I Can See Hawaii From Pyongyang

Finally, some sanity about North Korea. 

Ever since June 6th with Secretary of State Clinton's musing that it may be necessary to relist North Korea as a terrorist state, Americans and Japanese have persisted in crazy talk. Each has tried to outdo the other in describing the coming danger of the DPRK. In Tokyo, the Prime Minister talked publicly about preemptive strikes and others about Japan considering a nuclear option.

Americans picked up on Japanese speculation that Pyongyang will lob its next missile at Hawaii! An excellent expose of this viral foolishness can be found on the indomitable Shisaku's blog. Senator Brownback (R-KS) held up confirmations of two State Department nominees (one being Kurt Campbell for Asst Sec for Asia) to express his strong desire to punish North Korea and to emphasize human rights issues. Adding to the frenzy, in an op ed last Sunday The Washington Times accused the Norks of fronting for China's military ambitions and nuclear proliferation.

Fortunately, the saner folks at the Pentagon decided that all this rhetorical escalation just plays into North Korean paranoia about threats to its sovereignty and security. On June 24th, at the daily DoD News Briefing, press spokesman Geoff Morrell put all the worries about the North Korean threat into perspective by describing them as "silliness":

Q     Geoff, the North Koreans today, they threatened to wipe the United States off the map.  Are you not taking that threat seriously? 

                MR. MORRELL:  I don't even know how I -- how I even respond to such silliness.  I don't -- I -- "wipe the United States off the map" -- for what and with what? 

                Q     "If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of Korea will wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all."  The official Korean central news agency said this. 

                MR. MORRELL:  Yeah, I don't think I'm going to dignify that one with a response. 

                Q     Can you stop North Korea behaving like this or affecting the region or regional relations without the help of China? 

                MR. MORRELL:  Oh, I think China is obviously key to this.  I'm not so sure that anybody has tremendous influence over Kim Jong Il or his regime, but if anybody does, it would be the Chinese.  Obviously they are crucial to our efforts to try to bring about a multilateral approach to preventing the North from developing a nuclear weapon, developing long-range-ballistic-missile capabilities, and from proliferating.

 

                They are obviously a linchpin to our efforts.   

                But as we talked about at Shangri-La last month, we are proceeding on a multilateral basis, a bilateral basis, even a unilateral basis, to take measures to protect ourselves and our friends and allies and partners in the region. 

                Q     Is China with the U.S.?  Because there was (an op-ed ?) in the Washington Times very recently that North Korea -- it was not North Korea's nuclear test but it was China's nuclear test in North Korea. 

                MR. MORRELL:  I think I got what you were asking.  You're saying somebody in the Washington Times wrote that it was a Chinese test in North Korea?  This is -- I think this falls into Jennifer's category.

 

                Q     Is China with the U.S.? 

                MR. MORRELL:  Is China with the U.S. -- ? 

                Q     On North Korea. 

                MR. MORRELL:  On North Korea?  Well, they voted with us in -- they voted with us and the rest of the world unanimously to pass United Nations Security Council Resolution 1874, which gives us unprecedented authorities to deal with the North Korean threat. 

###

So let's all take a deep breath--later we can ponder China as a "lynchpin" and Japan as a "cornerstone." That's security architecture talk...

Axis of Weasel

Today, the Japanese Foreign Ministry added more pain and confusion to the Aso Administration by backpedaling on the historic apology its Ambassador to the US gave to the American POWs of Japan barely one month before. Maybe not unexpected, but the sheer public callousness is simply overwhelming.

As you read the press conference below, you will wonder if the Gaimusho bureaucrats understand anything about 21st Century foreign policy. In a terse series of sentences, the Ministry briefer diluted the official nature of the apology carefully delivered by Amb Fujisaki and narrowed his statements to only an issue of Japan-Philippine relations. Somehow the American POWs disappeared. The goodwill generated by this long-sought apology evaporated.

Worse, the spirit of reconciliation and sense of responsibility that the ambassador had worked so hard to foster, imploded at the briefer's podium.

