Tuesday, March 29, 2005
"'Quiet Diplomacy' Update," by Joshua, One Free Korea, 29 March 2005, http://freekorea.blogspot.com/2005/03/quiet-diplomacy-update_29.html.
South Korea believes in One Korea, Free From Foreigners. They have realigned as a friend of Pyongyang.
They are against freedom. It is very hard to see the silver lining in this cloud.
[D]ue to intense though indirect pressure by Seoul officials, the North Korean execution tapes, purportedly of "middlemen" who help refugees escape to China, are not yet available for viewing by Koreans in the South. The indirect censure adds to frustration among those documenting the gulags and torture in the North. They charge indifference in the South to evidence of manifold suffering by ethnic siblings across the demilitarized zone.
What is so worrying about this is Seoul's backsliding. They are becoming less internationalist and less free with every news story. China, Vietnam, and Cambodia are all getting better. South Korea is getting worse.
South Korea is not our enemy. They are a more-or-less free society that is heavily integrated into the world economy. But they are not a friend like Britain, India, and Japan. They are not allies.
South Korean policy appears to be a separate peace with that tailbone of the Cold War, North Korea. If they are strong enough to make peace on their own, then they are strong enough to defend themselves on their own.
United States Forces Korea has served its purpose. Bring them home.
"India Quietly Welcomes U.S. Decision to Sell Arms to Both South Asian Nuclear Rivals," NTI, 29 March 2005, http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/print.asp?story_id=732AE955-80D2-4B11-ACD2-F1B05AFA24A5 (from Dawn's Early Light).
Dawn's Early Light's Bill Rice was kind enough to email me a startling article. It looks like DEL's improbable suggestion, that the sale of F-16s to Pakistan is a sign of improving ties to India, is right after all
Indian officials have publicly said only that they would consider the U.S. offer, but, 'Even India, with a long tradition of making foreign policy self-goals, will find it hard to say ‘no’ to the extraordinary offer the Bush administration has put on the table — a promise to assist it in becoming a world power in return for resumption of arms sales to Pakistan,' said longtime South Asian commentator C. Raja Mohan.
Mohan expressed doubt that India was genuinely concerned about seeing more F-16s in Pakistan.
'Today, no one in India can credibly argue that additional F-16s in Pakistan’s hands will alter the military balance in South Asia,' he said.
India has already acquired more-advanced Su-30 combat aircraft from Russia and is shopping for additional aircraft from other countries as well, AFP reported (Agence France-Presse I).
Huh. I wasn't that optimistic. Or that observant. Congrats Bill.
My only issue is with Bill Rice's closing paragraph
While the article quotes an analyst and not a government official, I think it lends support to the DEL prediction that Secretary Rice cut a deal with the Indian government on her last trip that was too good to pass up, and that the F-16 deal with Pakistan is part of the overall US plan. If India does buy US aircraft, whether it is F-16s, F-18s or a combination of both, it will be a sign that the US has struck an alliance with India to contain China.
Who are we allied with to contain Japan? To contain Britain?
China's opening-up is transforming. If it goes well, war between Washington and Beijing will be as unthinkable as war between Paris and Berlin. Already it is as unthinkable as such a war was in 1910.
We must hedge and deter. But we do not "contain."
"F-18s never sold to any other countryAdd to Clippings," by Indrani Bagchi, Times of India, 27 March 2005, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1063658.cms (from Free Republic).
At least, that appears to be America's offer
Boeing, Lockheed Martin's competitor in Indian markets, has sewed up a strategic alliance with the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, to conduct research in aerospace materials, encompassing new age nanotechnology, smart materials and even simulation — to infuse the best of these new ideas and technologies into Boeing. These are technologies of critical importance to the future of aerostructures.
By allowing the F-18s to be sold to India, the US is making more than a simple statement of sale. Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, popularly known as F-18s, and land and carrier-based fighter jets have not been sold to any country, even to NATO allies, according to senior aviation officials.
