Pressing China With A Nuclear Japan?

May 31, 2009

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is at a security conference in Singapur and held side-talks with South Korean, Japanese and Chinese officials. The subject was North Korea and how to find an answer to its second nuclear test.

The Wall Street Journal has the official leaks on the talks and describes a two way approach.

The Obama administration will NOT go back to negotiations with North Korea through the six-party-talks to honestly bribe the nukes away:

Mr. Gates said North Korea has in the past been rewarded for bad behavior by creating a confrontation in order to force the U.S. and other allies to "pay a price" to return to the status quo that existed before the crisis — a practice he said shouldn't be repeated this time.

"We have to be very tough-minded about this," Mr. Gates said. "As the expression goes in the United States, I'm tired of buying the same horse twice."

That seems to exclude, for now, any renewed negotiations. Instead, the U.S. wants the five parties that negotiated with North Korea to now hurt it:

Mr. Gates said the U.S. preferred for the five countries that have engaged Pyongyang in talks on its nuclear program to present a unified front to punish North Korea.

The question is if China, part of the six-party-talks as well as the UN Security Council, is willing to "punish" North Korea or to influence its behavior.

Any hard "punishment" of Pyongyang will also hurt China's national interest by diminishing its security buffer against the only U.S. force based in the East-Asian continent.
It is also questionable if Chine really has the capability to change Kim Jong-Il's mind and behavior. China was
surprised by the nuclear test and it likely took place against its
will. Its influence on Pyongyang is limited.

But Gates knows that without China no real "punishment" is possible and he has an alternative plan which he will use to put pressure on the Chinese:

"The secretary made it clear and the administration's goal is to have the five nations work together," said one senior Defense official. "What the secretary pointed out is we certainly have to think about what happens if that fails, and we have to start planning and taking some actions on our own and with our allies to look at defenses."

and

In the meeting [with the Chinese general Ma Xiaotian], Mr. Gates again raised the prospect of the U.S., Japan and South Korea working on their own, saying it would be necessary unless a multinational strategy is agreed to, the officials said.

"He made the point that…if we don't address this multilaterally, effectively, then individual countries, in the interest of self-defense, are going to have to take action on their own," said one of the Defense officials.

One wonders what that means.

The WSJ author alludes to possible missile defense measures and troop movements. But Japan already has the very best missile defense available based on AEGIS cruisers and land based patriot missiles. Seoul is in reach of basic North Korean artillery and missile defense there would be useless. As for troop movements the U.S. has little meaningful reserves that could be send into the area. So what might Gates have in mind that could press China into "punishing" North Korea and thereby hurt itself.

In an interview with the Japanese paper Yomiuri Shimbun the former Indian top-spy and nationalist überhawk B. Raman is offering an idea:

QUESTION NO.2 Regarding North Korea, where should Obama begin to roll back? Reports from Washington indicate he is about to put more emphasison pressuring Pyongyang rather than pursuing dialogue. Is that the right direction?

MY REPLY: As I see it, the only option left for Obama and Japan is to threaten Beijing with the danger of Japan going nuclear if China does not pressure North Korea to de-nuclearise. One does not know whether this option will work or not, but it deserves to be tried. This fear of a nuclear Japan must be constantly kept before the eyes of Beijing.

Raman took that answer from his longer analysis of the issue.

Japan is already a possible nuclear power. It has the nuclear materials needed from reprocessing civil reactor fuel, it has ballistic missiles and it also has the knowledge and industrial base to combine those ingredients to weapons.

But having been nuked twice a large part of the Japanese people do not seem to like the idea of being a nuclear weapon power and I doubt that it would be in the long term U.S. national interest to have a nuclear armed Japan. National memories of bloody defeats are long and alliances can change.

There is also the small issue of 2,000,000,000,000 US dollars the U.S. owns to China. A threat of a nuclear Japan would probably be answered by a threat to nuke the international reserve currency.

Next week a high ranking U.S. delegation will travel to Tokyo, Seoul, Bejing and Moscow for further talks.

In a press release North Korea explained its own position and issued its recommended what the Obama administration should do:

The world will soon find out how the army and people of the DPRK will stand up against the high-handed and get-it-alone approach of the UNSC in defending its dignity and sovereignty.

The U.S. is keen on using a catchphrase "Carrot and stick."

It would be better for the "Donkey" of the U.S. Democratic Party to lick the carrot.

Does that rhyme in Korean language?

Anyway – I for one doubt that a "stick" approach short of war on North Korea will have any meaningful result. A nuclear Japan threat would be high risk gaming. To "lick the carrot", i.e. to negotiate with serious offers and to – for once – stick to the letter of the resulting agreement might well be the smarter approach to prevent further proliferation of nukes.

What is your opinion on this? Negotiations? Punishment? Something else?

Posted by b on May 31, 2009 at 15:22 UTC | Permalink

Comments

A nuclear Japan to threaten China? I’m not China Hand, but I can take a guess how that could backfire;
China will move from having a small deterrent nuclear capability to a large multi-thousand ICBM force that might survive a first strike and a allow a second strike. Granted, the military industrial complex in the U.S. wants an excuse for its existence, so maybe that’s the whole idea. But does the U.S. really want to engage in a new China cold war? Especially where they need the Chinese to lend them money to keep it up?
Also, Japan is not the economic dynamo of the 70s and 80s. Its a nation with population decline and a shrinking economy threatened with cheaper labor abroad. It can ill afford to militarize.
I’m curious to read what China Hand thinks of all this, but I really don’t think the U.S. has any big sticks with which to threaten China and its inadvisable to bluff otherwise. It All seems like playing poker with glass money to me.

Posted by: Lysander | May 31 2009 15:59 utc | 1

it would be total madness for Japan to have nuclear weapons.
therefore, it is most likely that the US will push Japan into building nukes.

Posted by: dan of steele | May 31 2009 16:22 utc | 2

There is an easy solution but the US would never do it.
Offer to remove the US army from the Korean borders with a promise to remove all US bases from SK within a short time in exchange for international supervision of the NK nuke program and dissmantaling of the nuke capabilities NK has currently.

Posted by: Hasho | May 31 2009 16:28 utc | 3

Hasho,
How exactly would that offer be any different than the deals made and broken before? And why would SK allow their security guarantee to be stripped with nothing returned?
The US would never do it because SK would never allow that to even be spoken aloud, much less offered. If there’s an insinuation in your first statement that an idea like this hangs on America, you’re wrong.

Posted by: Ryan | May 31 2009 16:41 utc | 4

@dos – perfect logic!
@Hasho + @Ryan
I agree with Hasho here. I see no sign that South Korea would not want the U.S. to leave. They don’t really like to be a proxy state for U.S. interests.
According to polls SoKo people like China more than the U.S. and they fear the U.S. more than NoKo.