In regard to a possible meeting between PM Aso and a visiting Australian former POW who was a slave laborer in his family's coal mine, the briefer seemed to say that a meeting would be planned with officials from the Foreign Ministry. However, all visitors from the POW delegation featuring Mr. Coombs left Japan this past weekend. And to add insult to injury, the MOFA spokesman implied that the visitors were less than sincere.

But, please read this for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Press Conference by the Deputy Press Secretary Yasuhisa Kawamura (pictured)
25 June, 2009

IV. Questions concerning the POW issue

Q: If other people have any questions directly related to today's issue, I have some completely different questions.

Mr. Kawamura: Any questions, please.

Q: I would like to ask about the POW issues. One, about the official apology, so-called, by Ambassador Fujisaki in the US in the end of May; The apology was a so-called official apology from the Japanese Government, but is it projected only for Bataan and Corregidor? Because he came over to the convention and made the apology. Also, how serious is the Japanese government's thinking about their demand which is educating Japanese young people to know what happened about POWs and also the program exchange inviting them, because Americans were excluded. The program covering Dutch, Australian, British POWs, inviting them to Japan and let them visit camps they used to be in. Those are two questions about the Fujisaki apology.

The second question is about very recently a POW from Australia and the son of a POW from Scotland who were made use of in the Aso mines visited. Prime Minister Aso did not meet them, he refused to meet them. What is the real reason he did not meet them?

Mr. Kawamura: Before I forget, let me start with the last question.

Q: OK.

Mr. Kawamura: Those people visited Tokyo and requested a meeting with Prime Minister Aso. The meeting did not take place. You are asking me about the reasons, but I am not the right person to respond directly to that question, why the meeting did not take place.

Q: But the Ministry of Foreign Affairs offered to meet instead.

Mr. Kawamura: Right, exactly, but unfortunately, this proposed meeting did not take place.

I am going to touch upon the basic stance of the Japanese Government regarding the POWs. All the actions and the Japanese treatment of the POWs should be understood in the context of Japan's post-war announcements which clarify its official stance. As you recall, former Prime Minister Murayama expressed very clearly that we had a sense of remorse and apology for the conducts of what Japan did during World War II.

Regarding the government to government relations, we think that the issues related to World War II have been legally settled.

This stance together with the feeling of the Government and the people of Japan has been expressed by our leaders in the past.

The first question about Ambassador Fujisaki's statement should also be seen from the Japanese Government's fundamental stance concerning the World War II and the apology and feeling of remorse that should be applied to the case of Japan-Philippines relations during World War II. I understand Ambassador Fujisaki expressed his feeling in line with the above mentioned official Japan-Philippines relations.

There are two more questions about Ambassador Fujisaki's case, education and Dutch and other countries' invitation programs, I will come back to you. I need to do some research on this.

Q: About the second question, if the Foreign Minister tried to meet them instead of the Prime Minister...

Mr. Kawamura: The Foreign Ministry, not the Foreign Minister, I think.

Q: The Foreign Ministry, yes. How were you planning to explain to them the reason that you did not prepare any explanation why the Prime Minister could not see them or did not want to see them or whatever? Or did you try to repeat what you have just explained?

Mr. Kawamura: Well, it is really hard for me to predict what exactly happened in the conversation particularly with visitors and our officials. But I want to stress that we like to see those people with sincere minds and that we would be prepared to listen carefully to what they would comment on. I think a sincere dialogue should help retain trust.

Q: May I ask which section is planning to meet them? Who is going to meet them?

Mr. Kawamura: I will come back to you because this issue is related to not one but more than two divisions or bureaus.

Q: It would be very nice if I could know who is going to see them.

Mr. Kawamura: Yes, I will come back to you.

Any other questions? Thank you very much.

Washington Work

The work day in Washington ended about 2:45 this afternoon, as reports circulated of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's press conference about his five-day disappearance with this Argentine mistress.  The telecommunications grid nearly crashed as everyone tried to outdo the other in responding to the news. Folks were busy preparing copy for 4:30 deadline of the late nite talk shows.

Here is a sampling of my inbox, but I welcome your own additions. This is indeed work for Our Man in Abiko.