Nice. India is a prospering democracy, and will be an important ally to the United States. America must shepherd China's transformation from despotism to market-oriented friend. Building friendships with other regional powers is part of that.
In different ways, this is as important as American military connectivity with Vietnam. In both cases, the Cold War alliance structure is finally melting away. America is a natural friend to all economically free and peaceful societies, and a natural ally to all free democracies.
In another angle, America's sale of F-16s to Pakistan is still worrying. It may have been necessary, but as the article makes clear the F-18s are far superior to what we sold the pseudo-Islamist dictatorship.
As the details of the US deal for India unfold, it is clear thatthe F-16s for Pakistan are no match for what India could access from the US. The Lockheed Martin executive, Mike Kelly, was quoted as saying, "We have in the past taken up building of such exclusive fighters for UAE and are prepared to manufacture F-16s to India's special requirements."
"U.S. Navy Warship Visits Vietnam," by Margie Mason, Associated Press, http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/11257373.htm (from Free Republic).
Docks at Saigon. Greeted warmly. Home movies and photographs taken. Fun had by all.
An American warship made a rare visit to Vietnam on Tuesday, a sign the two countries are looking to improve military ties 30 years after the Vietnam War.
Sailors dressed in white lined the decks of the USS Gary as the frigate docked in Saigon Port, where it is to remain for five days. The warship was just the third Navy vessel to make a port call in the communist country since the war ended on April 30, 1975.
The Stars and Stripes flew alongside the Vietnamese flag as the ship eased up the muddy Saigon River. Many of the more than 200 sailors aboard snapped pictures or videotaped its arrival.
The two sides signed a landmark bilateral trade agreement in 2001, and business has exploded in recent years. But work in the sensitive area of military cooperation has only just begun.
As the United States and Vietnam find common ground on issues of counterterrorism and regional stability, future military ties will likely include more ship visits and high-level exchanges such as Vietnamese Defense Minister Pham Van Tra's historic trip to Washington in 2003.
"The most important thing for both of our nations and peoples to do is to continue to look forward, not backward," U.S. Ambassador Michael Marine said.
Some in Vietnam believe the U.S. military may be looking to their country as a future strategic area to establish a base to counter growing Chinese influence in Southeast Asia. But Marine said that was not the case.
This is very good news. Normalization with Vietnam was pushed by Senators McCain and Kerry, and this happy news is a result of their work.
There is little need to contain China, but that does not mean we can be wreckless. We should hedge against future disasters and quietly remind China that peace is in its interests. Through demonstrating our security intention in lands surrounding China -- from Mongolia to Korea to Taiwan to India to Kyrgyzstan, and maybe soon to Vietnam, we discourage Chinese military ambitions. This funnels Chinese ambitions into peaceful economics, increases security, and builds a future worth creating.
Saturday, March 26, 2005
"China pitching for FTA with India," Financial Express, 25 March 2005, http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=86137 (from The Acorn).
"US gives Pak F-16s, India gets F-16s plus plus," by C Raja Mohan and Pranab Dhal Samanta, Indian Express, 25 March 2005, http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=67213 (from The Acorn).
"Behind the Bugti frontlines," by Sherry Rehman, The News, 26 March 2005, http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/mar2005-daily/26-03-2005/main/main7.htm (from The Acorn).
India is Functioning, Pakistan is Non-Integrating. Again and again, New Delhi seeks to grow the world economy and create a global security regime. Again and again, Pakistan proves it is a failing state.
As India and America grow their security ties stratospherically
On missile defence, the classified briefing given to India by a Pentagon team last month was on the PAC 2 Plus system. This takes care of integration with radar systems being developed now by Raytheon. Such a briefing has only been given to Israel outside the NATO.
The Bush Administration is also proposing a major change in its non-proliferation policy towards India by offering cooperation in the area of commercial atomic energy generation—including nuclear reactor technology—for the first time in three decades.