Posted by: b | May 31 2009 17:05 utc | 5

Good discussion. Providing nukes to Japan would lead to further unintended consequences , which will lead to further instability in that region. If one arms or enables Japan , what does the US tell the South Koreans when they request the same ? Moreover , what will be the response of the North koreans to the concept of Japan acquiring or building nukes ? Would that provoke a defensive response from them – like a land assault on South Korea before Japan obtains nuclear weapons , further encourage them to develop offensive weapons or covertly divert nuclear weapons to terrorist groups ? Moreover , providing weapons to SK would certainly cause a defensive response by the North – do we risk that if this is a gambit to prod China ?

Posted by: fredw | May 31 2009 17:06 utc | 6

@b: What kind of sign are we talking about that would satisfy your position?
If SK wanted America to go home, why would they not simply ask? The only time I’ve ever seen opinion even moderately turn that direction was immediately after the 50th anniversary. Even then, it faded rather quickly (though exacerbated by an US Army water dumping issue). I’ve never seriously heard that on the streets, in politics, or anywhere else in-country.
And the Americans are not huge fans of being there anyways. Other than the crazies that are in favor of being everywhere all the time, most soldiers including command, are relatively blase about the whole thing.
You underestimate the value of a security guarantee to SK. It is helpful? Does it work for them? Is a net positive the result? I don’t know, maybe not. But SK is largely supportive and writing off that position as little more than proxy status is foolish.

Posted by: Ryan | May 31 2009 17:16 utc | 7

Ryan ,
That was the broad outline of the solution but those are the two sticky points in NK-NK-US dialogs.
Security is a major concern for NK in the presence of the US forces, bases, and round the clock satellite surveillance. North Korea does not have enough military strength to face the US down but the nukes and missiles provide the deterrence. That is why N. Korea quickly reverts back to the Nuke program when the US breaks its promises.
I agree that South Korea too will be concerned, if the US forces leave.
Unless something is done to alleviate the security concerns of both Korea, NK will remain belligerent.
The six country consortium was a good platform to build the confidence that both countries need. These six countries can set up a system to ensure security in the area. China has a bigger leverage now. So while it can underwrite the NK security, it can work with the US to ensure SK security too.
The US wants the North to dismantling the Nuke program but in return it is not committing to remove its forces and bases from South Korea. I think that is where the negotiations breakdown and things get back to square one.

Posted by: Hasho | May 31 2009 17:40 utc | 8

@Ryan –
no U.S. proxy can simply tell the U.S. to leave. In Germany no politician ever talks about it but the people on the street do want the U.S. out – current poll favorably towards U.S: 30% or so. The only reason for Germans to keep the U.S. in Germany is that possibility that it would otherwise move to Poland or elsewhere nearby and threaten us from there.
It will take a moment to pull up the current SoKo pools I have seen.
Here for starter some from 2003 by Pew – notice especially the age groups:

More than three-in-four (77%) Americans see the current government in North Korea as a great or moderate danger to Asia. U.S. public concern has risen by 12 percentage points since November 2002. Americans are not alone in worrying about Pyongyang. Eight-in-ten (79%) Australians and 77% of Germans think North Korean actions threaten Asia. But fewer South Koreans agree – 69%.
…
Half of South Koreans surveyed in May 2003 by the Pew Global Attitudes Survey held an unfavorable view of the United States, up six percentage points from July 2002. Anti-Americanism has risen particularly sharply among the young. A year ago, half (51%) of the 18-29 year olds surveyed had a somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of the United States. This year, seven-in-ten (71%) young South Koreans expressed such views.
…
Three-in-four South Koreans (76%) believe that the United States does not take into account South Korean interests when making international policy decisions. Such criticism of U.S. unilateralism is shared by publics in Russia (71%) and Japan (59% in 2002) – two other nations that are parties to the Beijing talks.

I’ll post the newer numbers when I have time to look them up.

Posted by: b | May 31 2009 17:40 utc | 9

I thought that Japan was already under the US nuclear umbrella. What would be the point of their going nuclear? Don’t they trust US to keep its commitments?

Posted by: JohnH | May 31 2009 17:51 utc | 10

Is the security guarantee valuable for South Korea? I’d like to see how everyone perceives the strategic siutation for all the actors involved.
North Korea is in a position today to destroy Seoul, but not in a position to overrun SK militarily.
If the US leaves, SK still will be unable to prevent NK from destroying Seoul, but still able to repulse an NK attack aimed at capturing territory.
I don’t see the US as having any security value for SK, except that there are military forces aimed at deterring an NK attack that are paid for by US instead of SK tax dollars.
I think there is some cost-shifting – SK gets the US to pay in part for its defense from SK’s point of view. I don’t think NK is actually threatening SK though. There isn’t much NK would gain from an attempt.
Japan surely prefers the US there to an entirely native Korean force. But even a Korea that is hostile to Japan could be deterred by US forces in Japan.
China, long term, wants to see the US out. Long term China wants to see reunification with Korea relatively friendly to China.
The problem with reunification is that North Korea is so poor that South Korea could not bear the costs of raising North Koreans to approximately a South Korean standard of living.
China wants to see this basic problem of deep NK poverty solved. This problem was solved in China itself by opening the economy in a controlled fashion to Western capital and exporting to Western markets. If China could get the US to agree to allow that, possibly North Korea could follow the same path. China is not rich enough yet to lift NK by itself, but once it gets there, it will and then reunification can happen and the US can go.
The US wants to be in SK. I’ve read explanations that the US presence in SK somehow gives the US leverage, on a long-term basis over China. I’m not sure exactly how that works. Possibly US forces in Korea play a role in a potential defense of Taiwan.
But the US staying there requires there to be an NK threat on SK, and that means the US has in interest in prolonged NK poverty – since ending that poverty would allow a peaceful reunification. Which is why the US tends to break its deals with NK.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | May 31 2009 17:57 utc | 11

An unkempt meth addict walks into a posh soiree, full of elegant ladies and men, fires a few shots into the ceiling, and demands to be invited to dinner every Friday night from here on.
Well, that’s not going to happen.
Every eye is on the revolver in nutjob’s hand, every mind counts the shots he has left, and everyone calculates who stands between that gun and themselves.
It’s one of those moments when you find out who your friends are.
Yes, North Korea can destroy the ‘miracle economy’ of South Korea in a weekend. Japan could take a hit as well. Harm to economic friends like these would concern America, so naturally America is concerned, so naturally America is encouraging everyone standing closer to jump the nutjob.
Well, that’s not going to happen either. It’s a standoff. Nutjob is stuck where he is, and everyone knows it.
Because North Korea’s threats are clearly suicidal (if they fire on anything besides the ocean they’ll get nuked), they are taken seriously, and because the request behind the threats is to start coming to dinner Fridays, that is taken seriously as well.
But it’s not going to happen. Friday dinner is for capitalists only, and Pyongyang will remain just another strong arm artist until such time as they buy a tux and start letting the IMF and World Bank show them the two-step.
America’s not as much interested in Pyongyang’s threats or dinner invitation as it is to create more military muscle in China’s backyard. Slow ’em down, if it’s only for a season or two.
This will all be handled as a matter of pawns, and their positions for later plays.
China will want Taiwan free and clear before they help America with its Korean mess.