He didn't want South Carolina to have a stimulus package, but he wanted his own package stimulated.

"Hiking the Appalachian Trail" has a whole new meaning....So does "driving on the coast of Argentina."

Who knew the Appalachian Trail ended in Argentina.

There is no direct flight from Columbia SC to __ Georgia -- but there is a connecting flight with a stop-over in Buenos Aires.

“Too bad,’’ Senator John Kerry said, “if a governor had to go missing it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin.’’

There are many, many more but I will post them later along with the Late Nite show jokes.

Later:

David Letterman's Top Ten Gov Mark Sanford Excuses

Conan O'Brien:   Mark Sanford revealed "he had an affair with a woman from Argentina. ... People were shocked because Republicans traditionally don't do well with Hispanic women."

David Letterman:   Mark Sanford was "in Argentina with another woman. And here's what I want to know: Why can't he be like our former governor and use a local escort service?"

Craig Ferguson:   Mark Sanford "admitted to having an affair in Argentina. Great, now we're outsourcing mistresses."

Craig Ferguson:   "The past couple of years there have been a whole bunch of scandals involving governors. ... You know things are bad when the most normal governor of the last decade was Jesse 'The Body' Ventura."

Still later:

Conan O'Brien:   "At a press conference yesterday, in case you don't know, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford admitted to having a mistress from Argentina. ... Then there was an awkward moment as he waited for someone to give him a high five."

David Letterman:   Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "has declared himself the winner" of the Iranian presidential election, "and he came out at the victory party and he thanked...the 148 percent of the people who voted for him."

David Letterman:   Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "during all those protests, is keeping a very low profile in Iran. His staff said he was hiking."

Jimmy Fallon:   "There's another new development in that Mark Sanford story. His wife, Jenny, kicked him out of their home when she heard about the affair. In response, Hillary Clinton said, 'Wait, you can do that?'"

Holbrooke Watch I

Richard Holbrooke is one of the most disliked members of the American foreign policy establishment. He is also the most successful. His talent at ingratiating himself to the rich and powerful while stepping on the little people who provide him with information is legend. He has a perfect sense of who he can use, offend, and discard and of who he needs to please. And he knows how to gravitate to the hot issues and keep his personal focus only on power.

Holbrooke has campaigned long and hard to be Secretary of State. And it appears that he is getting close to his goal. So that you can get a sense as to when this will happen, I will try to provide you with an occasional update of this relentless quest with "Holbrooke Watch."

From the moment he was appointed in January 2009 as State's Special Representative on Afghanistan and Pakistan he has managed to dominate the foreign policy news. He knows how to make news and to present nothing as news. He is also very charming and friendly with female journalists.

Thus, it should have come as no surprise that when Secretary Clinton broke her elbow last week, that he was the first to insist that he go to this week's G-8 meeting of foreign ministers in Trieste.

My guess from the exchange below is that Clinton sent Special Envoy George Mitchell to Trieste simply to keep an eye on Holbrooke. Mitchell does not intimidate as easily as career officials like Under Secretary William J. Burns, who is attending the G-8 for the Secretary and who can easily have their career ruined by the likes of Holbrooke.

MR. KELLY: -- a big cast and a sling. And she’s a right-hander, so it’s – she’s got some dexterity and mobility issues. But she was on top of her game this morning.
QUESTION: Can you explain to us, Ian, why – Deputy Secretary Steinberg said that Special Representative Holbrooke and Special Envoy Mitchell would also be in Trieste. I think it’s well known, the Afghanistan-Pakistan related meetings.
MR. KELLY: Right.
QUESTION: But what is going to be Ambassador Mitchell’s – Senator Mitchell’s role in Trieste?
MR. KELLY: I believe there’s also a Quartet meeting. I hope I’m not out of ahead of myself by saying that, but I believe there’s also – yeah, they will be talking about Middle East issues as well.
QUESTION: So he would represent the United States at the Quartet meeting?
MR. KELLY: I’m not sure – I’m not sure what – I mean, he would participate.
QUESTION: Okay.