This comes days after US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice—she spoke to External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh in Myanmar today—had revealed a package of proposals aimed at addressing India’s security and energy needs.
Having opposed the natural gas pipeline with Iran, the Bush Administration believes it has an obligation to offer alternative options to India. It is in this context that Washington is proposing nuclear energy cooperation.
The Bush Administration is expected to shortly take up the possibility of such cooperation with the US Congress that has put in legislative constraints on the transfer of nuclear energy technology.
To top it all, the Bush Administration wants a dialogue on global issues with India aimed at increasing New Delhi’s role in international institutions such as the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and Group of Eight industrial countries.
And India ponders a free trade agreement with that other rising state, China
China is pushing for a free trade agreement (FTA) with India which, it claims, would result in the biggest free trade region in the world.
Speaking to media persons at a round table on trade with China organised by the Federation of Indian Export Organisation, Chinese Ambassador to India Sun Yuxi said that while the Chinese government supported the proposed FTA, the business community and experts needed to have detailed discussions on the issue.
Referring to the recent meeting of the joint study group (JSG) on closer economic co-operation between India and China in New Delhi, Mr Yuxi said the Chinese representatives in the group had advocated the need to go in for an FTA between the two countries. “It is now for the Indian side to take a decision on the issue,” he said.
(In other words, while India is growing its web of security and trade connectivity.)
The Crumbling Islamic Republic
Secessionist Baluchistan in the South-West
Anarchic Tribal Regions in the Center-West
Disputed Kashmir in the North-East
Rump Pakistan in the Middle
Pakistan falls apart
Balochistan’s geo-strategic location has put it squarely back in the new great game for energy and shipping lines, and the colonial administrative structures left intact there since the 19th century feed into the ambiguity about state law that such tribal societies experience. Vital parts of the huge province are in the grip of an open civil war, administered under three crumbling legal systems, but the tragedy is that Islamabad is still sleeping, almost a hundred years removed from the reality of the backwater that could break away Pakistan’s long under-populated flank.
As it stands, the military logic is as follows: if even a proportion of all 6,000 FC personnel stationed in Balochistan are transferred to Dera Bugti, to supplement the 600 odd men the FC has posted in Dera right now, they will of course win more than a pitched battle with the outnumbered Bugtis. What the military is finding hard to grasp is that they will still lose the war. Basically, the way the terrain is configured, it is almost impossible to win a final battle against hardened tribals that know the landscape, its secret gulleys, its dips and peaks. Anybody, who has followed the tortuous history of the Afghan resistance against the Soviets can see the parallels between the Salang highway bottlenecks and the negotiating power of the warlords, who routinely bartered their control of the supply route for political and fiscal exchanges. The only difference here is that the Baloch field commanders cannot be broken by cash and compromise, so they remain committed to their political objectives, and in this case they are engaged in battle against their own government, not a foreign power.
Friday, March 25, 2005
"Focus of Indo-Japan relation should be FDI-based: Kamal Nath," Navhind Times, 17 March 2005, http://www.navhindtimes.com/stories.php?part=news&Story_ID=03179.
"Brazil, Germany, India, Japan Accelerate U.N Reform," China View, 23 March 2005, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-03/23/content_2731138.htm.
"The Year of Korea-Japan Friendship," by Curzon, Coming Anarchy, 24 March 2005, http://www.cominganarchy.com/archives/2005/03/24/the-year-of-korea-japan-friendship/#more-385.
"S. Korea Will Ease Regulations on Trade and Traffic with the North," Arirang TV, 24 March 2005, http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200503/200503240007.html (from Gardner in Korea).
"South Korean Links to U.S. Called Frayed," by Brian Lee, JoongAng Daily, 26 March 2005, http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200503/23/200503232225161809900090309031.html (from One Free Korea).
Perhaps the Republic of Korea will not be in the Pacific NATO. Hopefully South Korea's Roh is an aberation, or he is playing a deeper game, but he positioning himself to be North Korea's best friend.