Posted by: Antifa | May 31 2009 18:31 utc | 12

I don’t see any of this ending well, as I have mentioned before.
For all of NoKo’s posturing, the “threat” being addressed by DefSec Gates and others is the idea of a future levelling of the playing field and nothing else. A nuclear NoKo is “unacceptable” simply because the DPRK do not demonstrate proper obeisance to imperial power (Chinese, Japanese or American) even with military status quo so firmly stacked against them.
From the above link (emphasis mine): “We will not stand idly by as North Korea builds the capability to wreak destruction on any target in the region or on us,” (Gates) said. “We will not accept North Korea as a nuclear state.”
The American response to North Korea “going nuclear” has nothing to do with any real fear that it would ever exercise that capability against its neighbours; NoKo already has the force in terms of conventional artillery and standing army to threaten its neighbours. Rather, what Gates clearly enunciates above is the refusal, wisely or not, of the first world to accept NoKo as a peer nation. Let us be entirely clear, though, that the threat being addressed at the moment is not a military one.
We have to accept that, all other things being equal, the DPRK will continue to violate any treaties, agreements or bribes in perpetuity every time they feel themselves disadvantaged. This is not new, nor does it by itself represent a threat to the international community. Taking a definitive hardline against them, however, might.
It is generally accepted that NoKo would never unleash the full measure of its conventional artillery onto Seoul or Tokyo except under extraordinary circumstances, however the manufacture of precisely those circumstances seems to be the approach favored by the hawks like Gates, Raman, SoKo’s Grand National Party (as well as alarmists in the US who are too far geographically removed for this to affect one way or the other.) Devastating retaliation would be certain, so as long as North Korea feels its borders are secure, it will confine its sabre rattling behind them.
An ad baculum approach to North Korea’s policies, on the other hand, will guarantee a worst case (military) scenario. Koreans are not Iraqis or Afghans and will never budge an inch even if it means their certain destruction. They are also not Japanese and will not be humbled into submission by a few well placed surgical strikes. This is the variable that the hawks do not seem able to appreciate.
The UNSC and USA seem to be one-trick ponies when it comes to international dalliances. The UNSC will agree to “strongly condemn” with a stern finger waggling (and no followup “peacekeeping force” of blue helmets) that will have absolutely no affect on the policy making bodies of North Korea. This is probably the best approach with NoKo. The United States, on the other hand, will move to exacerbate (and guarantee) a crisis so that the mopping up will come sooner rather than later. It is about “ripping off the bandage”, in many cases before the bandage has had any time to do anything in the first place, banking on an advantageous outcome that may or may not be the case. This is probably the worst approach with NoKo.
There is no solution to the problem of the DPRK belligerence even in ideal circumstances as long as their collective identity remains as homogenous as it presently does. They will not kowtow, nor will they budge an inch even if they go down in flames in the process. The psychology I have been able to gather from their southern brothers indicates to me that they have no preference whether the best or worst case plays out, but should it be the latter, it will be as bad as it can be made to be. These are not people one wants to play brinksmanship games with; they will happily allow themselves to burn if they can take their opponents with them.
The psychology of the US and the psychology of the DPRK are both too “all or nothing” for this to play out very well without intervention by a third party. China and Russia might be able to step in here and hold off the Americans and Japanese with some disincentives until NoKo’s internal problems with succession are ironed out. Should this occur, the USA and NoKo will more than likely go back to a low level of antagonism with the occasional shooting along the DMZ just to keep things simmering. Should China and Russia decide that it is in their strategic interests to get rid of NoKo once and for all, then there will be nothing left but a scorched earth policy for the Korean peninsula. NoKo’s conventional military lacking the range to adequately retaliate against the USA, they will absorb everything that can be thrown at them in the way Iraq and Afghanistan have, banking on an economic attrition. Given the USA’s current troop deployments, commitments and above all debts, this might be the least unreasonable presumption that North Korea has made to date.

Posted by: Monolycus | May 31 2009 19:09 utc | 13

Wait! Is Gates one of those Gog and Magog types?
And once again, I’m seeing things as JohnH @10 see’s em.
Right on Antifa.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 31 2009 19:18 utc | 14

Why can’t the US take the lead and start seriously dismantling the nuclear “stockpile?” I mean, do these devices even have a remotely human use? What sane people would permit these things to exist?
I know, rhetorical questions….
I hope you’re all well.

Posted by: Jeremiah | May 31 2009 20:13 utc | 15

The whole thing is orchestrated by ‘peacefully rising’ China. It is impossible to assume that China did not know about the impending test. China is doing it to draw the US into yet another quagmire and weaken it militarily and economically. The US must realize that it cannot afford to be the world policeman and encourage countries to form alliances at regional level to counter the threat from countries such as N.Korea. A possible alliance between S.Korea, Japan and Taiwan will be a deterrent against China-N.Korea nexus.

Posted by: Shaan | May 31 2009 20:41 utc | 16

China’s influence on NK is limited? China supplies essentially all NK imports…

Posted by: alister | May 31 2009 20:50 utc | 17

monolycus & antifa, thank you

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 31 2009 21:51 utc | 18

* NK simply wants to be accepted as a nuclear-armed nation.
* Bush/Cheney screwed the pooch with NK when they abrogated Clinton’s Agreed Framework
* China is in the cat-bird seat. It now has close ties with Taiwan, next it wants to work on SK and Japan — perhaps China can use the NK nukes to bargain.
* The Japanese people will never accept nukes on their soil.
* The US doesn’t know where the NK nukes are; it has no military option.
* The US is refusing to talk.
* So the only US recourse is meaningless sanctions on the NK economy which approximates #50 in the US (Vermont).
* Therefore NK will be accepted as a nuclear nation, US dislike and Gates’s bluster (he’s bluffing) notwithstanding.
* The US has no choice; it will play out China’s way. It’s their back yard, after all, not the US’s, and this situation will again reinforce the fact that the US is as ineffective in diplomacy as it is in warfare.

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 31 2009 21:59 utc | 19

caught some fox news this afternoon and it seems the republican talking points on this whole NoKo thing is to spend more on anti ballistic missiles. it was framed by the fox babe in “what is the US going to do about the North Korea problem?”
and that is what we will hear for the next few news cycles. then it will be old news.

Posted by: dan of steele | May 31 2009 22:07 utc | 20

a reminder of McNamara’s #11 from Vietnam LL (previous thread):
11. We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
In the meantime the US shabby national border defense apparatus is able to detect small amounts of marijuana but not nuclear weapons.