Forbes Misses the Big Story

I was going to discuss North Korea or the new Japanese politics of apology, but then I made the mistake of reading Tim Kelly's new dispatch from Tokyo. It is rare that I do read his pieces, and I now remember why. They make no sense.

The "Dispatch" is a ramble about how Japan feels unappreciated and insecure as an American ally. Although opinion polls in the US show that the Japanese are respected and considered dependable, Tokyo is unconvinced. Some believe it is time for Japan develop it own a nuclear option to defend itself.

Ok, but then how did he jump to World War II's legacy in the US-Japan relationship? He notes that the US Senate [sic] passed a resolution asking for an apology to the Comfort Women. Kelly did not check his facts as it was the House of Representatives, not the Senate that unanimously passed H. Res. 121 in July 2007.

Maybe he is trying to say that Washington is sending Tokyo mixed signals when it asks the Japanese government to become more accountable and responsible in its treatment of its war history. He does not make the connection that a good, dependable ally to the US is also one that does not antagonize other key allies or the allied fighting forces set to defend it.

The last paragraph was probably why he wrote the piece. But it is one that made the least sense and come to a contorted conclusion. He suddenly veers away from the discussion of American trust or Americans to a focus on the war crimes by Japan against non-American POWs. In fact, I doubt if Kelly is even aware that American former POWs of Japan share similar grievances.  Here he notes that a 

Former allied prisoner of war Joe Coombs came to Tokyo seeking an apology for the time he spent shoveling coal as a slave laborer in an Aso-family coal mine. Coombs' is one foreigner’s opinion Aso might choose to ignore.

Kelly clearly attended or just heard about the Friday, June 19th press conference in Tokyo held by the Australian Mr. Coombs and the son of a former British POW. There it was noted that the Aso Company refused to acknowledge or apologize for Coombs' slave labor and that PM Aso did ignore the former POW by refusing to meet with him. If Kelly had attended the press conference, he would have known the latter.

Kelly also clearly missed the big stories in his haste to craft a story defending the Aso government's reliability as an American ally and  partner. He failed to note the new and unusual situation that the press conference was hosted by a senior member of the opposition DPJ, Upper House Member Yukihisa Fujita. It was neither a Communist nor Socialist who was pressing on making historical responsibility a mainstream political issue in Japan. This is a surprising change and is reflected in the new committee the DPJ recently formed for the settlement of POW issues.

As a business reporter for Forbes, Kelly also failed to note that the Aso Company is now in a joint venture with the French building materials conglomerate Lafarge. This socially conscious European giant soon will be hard pressed to rationalize protecting an once slave-owning partner.

Kelly neglected to note that Upper House Member Fujita had received from the Prime Minister's office in February an official, formal, governmental apology to all former POWs. What is odd is that this apology has only appeared in blogs and in the Diet record. Why the PM's office and the Foreign Ministry and the Japanese press have not wanted to publish this important, historic apology in multiple languages is a mystery. A journalist's question is definitely in order here.

But, he missed it all.

Japan's Changing Role?

Next Thursday, at 10:00 am, the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs will hold a hearing on Japan.

Titled, Japan's Changing Role, the hearing will feature Professor Joseph Nye from Harvard, Dr. Adam Posen from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and Dr. Mike Green from CSIS (he had to rearrange his schedule). Professor Kent Calder from Johns Hopkins SAIS is likely to be added.  

First, what kind of question is that? Japan's role has not changed for years. It is the land of America's forward bases in Asia and passive aggressive acceptance of this situation. Japan's success at avoiding its responsibilities as an ally and as an Asian power are engrained deep in Japanese politics.

That said, it is merely wishful if not wistful thinking by Team Armitage to believe in change. And the change they desire--an effective Japanese fighting force supporting US foreign policy--is not the same change as desired by the majority of Japanese. 

Next, why is Team Armitage testifying? All, except Calder are Team members*. They are all critics of Obama's nascent Japan policy and appalled that Joe Nye was not made US Ambassador to Japan. They remain defensive and proud of their failed Japan policy. It is foolish to assume that Nye might say something interesting now that he is no longer campaigning for the ambassadorship. He is more political than scholarly, thus he is always marketing himself. Soft Power indeed.

