals in Asia and their increasingly belligerent tone and military posture with Taiwan.
• Long Range - Thwarting terrorism and the spread of militant Islam, thereby protecting important oil supplies, and stopping the spread of weapons proliferation and defending against missile attacks (see the Proliferation Security Initiative).

The Taipei Times has an excellent piece by Richard Halloran (also printed in the Honolulu Advertiser) on Monday summing up the progress made between the US and Japan over revising their strategic partnership.  This is in sharp contrast to this piece from Lt. Col. William Rapp (US Army) from last summer that argues that the US should de-emphasize its long-term role with Japan and seek more partners (it is a well written and researched piece regardless of its stance).

The US and Japan have agreed to the following joint steps in revising the treaty(Taipei Times):

• "One, roles and missions, in which Americans and Japanese will decide on a division of labor and which forces will be responsible for what missions, to make best use of those forces and to preclude duplication.
• Two, expanded combined operations and training, especially between Japan's Ground Self-Defense Force and the US Army and US Marine Corps. The navies and air forces, which already coordinate many operations, would do more of the same.
• Three, sharing intelligence as the Japanese, in particular, strengthen their ability to collect and analyze information and then to meld it with intelligence produced by US services.
• Four, revised war plans, a touchy subject that officials are reluctant to discuss in public. A US official said, however: "We continually review our bilateral coordination mechanisms and processes."
• Five, moving a US Army corps headquarters to Japan from the US to put it in the region where it would operate and into close proximity to Japan's Ground Self-Defense Force for combined planning, training and operations.
• Six, researching and building a combined ballistic missile defense that would be aimed first at the missile threat from North Korea, which fired a missile over Japan in 1998, and then at the longer range threat from China."

The above concepts point to a deepening relationship as greater intelligence is shared, US and Japanese forces are further intergrated, and long-term strategic defense objectives are coordinated. 

The US has to be careful to garner broader support of the Japanese public as it becomes increasingly concerned that it may be drawn into a war because of its alliance with the US.  This is tempered by the unpredictable North Korean situation that encourages the Japanese to look to US leadership and security guarantees.  The alliance revisions can also be seen as an attempt to contain China.

If the US, along with its allies, can continue to encourage democracy in the Middle East (a big "if" that DEL is optimistic about), the great challenges to US security are likely to come in Asia over North Korea, Taiwanese independence desires, and/or terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism in Southeast Asia.  Building upon the 60 years of history between the US and Japan is in the interest of all free people in Asia and beyond.

Update: Secretary Rice said today at the start of a six-nation trip to Asia that includes China: "Certainly, [China's] military spending is concerning because it is taking place at a time when the cross-Strait issue (with Taiwan) is not still resolved and in which the United States has certain commitments to a peaceful solution."  - Containment continues

The North Korean Party Line Courtesy of the LA Times

I started reading Hugh's commentary on a Los Angeles Times article on North Korea today.  I canceled my subscription to the LAT long ago for its clear and consistent editorialism in its non-editorial pages.  I told myself, I would not let Hugh work me up on this one, because such is the Los Angeles Times. 

However, his post was passionate and he was focused on the issue, so I thought I would read the "offending" article.  It is maddening and extremely one sided.  I am shocked, even by my extremely low opinion of the Los Angeles Times, that they would print such a clearly North Korean propaganda piece.

So, let's fisk the article (LAT in blue):

"He arrived at the entrance to a North Korean government-owned restaurant and karaoke club here in the Chinese capital with a handshake and a request. "Call me Mr. Anonymous," he said in English.

This North Korean, an affable man in his late 50s who spent much of his career as a diplomat in Europe, has been assigned to help his communist country attract foreign investment. With the U.S. and other countries complaining about North Korea's nuclear weapons program and its human rights record, it's a difficult task, he admitted."