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 31 2009 23:03 utc | 21

A note on Japan going nuclear at the JapanObserver. Browse through the archives there for some more (the guy is quite well informed). In short: no.
(the implications, further away from the East-asian theater: you can forget about any leverage on Iran -and others in the ME- possibly going for a nuke)

Posted by: Philippe | May 31 2009 23:27 utc | 22

The main threat to China would be an arms race.
Currently,China is already in a conventional arms race with the U.S. — but a nuclear arms race would be very expensive, all across the board. Also, a nuclear Japan would drive a big wedge into the developing Greater Asian economy, and further shore up the U.S.’s position with the Phillippines.
I think, in the long run, it would backfire with U.S. hopes for Taiwan and South Korea, but that’s a very debatable point. While in the short run it might succeed in drawing Chinese money away from building a domestic economy, it may also work to build up an analogous “military-industrial complex” for the Chinese, and succeed in laying the groundwork for a higher level of — and more profitable — nuclear research and development, there. So i would see it as something of a temporary setback for China, and another failure for the U.S. over the long term. Don Bacon’s points seem spot on, to me.
I agree, though, that the Japanese people are pretty much the most anti-nuclear of all high-technology nations. But fear makes people do funny things, and the Japanese and Koreans have a very twisted relationship. I could see a fear of the Korean hordes destroying Japan as enough motivation to slowly eat away at that country’s resolve.
While i agree with Shaan that we have no way of really knowing what China did or didn’t know, it’s important to remember that North Korea’s state is predicated upon complete, “full-spectrum” ethnic independence — that “Juche” we’ve seen posted about here at The Bar. China may have known, but even if, they’d have had no way of doing anything about it. It would be much like the U.S. knowing beforehand if France was about to undertake another nuclear test during the 1980’s: the U.S. might not want it, but broadcasting that fact would only expose their intelligence services to exposure, and in any event the last people they’d ever tell about it would be the Soviets. So from the U.S’s standpoint, it’s unimportant whether China did or didn’t know, and we shouldn’t expect them to have the power to actually do anything about it — it’s more valuable for everyone involved if China maintains its intelligence networks and expands them, than to see them wasted on an event like this.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 1 2009 0:50 utc | 23

And oh, yeah —
i’ve appreciated this whole thread, but esp. Monolycus’ post. It nicely summed up a lot of things that were in the back of my mind.
Also, over on SST, a (former?) military journalist that covered/s South Korea was talking about how malnourished the NoKo forces are, and pointed out that although they once had the capacity to give a good go at invasion, that’s all long in the past. He even questioned whether or not they’d be able to give a good defense, although i’ve heard different takes on that.
In that vein, i’d point out that over on Global Security it’s pointed out that, as of the early 2000’s, the DPRK was seriously lacking SAM’s. So these missile tests the regime is conducting are principally because they don’t have enough money to buy what they obviously require for protection from the U.S’s overwhelming air superiority — and clearly, China and Russia aren’t giving them, either. As the poster (Richard W….) on SST pointed out, the U.S. air forces would virtually shut down any DPRK movements during the day, and with the excellent night-vision capabilities that the U.S. now has, their ability to move in safety during the night has now been eliminated, as well.
So if China really does get worried over a U.S. invasion of North Korea or a nuclear Japan, that might be their answer: a sudden gift of a few hundred or thousand of those ASMs and SAMs we’ve been hearing about in regards to Iran.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 1 2009 1:24 utc | 24

Wow, Harris is a funny guy with his in jokes, ‘unleash Japan,’ huh huh. When Poppy Bush played tennis he would cry ‘unleash Chiang!” before each overhead smash cuz even for him that kind of shit was a joke.

Posted by: …—… | Jun 1 2009 1:37 utc | 25

@b, #9:

no U.S. proxy can simply tell the U.S. to leave. In Germany no politician ever talks about it but the people on the street do want the U.S. out – current poll favorably towards U.S: 30% or so.

So what does one have to do with the other?
1. The people (German in your example) want America out.
2. Politicians refuse to acknowledge or address this in any form.
3. This is a parliamentary system.
Either every politician is corrupt through and through, bowing to their master as soon as they take their seat, or nobody actually cares enough to vote it in which case it’s an aside, a non-issue outside of fashionable distaste and wholly outside of reasonable cite with any weight ascribed. I think given the fact that since 1989, the Americans have drastically reduced the number of troops overseas (in Germany for example from 250,000 to 60,000 to around 40,000 by next year’s end I believe?) can sufficiently support the idea that the Americans aren’t in a hurry to stay and it is reasonable to believe that the “proxy” relationship is much more complex than you make it out to be.
Plus the money, but that didn’t get mentioned..? Though there was that moment in February 2003…

“If we act now to remove our permanent bases from Germany, or
even if we simply announce our intention to begin such a move, it
will inevitably appear we are doing so primarily to punish Germany
for opposing the President’s policy against Iraq”
–Dr. Frederick W. Kagan, speaking before Congress

Link.
The Americans leave, they’re the bad guys. They stay, they’re the bad guys. Rumsfeld also floated the idea of leaving the Korean peninsula entirely in 2003. Was it simple posturing, meant to aggravate an ally? Was the Bush administration really going soft on the Axis of evil? Or did it just make sense for America to pull back but the Korean government, a long standing economic and political partner, suggest this was not in their interests and the Americans set aside the thought?

The only reason for Germans to keep the U.S. in Germany is that possibility that it would otherwise move to Poland or elsewhere nearby and threaten us from there.

I don’t quite know what to make of that comment.
You left out what I thought the most important part of your Pew link. Certainly in 2003 the American image was being trashed around the world (particularly among the young) by the fools running the country. The numbers make a startling break from negative opinion right at the point in which people were old enough to remember the war.
A stunning break, and a rare positive (double digit no less) view of America at a time that was about as bad as it gets. How do you reconcile that with your proxy hypothesis? Clearly a control group most able to make decisions regarding their security and interests based on personal experience with a brutal war.
Double digit positives.
Long time reader, first time caller. I think you’ve got this one wrong. However, I reserve the right to be completely wrong myself.

Posted by: Ryan | Jun 1 2009 1:50 utc | 26

Electro-Magnetic weapons technology will render nukes useless, eventually. Newt’s all for using electro-magnetic weapons on NK.
Newt Gingrich would have taken out the North Korea missile if he were president

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 1 2009 2:02 utc | 27

Ryan, you are completely wrong.
b. is absolutely correct — the Germans and the Koreans may want the US military out, but the Pentagon wants to stay so that’s it, because (1) The Empire needs overseas bases to support its imperialism and (2) it’s cheaper (through cost sharing) to base US troops overseas. So it’s a win-win for the US, particularly as the number of US ground troops is being increased.
Currently, while US combat units are stretched thin and soldiers are being stop-lossed, there are 56,000 in Germany and 26,000 in Korea, plus about ten thousand each in Italy and the UK. Of course the US also has troops in hundreds of other places around the world, and will have units in Iraq and Afghanistan forever if the Pentagon has its way.
Rumsfeld never floated the idea to leave Korea. He told SK to accept the fact that the US decides when to leave, and in fact last year Gates made a major decision (largely unreported) to make Korea (“not a conflict zone”) an accompanied tour. Recently contracts were let, and construction has started, on high-rise apartment buildings, schools and recreation facilities for 44,000 troops and family members in Korea, which is far away from any US domestic interests in a country with a huge economy and a large military.
Your “double-digit stunning break” makes no sense. Generally the world’s citizens have an extremely low opinion of the US government and its imperialism which results in death, torture, displacement and injury to millions of people. What’s positive about that?
Bottom line: It (unfortunately) really makes no difference what people think (except as a point of reference) to what is actually done by the Empire.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 1 2009 3:48 utc | 28