As new Core India continues to join the world, emphasizing investment not aid with old Core Japan...
The Minister of Commerce and Industry, Mr Kamal Nath today said the emphasis of India-Japan bilateral trade relationship should be foreign direct investment (FDI) based and not official development assistance (ODA) based.
“India is one of the largest ODA recipients from Japan. However, in the changed context of our desire for seeking a new economic partnership, it is important that we shift the emphasis of India-Japan relationship from ODA-based to FDI -based,” the Minister said.
The Commerce Minister, who was speaking at a symposium on ‘Japan and India: challenges and responsibilities as partners in the 21st century in Asia’ organised by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), said there is a vast potential for higher levels of Japanese investment in India.
“Japanese business can make use of the growing opportunities in sectors like infrastructure, telecom, power and construction in India,” he said.
... and as India and Japan march with emerging Brazil and old Germany to obtain world prominence...
The countries of the Group of Four - Brazil, Germany, India and Japan - demanded Tuesday a resolution in the reforms of the United Nations Security Council prior to coming September.
The Group of Four gathers states who declare themselves prepared to take the rights and duties inherent to the condition of permanent member of the UN Security Council.
... South Korea picks a(n economic?) fight with Japan ...
There could be a hard diplomatic war... that may reduce exchanges in various sectors and cause economic difficulty… But we do not have to worry much about it … we are determined to take the hardship on our shoulders if we really have to.
... while attempting to integrate with North Korea economically
The South Korean government will ease regulations on trade and traffic with North Korea, starting from as early as next week.
Under the new measures, military inspections will be abolished for vehicles crossing the western section of the inter-Korean border using the road running alongside the Gyeongui railway.
The road is frequently used by South Korean businesses to transport machinery and equipment to the industrial park in the North Korean border city of Kaeseong.
Also up for changes are customs procedures. South Korean companies doing business in the North no longer have to report to the Unification Ministry on what items are being carried in and out of the South.
Unification Ministry officials say the latest measures are aimed at providing convenience for companies operating in the North.
... as Korea's military alliance with the United States continues to crumble
On her return from an eight-day trip to the United States, Park Geun-hye, chairwoman of Grand National Party, told reporters yesterday that relations between South Korea and the United States are far worse than Koreans imagine they are.
"I met various politicians," said Ms. Park. "If the mistrust that prevails among the politicians spreads to the general public of the United States, bilateral ties between the two countries will face greater problems."
Ms. Park had a meeting with U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to discuss the North Korean nuclear crisis, among other issues. She said a lack of cooperation between South Korea and the United States was the chief reason for the current stalemate in trying to end Pyongyang's nuclear weapons efforts.
"If the gap in South Korea-U.S. cooperation widens, the North Korea nuclear problem will only become tougher," said Ms. Park. She added that differences in actions taken and words spoken by the South Korean government have led to the erosion of trust between South Korea and the United States.
Depressing news. If South Korea is attempting a xenophobia One Free from foreigners Korea strategy, it is the worst disaster of the Bush Presidency. And the Roh Presidency.
Monday, March 21, 2005
"Losing a Battle to Win a War," by Bill Rice, By Dawn's Early Light, 17 March 2005, http://dawnsearlylight.blogs.com/del/2005/03/_would_you_be_s.html (from The Fourth Rail).
"Perhaps your point is the more valid...," by Thomas Hazlewood, By Dawn's Early Light, 21 March 2005, http://dawnsearlylight.blogs.com/del/2005/03/_would_you_be_s.html.
I remember the news...
Would you be surprised to know that in 2004, the United States Air Force (USAF) lost a major training exercise against the Indian Air Force (IAF)? I was.
"Although service officials have been reluctant to detail how the Indians performed against the six F-15Cs from the 3rd Wing that participated in Cope India, Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) said in a Feb. 26 House Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing that U.S. F-15Cs were defeated more than 90 percent of the time in direct combat exercises against the IAF."