So the Barbara Demick, the LAT reporter is talking to a North Korean diplomat, that enjoys the luxuries of living away from his own country's oppressive regime trying to "raise money" (unless of course he is looking to sell arms or trade technology), in a North Korean owned club in China.

"'There's never been a positive article about North Korea, not one,' he said. 'We're portrayed as monsters, inhuman, Dracula … with horns on our heads.'"

I am glad to see Mr. Anonymous now has a friend and a positive article in the Los Angeles Times.  He can't use this line in anymore with reporters.

"So, in an effort to clear up misunderstandings, he expounded on the North Korean view of the world in an informal conversation that began one night this week over beer as North Korean waitresses sang Celine Dion in the karaoke restaurant, and resumed the next day over coffee.

The North Korean, dressed in a cranberry-colored flannel shirt and corduroy trousers, described himself as a businessman with close ties to the government. He said he did not want to be quoted by name because his perspective was personal, not official. Because North Koreans seldom talk to U.S. media organizations, his comments offered rare insight into the view from the other side of the geopolitical divide."

Well at least the North Koreans and us can agree we like Canadian singers.  That is a start for diplomacy isn't it?  More that unites our two governments than divides us.  I also love the imagery of the cranberry-colored flannel shirt with cords.  It brings to mind this image.  Very strong, masculine image of a down to earth former diplomat.  (To listen to the Monty Python Lumberjack song click here)

This is the business man described with "close ties" to the government of North Korea.  The talking points fed to the Los Angeles Times continue.

"He said better relations with the United States were key to turning around his nation's economy, which has nearly ground to a halt over the last decade amid famine, the collapse of industry and severe electricity shortages. "For basic life, we can live without America, but we can live better with" it, he said."

The North Korean government subjects its people and especially children to starvation.  Over two-thirds of North Korean children are malnourished. According to Disaster Relief, a partnership of the Red Cross, CNN Interactive and IBM,  "To survive the months ahead, millions of famished North Koreans will eat wild plants, tree bark, and noodles and cakes made of indigestible grasses and cornstalks."

The Lumberjack continues to be quoted:

"Yet he voiced strong enthusiasm for his country's recent announcement that it had developed nuclear weapons. The declaration, which jarred U.S. officials, was not intended as a threat, he said, but merely a way to advance negotiations.

'Now that we are members of the nuclear club, we can start talking on an equal footing. In the past, the U.S. tried to whip us, as though they were saying, 'Little boy, don't play with dangerous things.'

A colleague, a 55-year-old man also visiting from North Korea, nodded.

'This was the right thing to do, to declare ourselves a nuclear power. The U.S. had been talking not only about economic sanctions, but regime change,' the businessman said. 'We can't just sit there waiting for them to do something. We have the right to protect ourselves.'"

How much did the North Koreans spend on a nuclear weapons program that they shared with countries that support terrorism such as Libya?  Nowhere does the Los Angeles Times point out that North Korea has 1.2 million soldiers, the world's 4th largest army, or that it spends 20%-25% of its GDP on military spending.  Does the Los Angeles Times wonder why the North Korean economy is in the tank with defense spending 5 times that of the United States on a percentage of GDP basis?

"'The North Koreans said they were keenly attentive to the language used by Bush administration officials in regard to their country. They were relieved that in this year's State of the Union address the president didn't again characterize North Korea as part of an "axis of evil," as he did in 2002. But they were greatly offended that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called North Korea an "outpost of tyranny" during her confirmation hearings.

"We were hoping for change from the U.S. administration. We expected some clear-cut positive change," the North Korean said. "Instead, Condoleezza Rice immediately committed the mistake of calling us an outpost of tyranny. North Koreans are most sensitive when they hear that kind of remark.'"

Condi's tough talk upsets the North Koreans.  A country that has its children eating bark off of trees that spends 25% of its GDP on defense is an "outpost of tyranny".  "We were hoping for change from the U.S." is code for "we were hoping for John Kerry" (whom they supported during the campaign). 