Part of the problem with the US leaving its proxies is the same as here–jobs. Where I live, there are few bases. They provide few jobs. Nobody (except those losing their jobs) would miss them. But boy do the local politicians scream when base closures are suggested. The same is probably true overseas, which is convenient for the US military, since they can turn around and say, “See, they really want us to stay. So I guess we’ll have to oblige…”

Posted by: JohnH | Jun 1 2009 3:50 utc | 29

Actually, as b. said, the same isn’t true overseas.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 1 2009 4:01 utc | 30

People generally don’t like foreign armies quartered in their towns. Strange but true.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 1 2009 4:18 utc | 31

comment 31:

People generally don’t like foreign armies quartered in their towns. Strange but true.

yeah… weird eh :-/p.
People in Japan aren’t too happy with the US military presence either (mostly based in Okinawa) and would rather see the back of them. As usual, the leading politicians think otherwise… I once suggested to a political researcher to look for some correlation between position of the politician on the subject and his (indirect, shares) involvement in companies that deal with military procurement/production. I suspect that is one way their position is kept in check, from the US perspective.
On a side note, I doubt this (Japan Times) renewed revelation will make the peeps in Japan very happy.

Posted by: Philippe | Jun 1 2009 6:25 utc | 32

China Suspends North Korea Exchanges, Yonhap Reports

June 1 (Bloomberg) — China suspended government exchanges with North Korea after Kim Jong-Il’s regime last week tested a nuclear device and fired short-range missiles, Yonhap News said.
China has halted plans to send officials to North Korea and won’t accept visits from Kim’s government either, the Korean- language news agency said today, citing unidentified diplomatic sources in Beijing.
China’s foreign ministry has said the country “resolutely opposes” North Korea’s nuclear test. China on May 25 agreed with the U.S., Japan and Russia to work toward a United Nations Security Council resolution censuring North Korea. The U.S. and Japan want the statement to call for cutting the communist country’s global financial ties, UN diplomats said.

Posted by: b | Jun 1 2009 7:27 utc | 33

Beautiful post Monolycus!
@Obamageddon 27
Good catch… Wonder how long we’ve had these?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 1 2009 7:52 utc | 34

Re. #32,
With regards Japan, the US base situation is rather convoluted: precisely because US military presence is unpopular, most of the remaining bases bases wound up in Okinawa, whose population is politically underrepresented in Tokyo, and Okinawans are essentially paid off with economic subsidies from Tokyo to keep quiet–more or less. So, even if a majority of Japanese citizens might, in principle, oppose continued US military presence in Japan, vast majority of them feel rather little adverse impact from it. Those who do–mostly Okinawans–are aware that when US troops leave, so do subsidies from the national government–and many are reluctant. The political consequences of having US troops leave, such as full rearmament, along with the economic costs and diplomatic strains vis-a-vis its neighbors, make many serious Japanese think twice about actively demanding US withdrawal (until recently, Japan’s Asian neighbors preferred to see US forces in Japan than a fully rearmed Japan–Lee Kwan Yew allegedly called US forces in Japan the “cork in the bottle.”)
Things may have changed a bit these days–US is much less trusted than before, in both Japan and its neighbors. However, the Japanese politicians most eager to rebuild their armaments are also born-again militarists who want to restore Japan’s international standing on coattails of Uncle Sam (instead of Uncle Adolf like their predecessors in 1940s). Their opponents, no doubt, would prefer to hold on to US forces–and the excuse they offer against full rearmament–rather than be forced to join their opponents’ agenda.
I’m in no position to talk about Germany–I know nothing about the situation there. South Korean situation is less convoluted than Japan, but, like Japan, most South Korean citizens have trouble envisioning potential diplomatic consequences of letting US forces leave. Even if they might oppose their continued deployment in principle, their presence is not especially onerous to most of them. Forcing them out, on the other hand, would imply a very major diplomatic break with the United States and they feel that being a close ally of the US is, at least for now, an asset rather than a liability–enough to tolerate unpopular but relatively harmless US forces. If South Korea does break with the US, the potential costs of economic, political, and military readjustments will be massive–and they don’t want to have to face that before necessary.
Now, all these precede the question of whether US forces will actually leave if asked–but the domestic politics and diplomatic dispositions in both Japan and South Korea preclude such question being raised in the first place–at least for now.

Posted by: kao_hsien_chih | Jun 1 2009 9:04 utc | 35

#33,
Doubtful those Chinese moves will have too much effect–Juche means North Koreans don’t want to rely much on the Chinese or the Russians, and they also know that the two of its neighbors with the biggest stake in what happens–China and South Korea–are desperate to keep the regime alive and reasonably stable. Neither China nor South Korea will do anything that will seriously weaken the North Korean regime. Whatever they will do will be largely symbolic and toothless. That may not make Washington (or, possibly, Tokyo) terribly happy–but I don’t see US doing something drastic over objections by China and South Korea.
I’m beginning to suspect that the way out of this mess is likely to feature much closer cooperation between Seoul and Beijing–to the total exclusion of US.

Posted by: kao_hsien_chih | Jun 1 2009 9:11 utc | 36

An addendum to the last post (#36): the irony from this is that this may be hastening that day when the picture of a “future without US forces” becomes clearer to South Koreans. I don’t buy into the all-too frequent claims of historical ties between Korea and China–Koreans, North or South, don’t especially trust foreigners of any kind: in the end, Juche is a Korean concept, after all. Still, aligning with China, rather than US, may seem a good idea to the South Koreans by the time all the current mess is over. If that point is reached, US bases in South Korea will be the big diplomatic ruckus to come–but that will ensure that US bases in Japan will be more permanent that ever.

Posted by: kao_hsien_chih | Jun 1 2009 9:16 utc | 37

Still, aligning with China, rather than US, may seem a good idea to the South Koreans by the time all the current mess is over.
I’ve been thinking that’s true for quite some time, now — which is why i believe the Taiwan issue is going to mark a much larger shift than most suspect. The PNAC thinks it’s important enough to go war over, but i don’t believe that war will happen without some sort of overt U.S. provocation.
Having said that, the pro-unification forces represented by President Ma aren’t having an easy time of it, at the moment.
The content in the second blog is the sort of stuff you get from your average, uninformed U.S. expat, here in Taiwan (i wouldn’t be surprised if it’s written by an employee at AIT — the unofficial consulate — here, as an exercise in agitprop; it consistently touches on all the lies, prevarications, and exaggerations that pro-independence foreigners rely upon to make their case). Attendance at the rallies probably tended towards the lower of the numbers cited — particularly in Taipei. which is Ma’s stronghold — and as was indicated, many of the marchers were bused in from rural areas and more southern areas to help fill the urban centers.
Ma won the last election with a comfortable majority, but it was by no means a landslide. Essentially, the DPP simply had no candidates that were well enough known and not already tainted by corruption charges.
Yet there is some evident absurdity to the complaints made about falling employment, increases in cheap Chinese imports, and falling revenues: all of the troubles are entirely due to the actions of the DPP, which built its economy strictly around imports to the U.S. and refused to develop healthy economic ties with China. Thus, all of these failings in the economy are occurring entirely because of the DPP’s own ineptitude, but because Ma is the man in office, he is catching the heat.
Chen went through much of the same during his first few years in office — back when there was the big Asian Crash — and of course, the way he managed it was to essentially re-orient all of Taiwan’s trade and investment towards U.S. markets. It was a challenging few years for him, but he managed to recover and get re-elected (amid much speculation about a possibly faked but very public assassination attempt), so it’s possible that Ma will, too. We’re only at the end of his first year, after all. Further, these rallies may well represent only the hardcore, most rabid supporters of the DPP — but it is undeniable that many Taiwanese do have misgivings about the speed with which Ma’s changes are being undertaken (as do i, too).
The next year, here in Taiwan, may turn out to be a very interesting one.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 1 2009 12:00 utc | 38