Rice lists how the United States Air Force set itself up for failure...
- The scenarios were four versus 12 or a 1 to 3 ratio against the American
- The F-15Cs did not have their advanced AESA radars
- The F-15Cs were not allowed to fire beyond 18-20 nautical miles
- The IAF used advanced AA-12 Adder missiles that do not require continued pilot control and allow the attacking pilot to fire and fly away
- The US flew boilerplate defense formations that were based on having the long range ability and AESA radars
He also explains why
- Because the Air Force is trying to buy the wrong weapon, again?
While the F-22 is a huge improvement over the F-15C, if the US sees its air missions as being supportive of ground troops in the Middle East, it is difficult to argue why scarce defense resources should buy even more sophisticated fighters
- To see how China fights, without letting China see how we fight?
China, over the past 5 years, has purchased 60 SU-30s from Russia and has negotiated transfer of technology arrangements with the Russians worth over $2 billion. The US had a golden opportunity to witness dissimilar air combat training with aircraft very similar to what the Chinese would employ against Taiwan. The US used boilerplate tactics to not give away how the pilots of the F-15Cs from their briefing and intel room meetings would really plan a solid defense. They instead focused on watching the capability, studying it, and preparing for not another exercise, but the real deal.
Tom Hazlewood gives another theory
Perhaps your point is the more valid, yet, I'm thinking of circumstances like the German's surprise upon learning of the T-32 tank, and the American's comeuppance upon first meeting the Tiger at Kasserine, and the Israeli shock in 1973 upon finding every other Egyptian soldier carried SAMs.
A test in which we approach the enemy as though we have a capacity which we would THEN find to be useless would test our ability to adapt on the fly (pardon the pun). For instance, how much preparatory bombardment should the Navy provide before assaulting Tarawa Atoll, circa 1942? Will the bomber always get through, General Douhet? Did we learn anything of value from Dieppe?
Failure to provide for eventualities has, historically, proven costly. Better to test such eventualities in rehearsal than to learn bloody lessons the hard way.
A great post and a great comment! I have nothing to add.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
"Don't blame you for Hiroshima and Nagasaki," by Masagata, Dear Americans, http://dearamericans.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/03/02/don_t_blame_you_for_hiroshima_and_nagasaki.html, 2 March 2005.
"War is a tragedy," by Dan, Dear Americans, http://dearamericans.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/03/02/don_t_blame_you_for_hiroshima_and_nagasaki.html, 2 March 2005.
Out of the blue I came across this post
I am Japanese and identify myself as patriot and pacifist.
In my country, there is an enormous criticism for that US dropped atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, I do not agree with those who criticise your country for that matter.
The following is the reasons for that,
1) Japan was the first one who started the war. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor first. Once the war is started, the rules are maximum damage on the enemy's side, the minimum damage on your side. The nation knew it when it started the war and the rules would continue until it wins or surrenders.
2) Japan did brutal masscre of civilians like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. During 1930's and US-Japan war time, Japanese army occupied China and masscred enoumous number of civilians. One of the examples is Rape of Naking in 1937. Not revewing such facts, we shouldn't blame others' brutality. In fact, we haven't reviewed the past brutality enough like Germans did.
However, I do not support US's dropping atomic bombs because civilian casualties should not happen and it started the age of nuclear war.
What do you think about my opinion?
Wow. You're not reminded of nuclear war before you go to bed every night, and certainly not so politely.
I thought for a while, and came up with this comment
War is a tragedy. I wish no one had to die in wars. Many bad things happened in the Pacific War. One friend of my grandfather died in Bataan, and another probably would have been killed in Operation Olympic. But bad things happened to Japanese people too. Many, many, many Japanese people died and disappeared in China and Russia even after the war ended.
I am glad Japan and America are friends now. I hope one day all nations will be friends, and there will be no more wars.