Adam Posen is an monetary policy expert who has seen Japan from the back of a limousine and often predicted the collapse of its economy. None of his analysis on Japan is based reality nor has it ever been correct and he has not focused on Japan recently. He will be leaving the Peterson Institute this summer to join the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. They can have him.

Finally, the House of Representatives is supposedly controlled by the Democrats. Thus, I am at a loss as to why the House Committee on Foreign Affairs finds it beneficial to attack the Democratic Administration. The hearing as structured can be interpreted as nothing else. It certainly is not going to introduce any new ideas. Unlike the North Korea hearing mentioned below, there are no expectations for Chairman Eni Faleomavaega to hold a thoughtful discussion. But still, to challenge the Administration on Japan at a delicate time in Asia seems foolish, at best.

Anyway, the hearing will be webcast for you to judge yourself.

*Calder does not agree with many of Armitage's premises about Japan. Armitage is also a competitor for consulting contracts and Tokyo's affections.

It's Not Just Me

Just in case you think I am the only one in Washington who is weary of the "game," you should check in with today's Nelson Report. Mr. Nelson's near-daily observations are the must-read for the Asia policy crowd in Washington. Every major Asian government subscribes to his report and any analyst, policy official, or scholar worth anything is on his mailing list.

He was appalled by the lack of preparation of the Congressmen holding the hearing, North Korea's Nuclear and Missile Tests and the Six-Party Talks: Where Do We Go From Here.  It was jointly held by two subcommittees of the House Foreign Affairs Committee: Asia and Terrorism. 

Unfortunately, the heads of these subcommittees are among the dumbest in Congress. Both have excellent, knowledgeable staff to advise them, but it is completely lost on the two Ranking Members' ability to absorb complex thought or even to read correctly what their staff has written for them.

Nelson bluntly criticized their shear inability to ask a reasoned question. More subtly, he criticized the men who testified as having a bit too much self-confidence in their ability to repeat common knowledge off the cuff. He writes:

Today's joint House HFAC subcommittee hearing on N. Korea policy (by Asia & Pacific, and Terrorism) could have made a real public service today, had it been interested in serious discussion with highly experienced, very diverse policy advocates including Sig Harrison, Richard Bush, Scott Snyder, and Tom Hubbard.

It wasn't, so the opportunity was lost. 

Neither Hubbard nor Harrison appeared to have written statements ready for distribution at the time of the hearing (you can find them all now online along with a video and transcript here). Guess the interns were slow in writing it. Amb. Hubbard was also so practiced at repeating his thoughts on Korea, that he merely spoke off the cuff. Harrison, a former Washington Post journalist who discovered North Korea, tends to sensationalize and focus on a "story lead."

Nelson continued:

Bush, Snyder and Hubbard patiently outlined the critical issue of China's evolving views...and angst...over NK actions this year; the rising pressure on Japan and S. Korea was cogently analyzed; each explained why they now have, reluctantly, concluded that the game has changed and the DPRK is no longer interested in negotiating its nuclear program.

Harrison paradoxically agreed, but said that's entirely the US fault because the US won't renounce the possible use of force, including nukes, against the DPRK.  A tautological argument, to be sure, but a very important point meriting serious debate.

Not from this group of Members.  Rather, the only real passion came with demands to immediately effect the rescue of the two women, the absolute nadir of which was Chairman Faleomavega's final remark after a long, 2.5 hour exercise:

"We need to wonder whether the 6 Party nuclear talks are more important than these two women..."

Having thus trivialized the nuclear issue beyond any rational point of recognition, Faleomavega earlier, correctly noted that N. Korea and Iran seem to be held to a different standard than India and Pakistan.

But he went on to suggest a practical and moral equivalency between the US and NK nuclear arsenals.

This is taking objectivity to new heights, one might suppose, but as serious discussion of reality, including US treaty commitments based on reality, it begs a few questions...none of which were articulated by Members.