Having said that, the pro-unification forces represented by President Ma aren’t having an easy time of it, at the moment.
Better catch up on the news, china_hand2.
The Christian Science Monitor, April 26, 2009 edition:
China, Taiwan ink trade and crime-fighting deals
The longtime rivals signed deals Sunday on boosting cross-strait flights, joint-crime fighting, and financial cooperation.
Taipei, Taiwan – Longtime rivals China and Taiwan signed a raft of commercial and crime-fighting deals on Sunday in Nanjing, in the third round of talks in a year. On Sunday, the two sides inked deals on boosting cross-strait flights, joint-crime fighting, and financial cooperation. They also issued a statement on allowing Chinese investment in Taiwan.
The financial agreement paves the way for banks and insurers do business on the other side of the Strait. And the crime-fighting deal will help counter cross-strait drug trafficking and money laundering, and make it harder for Taiwanese fugitives to hide out in the mainland. Such deals appear to have majority support here. A government-commissioned poll showed that 53 percent are happy with the pace of cross-strait opening or even think it’s going too slow, compared to 34 percent who believe it’s going too fast.
And there’s more:
China Makes First Taiwan Investment as Relations Thaw
April 30 (Bloomberg) — China Mobile Ltd. agreed to buy 12 percent of Far EasTone Telecommunications Co., the first investment by a Chinese state-owned company in Taiwan since a civil war ended six decades ago.
All 692 members of the Taiex rose today, sending Taiwan’s benchmark stock index to its biggest gain since 1991 on speculation more Chinese companies will invest on the island. The NT$17.8 billion ($529 million) purchase, announced by China Mobile yesterday, underscores how warming political relations between the two sides are leading to closer economic ties.
“This is a landmark deal. China Mobile will lead the way for other Chinese companies that have been waiting to invest in Taiwan but were hesitating,” said C.Y. Huang, vice chairman of Polaris Securities in Taipei. “This will open the floodgates for more Chinese investments into Taiwan.”
It doesn’t look good for US hegemony in Taiwan:
Huanqiu, China — U.S. Must Withdraw from China-Taiwan Relations (translation)
When “turning to the future” and “striving for peace” became the consensus between China and Taiwan, the U.S.’s gradual withdrawal from cross-strait relations was already on the agenda. Recently, China’s premier Wen Jiabao offered some advice on cross-strait relations. “Turn to the future, forgive and forget, cooperate closely, and move forward together,” he said. Taiwan’s president Ma Ying-jeou also hopes that both sides will “look forward” and not repeat the violent struggles of the past. This shows that leaders from both sides are in unanimous agreement on China’s future. It is obvious that both sides are getting closer and will eventually unite. At this time, people will naturally turn their attention to the major external factor that will influence development in cross-strait relations – the U.S.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 1 2009 15:16 utc | 39

So with the China/Taiwan thaw, and peace breaking out on the Taiwan Strait, the US can get by with a couple less carrier groups, eh? Just kidding.
It does portend better China/SK and China/Japan relations, I think, which the US will fight every way it can. Not promoting an end to the Korean War and not promoting Korean unification are two ways. So Korea has to suffer.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 1 2009 15:32 utc | 40

Well,i don’t know if you noticed, Don Bacon, but the protests were in response to those agreements, and relative to things like the three links agreement that was inked last November — direct trade, transport and postal ties — i’d say they’re just a small step along a path that’s already looking quite long. But i agree with your overall point — it certainly does not look good for the U.S.’s continued domination of Taiwan.
What is remarkable, from my standpoint, is that the DPP — which is in pretty much the same state as the Republican party of the U.S. — is still able to muster up so many people for the turnout during those protests.
That, and this thinly-veiled PNAC paper that i read not too long ago that basically called for provoking a war with China over Taiwan, worries me.
Thankfully, Obama’s in office; despite all the bad press he gets from so many here, he seems to be politely turning away from this issue, preserving the possibility that the conservative reactionaries who would like to provoke that war will just quietly fade away into insignificance.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 1 2009 16:07 utc | 41

re. #38,
One funny thing about politics of Taiwan and reunification is that the military is heavily dominated by KMT types–and these guys take the “China” part of RoC seriously. They are not going to fight if that means having to part with “China” and having to defend an idea of “independent” Taiwan, which they find odious. In the like vein, even though there is a strong support, according to polls, for independence, it is not at all clear how strong these sentiments are outside the relatively small number of DPP fanatics: I wouldn’t think, based on what I hear, too many people in Taiwan would be willing to fight and die for this idea. Far stronger deterrent to stronger ties between Beijing and Taipei is, IMHO, that very few Taiwanese trust the Beijing regime–and rightly so, at least for now. If PRC somehow changes itself and can defuse the suspicions about its long term intentions among most Taiwanese, Chinese reunification may well be within reach.
This is, in some ways, in stark contrast in some ways while bearing eerie similarity to the Koreas–where people talk about longing for reunification, but nobody really wants to see it happen–the North because its leadership want to maintain its hold on power, the South because it would be too messy. The South, especially, don’t want the reunification to happen the hard way–through an armed conflict, which will destroy the Northern regime for sure, but will cause immeasurable destruction in the South.
The bottom line is nobody really wants to pick fights in East Asia–except, strangely, the United States–which is so far away and has nothing to gain from destablizing the region either. But I don’t think either the Taiwanese or South Koreans would go along–although the Japanese might, but only if the LDP manages to stay in power, which doesn’t seem likely–and they are required to hold a general election only in a few months–which may well force them out of power for the first time ever (through elections, anyways–the 1993 ouster of LDP from power was through party realignment, not an electoral defeat).