"He believes that Americans have the wrongheaded notion that North Koreas are unhappy with the system of government under Kim Jong Il. "We Asians are traditional people," he said. 'We prefer to have a benevolent father leader.'"

Kim Jong il is no benevolent father leader.  He is a leader who starves his people, works to build nuclear weapons, fires missiles over his neighbors like Japan, exports drugs for cash and speaks of leveling Los Angeles with a nuke.

"He also said that U.S. criticism of North Korea's record on human rights was unfair and hypocritical. In its annual human rights report on Monday, the State Department characterized North Korea's behavior as 'extremely poor.' It said 150,000 to 200,000 people were being held in detention camps for political reasons and that there continued to be reports of extrajudicial killings.

'Is there any country where there is a 100% guarantee of human rights? Certainly not the United States,' the businessman said. 'There is a question of what is a political prisoner. Maybe these people are not political prisoners but social agitators.'"

The only reminder to the LAT reader of North Korea's problems comes in this paragraph about human rights, but quickly gives the North Korea response that the US isn't perfect, therefore don't complain about people dying in political camps and starving.

"While Westerners tend to stress the rights of the individual, he said, "we have chosen collective human rights as a nation…. We should have food, shelter, security rather than chaos and vandalism. The question of our survival as a nation is dangling."

The North Korean admitted that "it is no secret that we have economic problems," and he said North Koreans were themselves largely to blame because they let their industry become too dependent on the socialist bloc countries. After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, trade fell sharply.

But he faulted the United States for the collapse of a 1994 pact under which North Korea was supposed to get energy assistance in return for freezing its nuclear program. The agreement fell apart after Washington accused North Korea in 2002 of cheating on the deal, and the U.S. and its allies suspended deliveries of fuel oil."

The North Koreans cannot even provide their own description of "collective human rights".  This whole concept is a joke and a communist response to all human rights abuses.  The 1994 agreement, as symbolized with this picture

The article continues.  You can read it.  There really is no point, unless you are hungry for "news" straight from Pyongang.

The Regime is the Problem

In the comments section of my last post, Glenn Carlyle Smith has an excellent comment that drives to the heart of the North Korean issue.

What precedents are there for successfully moving a mass murdering, dictatorial regime out of the nuclear club? While nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea’s current rulers are a potentially lethal danger to the whole world, from Kim Jong-il’s perspective, what better deterrent to aggression could there be? If you were in his shoes, with his goals, would you give them up?

It will be interesting to see what strategies are tried to deal with such a situation. The Clinton administration’s idea was to pay the North Koreans not to build nukes. The North Koreans took the payment and built the nukes anyway. By comparison, the Bush administration strategy seems to be to better isolate North Korea, apply stronger economic pressure (potentially through China), and, if it comes to it, pay North Korea to give up its weapons. I doubt North Korea will object to being paid. I also doubt the regime will ever give up the weapons.

Many countries have nuclear weapons, from democracies such as the U.S., Great Britain, and France, to societies less free, such as Russia and China. We aren’t looking to pay any of them to give up their nuclear weapons. Why? Because it’s not the weapons that are the problem, it’s the regime.

In my view, we aren't going to be able to take nuclear weapons away from Kim Jong-il. The only solution is take Kim John-il away from the weapons.

I wholeheartedly agree.  However, military action looks extremely challenging, especially with so many South Koreans in the line of fire of the DMZ (North Korea could rain over 25,000 artillery shells on Seoul with a population of 9.9 million people).  Being dragged into direct talks between the North Koreans and the US is not a good solution either.  This reduces the pressure that can be applied by Russia, China, Japan and South Korea, all four of which have a very vested interest. 

Further sanctions that are aimed at crippling the regime appear our best hope.  But time is not on our side since we already know that North Korea is exporting its technology to Arab governments such as Libya for cash.  How much technology is Iran receiving from North Korea?

The regime is the problem.