I want a future where cities do not get blowed up. I want a future without death marches, without hundreds of thousands of disappeared, and without war. If we need a star chamber to name the wicked, a leviathon to enforce the star chamber's will, and a reformed system administrator to rebuild those states, fine.
The democratizations and freedoms of globalization are man's greatest hope of avoiding war. Let's hope it is enough.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
"Sen. Clinton Urges Punishment For Syria Discussion Thread," by Devlin Barrett, "chlamor," et al, Democratic Underground, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1276161#1276340, 1 March 2005.
"Al From says Dems must 'reject Michael Moore and the MoveOn crowd' Discussion Thread," by Elizabeth Wilner, "RealDems," et al, Democratic Underground, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1630278#1630677, 1 March 2005.
Almost as sexy as a Korean phone model, a Super Bowl ad model, or a Secretary of State... a liberal war hawk
Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called Tuesday for tougher punishment against Syria, saying the country was aggressively supporting terrorism in the "dangerous neighborhood" of the Middle East.
In lambasting Syria, Clinton joined a growing chorus of officials in Washington urging the United States to take a harsher stance against that country following a Feb. 14 bombing in Beirut that killed the former premier of Lebanon.
Both Iran and Syria were cause for alarm, but Clinton said Syria deserved special attention.
"I've been particularly troubled by the Syrians' aggressive posture," said Clinton. "We need to send a very clear message that we will not tolerate what we believe to be and have reason to know is the continuing support for terrorism that comes out of Syria and Iran."
Clinton, considered an early front-runner for her party's nomination to the White House in 2008, has asked the Bush administration to toughen economic sanctions against Syria.
She was followed to the stage by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who hinted that Syrian President Bashar Assad may find it difficult to hold onto power amid the push for greater democracy in neighboring Lebanon.
Not that DUers are happy about it
Hilary, guess what?
They have room in the Hague for you too. And your cell is being prepared.
We have our own legal system in place to punish war criminals like her when the day comes. And when that day comes I will be celebrating.
Ironically, the paranoid are more civilized. Maybe they believe the rude are sent to Gitmo?
Or a prelude?
To her version of..."The Draft"?
Meanwhile, the call to purge Michael Moore and MoveOn
"You've got to reject Michael Moore and the MoveOn crowd," DLC CEO Al From said in an interview about how the Democratic Party should rebuild after 2004. From argued that the anti-war Moore and MoveOn have hurt the party on national security, the issue which he says the party needs to make "central to our cause." Rank-and-file Democrats "are more like us than MoveOn," which From called a group of "elites, people who sit in their basements all the time and play on their computers."
who the hell is this clown ?
I will respect repukes when they respect humanity,till them Al go join the the neocons and admit that you are a clueless sell out<.
And, again, the politely paranoid...
Hell Hath No Party:
My signature line...
says it all about ol' Al and his ilk.
I have become utterly convinced through the amazing reseach done here by many DUers that the current incarnation of the DLC and its leadership is a backdoor attempt by the RW powers that be to further destroy the Democratic Party of the people, and create one ruling elite under the guise of two parties.
Last but not least, the ever-mandatory "Republicans are Anti-American"
Fuck him. How DARE his corporate appeasement, anti-American
Christo-fascist ass, try to devide the party using opposition talking points.
and "Republicans are Nazis" comments
Social Democrat: "Must show more respect for Hitler and Nazi Party"
Thats what Al From sounds like to me. Like a Social Democrat in Weimar Republic Germany urging his party to show Hitler and the National Socialists more respect.
Friday, February 25, 2005
42 high school students are forced to kill each other on an uninhabited island
Battle Royale 2: Requiem (spoilers within)
Three years after the events in "Battle Royale," Some Japanese Guy is a well-known terrorist bent on bringing down the government. In response, they order the creation of the "Battle Royale 2" program, and send a class of junior-high students to catch and kill him.
Battle Royale 3: Chancellor of the Extermination
Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown chats with Chinese middle school students during his visit to China's capital Beijing