Posted by: kao_hsien_chih | Jun 1 2009 16:13 utc | 42

United States–which is so far away and has nothing to gain from destablizing the region either.
Actually destabilization IS the US policy, if you’ll notice current events. Peace is not nearly as profitable as war.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 1 2009 16:23 utc | 43

@42:
Yes, your comments are spot-on. There is a division or two of serious Taiwan loyalists in the ROC army, but they’re concentrated mainly around the Taipei area, close to the Presidential Palace, and in the event of an invasion would be fighting mainly on their own.
If China did decide to “invade” Taiwan, then it would probably break down into one of two scenarios: a “peacekeeper” action undertaken by China loyalists within the ROC forces (imagine massive public demonstrations, unrest, a breakdown in order, and the Chinese send in response a division of “peacekeepers” as ROC military personnel secure the various loci of power), or a shutting down of the entire island with a naval blockade and threatened retaliatory action against anyone trying to break it — sink a few container ships, shut down the economy, slowly starve them out, wait for the surrender and then appoint a few chosen R.O.C. military people to oversee the new government.
Basically, in both cases would really need the cooperation of the R.O.C. military, and it’s certainly not inconceivable —
unless China does something so heinous that the Taiwanese people just couldn’t stand it. The reason i point that out is that, if Ma and the Chinese do move too fast, then there are many opportunities for people to “manufacture” a crisis in hopes of pinning it on the Chinese. As you point out in your post, most in Taiwan — as in South Korea — are fence-sitters, happy with the status quo and looking forward to some time when they can work out a copacetic agreement with the opposing side.
Yet it’s precisely the elements in the U.S. who have been most involved with places like Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Iraq that are most anxious for war with China.
I’m not forecasting anything, or offering any sort of predictions or doomsaying — i’m simply pointing out the possibility. For my own part, i have a lot more faith that the Taiwanese leadership will be able to see this thing through without letting themselves be taken in like that — but when you have ex-President Chen in prison (along with a good part of his immediate family) because they’ve been openly selling favors while also (quite literally) pocketing funds from government coffers, and then the opposition holds him up as some sort of conscientious political detainee — that is worrisome.
Two or three hundred thousand marchers, last weekend — on an island with a total population of only 26 million or so.
Last time i was working in the States — nearly ten years ago, now — i was in Alabama, with some folks who thought they “knew” about Taiwan. When i told them that most Taiwanese want a peaceful re-unification with the Mainland, they were scandalized, and found it hard to believe. The comment that stuck out was “Well then, why are we bothering to help them, then?” “Help”, of course, meaning “Why are we promising to defend them?”, which might as well be “Why are we promising we’ll fight a war over on their island, then?”
If the wrong people get the upper hand in the U.S., i could see Taiwan becoming the new Iraq — because if Taiwan peacefully re-unifies, Korea will (relatively) soon follow. Then Japanese politics will be forced to undergo a sea-shift of perspective and rhetoric, and then the U.S. Pacific presence will have been effectively pushed back to the Philippines and a few small Pacific islands.
I think that could easily happen in the next ten years.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 2 2009 1:58 utc | 44

Thankfully, Obama’s in office; despite all the bad press he gets from so many here, he seems to be politely turning away from this issue, preserving the possibility that the conservative reactionaries who would like to provoke that war will just quietly fade away into insignificance.
That’s a rather callous statement, if you ask me. Do you think the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan are thankful Obama’s in office? How about the people of Iran since an attack is imminent? If the U.S. attacks Iran, does Obama still get off the hook? When will he be held to account, in your view? When will you admit that many who post here and hold a highly critical view of Obama are right? What would it take? An attack on China? If not, he’s better than Bush, people of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran be damned.
Let’s get this straight. I’ll admit that China appears to be in no threat, but I don’t believe they were ever in any threat when Brand Bushco was in play. Quite the contrary, actually. Business between China and the U.S. was never better during Brand Bush.
Guess where Obama’s headed shortly? Ghana. Of all African countries, why would Obama choose little old Ghana? I’ll tell you why? The Chinese…..that’s why. There are other ways to deal with China other than direct confrontation. When you’re as large as China and hold the economic stability of the USA in the palm of your treasury bill stuffed hands, other, more indirect methods must be employed.
Ghana Confident China to Finance US$600 Million Dam

Wen is on a seven-nation tour in Africa, where China is investing heavily in resource-rich nations as it seeks access to minerals and crude oil to feed its rapid industrialisation.
“The President (John Kufuor of Ghana) presented the Bui Dam project to the Chinese as one of his priority projects and we’re confident it will get funding,” Yaw Afari-Donkor, Ghana’s ambassador to Beijing, told Reuters on Monday.
“The initial estimated cost is 600 million dollars but we’re now fleshing out detailed costing and a financing plan,” he said, adding he expected a deal to be signed when Kufuor visited Beijing in November.
A joint communique issued as Wen left Ghana for Congo Republic, the next stop on his tour, said China was ready to continue discussions to find a “win-win solution” for the project but it gave no further details.
Ghana’s electric power is generated largely from the Volta and Kpong Dams in the southeast, with a combined installed capacity of 1,180 megawatts, in addition to 550 megawatts from a thermal plant at Aboadze in the west.
“The Bui Dam will make a big economic impact for mining iron ore and gold in the north of the country, and it will improve power supply for everybody,” finance minister Kwadwo Baah-Wiredu told Reuters.
Wen, the third high-ranking Chinese official to visit Africa in six months, said on Sunday that China’s wooing of African countries was based on mutual benefit and was part of a bid to increase commodity and energy imports.

That was 2006.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 2 2009 2:01 utc | 45

You got me wrong on that, Obamageddon. I’m not a politician, and i’d hope that you don’t hold me to the same ridiculous standards of “consistency” that our media forces upon them (much to our world’s detriment).
I meant “fortunately in this context” — as in: fortunately for the people of Taiwan, Obama doesn’t seem to be intent on creating a war to keep control of Taiwan.
We can agree that’s fortunate for the folks of Taiwan, the U.S., and East Asia, can’t we?
Also, i’d suggest that your expectations of Obama are vastly beyond what any human can be expected to accomplish.
Obama sits behind a desk. He gets reports. Those reports are given to him after being filtered through about ten other people, each of whom has an entire bureaucracy beneath them, except for the very top few, who each have a vast political network they can bring to bear against Obama if he decides to re-interpret that report, or get it re-written, or play with it in any way.
Frankly, i pity the guy; i think he’s probably a pretty good man, trying to do good, but now in a position where he can only do so much.
That doesn’t mean i excuse him, spiritually, for any of the mistakes he’s making: he put his name on them, they’re his. Afghanistan is his war. It’s his fault. But you can admit, can’t you, that he’s cut from substantially finer material than either of the Bushes, Reagan, or Clinton, can’t you?
In the end, Obama is responsible for the drone attacks on Pakistan — but if you go by that logic, every American is responsible to some degree. Some, more than others — whether because of indifference (poor black men from Watts, out hauling baggage and kissing ass for tips?), vindictiveness (poor white men, chatting in their church foyer about lynching muslims for god?), rationalization (college professors, sitting around and pretending like there’s some sort of justification?), stupidity (military grunts puffing out their chest and crowing about their loyalty to the Corps and how many Hajjis they’ve shot?), or just sheer corruption (wealthy businessmen? Media figures? Political leaders like Lieberman, or Bush, or Cheney, or Clinton?).
There’s plenty of blame to go around. You pay taxes, you’re guilty. Hell, i haven’t paid taxes in about twenty years — i’m an expat — and i still feel guilty.
We’re all guilty, and there’s an awful lot of historical inertia that supports a lot of hate out there. An awful lot of it is aimed at keeping Obama from making the changes he wants. Do you really believe that the way things are working out are 100% Obama’s plan, that he’s getting everything he wants or wanted?
I’m not rationalizing; i’m just saying — like William Burroughs once did — basically our politicians are just a bunch of confused men, sitting in front of a set of controls that would make a 128 channel Dolby 5.1 mixing board look simple —
and none of the buttons are labeled. They twist, and teak, and pound and pray, but really they’re just guessing.
It’s the madness of being human.
So yeah — i really want Obama to stop the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
But how would you do it? Just issue a decree, and hope everyone went along?
Do you really think you’d last two days in the presidency like that?

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 2 2009 6:49 utc | 46

china_hand2, your post makes me sad, very sad. If that’s your position, and you’re supposed to represent the interests of any form of an opposition, then there is no opposition. Your words are nothing more than an apology for Empire. I agree with your assessment that we are all guilty of supporting Empire, in matters of degree, but don’t you dare compare me to Obama, who chose to pursue his role as head cheerleader for the machinations of Empire. I speak out against it, and sure, that won’t change much of anything, but at least I bear witness and vocalize protest. You’re right, I pay taxes because it’s compulsory and I will go to jail if I don’t, or live a meager existence in an unforgiving system. I have a wife and two children to support, so I avoid the latter and comply with the former. I would like to direct my taxes to a more constructive outcome, i.e. social services versus military, but the way the system is currently operating, there’s a fat chance of that ever happening without an revolution. Still, in the least, you owe it to yourself, and you owe it to those who can’t speak for themselves, to bear witness to the injustices and atrocities, not to apologize for them by claiming the president is only one man. Bull!! He’s a figurehead, a cheerleader, a corporate pitchman, nothing more. He’s not making decisions, they’ve been made for him. He’s pitching the agenda, and doing so gladly, and no one should apologize for him for that or find pity on such a charlatan. Also, how do you know he’s made of finer material than the Bushes or the Clintons? On what basis do you make that decision? Considering they’re nothing more than glorified cheerleaders, what difference does the material in which they’re made matter? You appear to be operating on propagandized myths about our political system and the president’s role within it. You can’t seriously think it works the way you have described, can you? You do realize what you are describing is impossible. The office of the president has been relegated to window dressing. You need to pull the drapes aside to see the real levers of power. I promise you, it’s not Obama.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 2 2009 12:49 utc | 47

Apology for empire?
How have i apologized?
One can’t be much more opposed to Empire than i am and still remain peaceful about it.
The “real levers of power”? Governments have always grappled with these problems. Businessmen were loathed in ancient China, because they were considered anti-social, and also during the middle ages, in Europe, when tradesmen, nobility, and They were loathed again, in the early years of the CCCP. Now they’re on the ascendant again. The one constant in history is that all governments become corrupt, fall, and then are reborn again as something new. Most recently, it happened in Russia. Someday, it will happen to the CCCP. It looks like right now, though, it’s happening in the U.S.
And what myths do you think i’m operating on? Because honestly, people who really do believe in the American Dream and all the myths that surround our government are generally terrified of what i have to say, and get angry at me for saying it.
Yes, i seriously do believe that our system works in the basic way it’s been described: people get elected to positions of political power, and they then begin contributing to this vast, multi-headed bureaucracy we call government. The “Chief Executive” is really just that: the guy (so far) who tells the people in the bureaucracy what to do, and how to do it.
It’s a big bureaucracy. Yes, the president will always be held accountable by certain political backers, but always less-so in the second administration than in the first (which is probably the real reason why Carter never got a second). Yes, there are discussions and agreements and negotiations that take place behind the scenes, that we know nothing about. That’s to be expected. It’s called “being human”. It’s also the source of the U.S’s currently rampant corruption.
Yes, i think it’s pretty clear that Obama has a much different set of priorities than the Bushes, Clintons, or Reagan ever did. In his first year, he’s boosted education and social services across the board, and tried to push through an economic stimulus that aims at a greening american industry.
But yes, it wasn’t enough — not nearly enough. And yes, i detest the way he’s handling the economic crisis — but, unfortunately, i also understand that he’s not a Wall Street guy, and he’s got to rely on advisors. And no doubt, all his advisors are saying the same thing. And no doubt, he’s listening to them —
because at the same time he’s got this economic crisis, he’s also got these wars going on. He’s got to juggle those, along with the economic crisis.
And then he’s got the economic stimulus, as well —
look, the changes you and i would like to see made aren’t going to come from the top. There just isn’t much a president can directly do to change those things — stopping the wars, cleaning up wall street, rebuilding the U.S. job market/industry, rectifying the rampant social injustices, and so on.
I want to see Obama legalize all drugs and free the two-thirds of the prison population that are in there on drug charges. But that ain’t gonna happen. I want to see the lower classes in the U.S. get a decent education, and have good jobs at a living wage – but Obama can’t do that. I want to see the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq stopped — but Obama can’t do that.
Obama can help with a few of those things — the wars, in particular — but he can only help; he can’t just run around like Superman and demand that things get done the way we (he?) would like.
As for bearing witness: don’t i do that? Don’t i face up to the bad things out there, the horrific inhumanity of U.S. foreign policy? The injustices we perpetrate on our own citizenry and foreigners abroad? I think i do, and I don’t think it’s fair of you to suggest i don’t — certainly not on a single statement that you’ve taken out of context, and blown up to mean something that was never intended.
Obama is making big mistakes, and i’m perfectly happy to admit them to you and point them out, and demand that they be changed. I’m no Obamaphile — the guy’s inexperienced, and he’s really, really screwing up on some important things.
Obama’s no Dick Cheney. Cheney has been involved with the U.S. government for more than six decades; he knows the bureaucracy inside and out, how to get around it, and how to manipulate it. That’s why he was able to get away with everything he did and not get locked up in jail.
Obama’s new, he’s young, and he was a senator for only a few years before becoming president. I called anyone who expected him to be a “great” president before the election a fool, and i stand by it now. At best, he’ll be passable — but that said, he can still do good. For all his inexperience and hamfisted inadequacies, he can still lay the groundwork for something better to come along.
Yes, he’s plastic. Yes, he’s a cheerleader. Yes, he’s playing a role. All of those things have been increasingly true since Reagan. Big deal! Do you think the presidency is completely irrelevant, completely powerless?
If it is, then why don’t you start focusing your attention on other things than Obama? Because if it is, and you’re sure of it, then the time to start laying the groundwork for your particularly part of the revolution is now —
because by the time it gets televised, it’ll already be over.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 2 2009 14:27 utc | 48

*when tradesmen, nobility, and They…
Should be:
…when tradesmen, nobility, and the clergy ruled. They….

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 2 2009 15:13 utc | 49

Back to Main