Upcoming Cruises

TBD

Monday, May 24, 2010

THE KOREAS: Goodbye Sunshine

MAY 21, 2010

BY CHRISTIAN CARYL

South Korea has officially accused Kim Jong Il's regime of committing an act of war. Now comes the hard part.

So now it's official: North Korea did it. In the early morning hours of March 26 an explosion tore through the hull of the South Korean naval vessel Cheonan, which was sailing in waters not far from the disputed maritime boundary with the North. The 1,200-ton patrol boat split in two and sank, and 46 sailors lost their lives.

The cause of the disaster wasn't immediately obvious. No one claimed responsibility for an attack, and some sort of accident was, of course, within the realm of possibility. So the South Korean government launched a probe to figure out what happened. On Thursday, after six weeks of work, the investigators presented their findings. The evidence included fragments, recovered from the sea bottom near the sinking, of a Chinese-made torpedo of a kind known to be in use by the North Korean Navy.

So what happens next? Media commentators assure us that -- as is usually the case in matters North Korean -- all the options facing South Korean President Lee Myung Bak are bad ones. Yet this commonplace may need a bit of correcting. President Lee's range of possible moves may be relatively limited, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the ones he chooses will be ineffective. On Friday, Lee ordered his government to prepare "resolute and systematic" countermeasures against North Korea, and announced that he would be announcing further moves in a speech next week. And though he may not go so far as to say it outright, his plan is likely to revolve around doing away with the remnants of the "Sunshine Policy," the South's decade-long program of rapprochement with the North. Bruce Bennett, a Korea-watcher at the Rand Corporation, notes:

"When somebody's committing acts of war against you there isn't any sunshine."

The Sunshine Policy was the brainchild of Kim Dae Jung, the dissident-turned-national leader who came to power in Seoul in 1998. Kim assumed that North Korea's decades of bad behavior could be modified, and the way to do that was by lessening tensions and comprehensively promoting personal and economic contacts between the two countries. The two governments dismantled the propaganda loudspeakers on both sides of the Demilitarized Zone, brought together families that had been separated by the Korean War, and organized several grand investment projects on the northern side of the line. (For some reason no one ever assumed that Kim Jong Il might be able to dig up the cash for investments in the South.) One of those projects was the Hyundai-funded tourism resort at Mount Kumgang, just to the north of the DMZ. Another was the Kaesong Industrial Park, where as of last year some 40,000 North Koreans were earning wages in factories run by several dozen South Korean companies.

For a while it seemed to be working: The North toned down its belligerent rhetoric (well, at least a bit), and inter-Korean contacts, once unthinkable, became the order of the day. South Koreans told pollsters that they welcomed the change in atmosphere. (No one ever managed to ask Northerners what they thought). Yet the inflow of South Korean capital and know-how never seemed quite enough to satisfy Pyongyang, and the broader benefits of more relaxed relations never materialized. The North, for all the warming, went on launching missiles and expanding its nuclear programs.

President Lee came to office in 2008 promising to end the unconditional largesse, and, to no one's real surprise, the North immediately made its disapproval felt, threatening Kaesong investors and refusing to punish a North Korean soldier who shot a southern tourist in cold blood at the Kumgang resort. One theory has it that the sinking of the Cheonan might be the North's retaliation for a naval skirmish that took place last fall, when the Southerners got into a gunfight with a Northern vessel that violated the maritime border between the two countries. At least two North Korean sailors are said to have died. But there may be more to all of this than meets the eye. Ever since the North Korean leadership badly botched a would-be "currency reform" last fall, triggering the first public protests in recent memory, the regime has looked even wobblier than usual. Add to that Kim Jong Il's health problems (he apparently suffered a stroke in 2008 and looked shockingly worse for wear during a recent visit to China) and his correspondingly urgent efforts to ensure the succession of his son Kim Jong-un as North Korea's next leader, and you have a powerful recipe for instability.

All of this means that President Lee has had to tread carefully -- and so far he's been doing a masterful job. Shortly after the attack, he ordered the formation of an investigative panel to be supervised by a bipartisan parliamentary committee -- a highly unusual move in the hyper-polarized world of South Korea's domestic politics. He eschewed condemning the North from the start, even as the families of the drowned sailors were crying out for immediate action.

Andrew Krepinevich, of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, notes that Lee's deliberateness has helped to legitimize the case that Seoul is trying to build:

"It's an approach that shames and discredits the North by showing the restraint and caution of the South."

The ranks of the investigative panel include an American, a Canadian, an Australian, and -- an especially smart touch -- one citizen of famously neutral Sweden. That gave added weight to the commission's finding that a North Korean task force, including small submarines of the type that presumably snuck up to the Cheonan without being noticed, had left their base a few days before the sinking and returned a few days after.

What will Lee do next? A military counter-attack is probably the least likely option of all, most observers concede -- though it certainly makes sense, as President Lee has already vowed to do, to plug any gaps in South Korean defenses that might tempt the North into another sally. As its first move over the next few days, Seoul will probably ask the U.N. Security Council to censure Pyongyang's actions and apply a fresh round of sanctions in addition to those imposed on the North after its last nuclear test. The biggest challenge there, of course, will be getting the Chinese to come on board -- which, given the overwhelming evidence, they might well do, if only at the cost of diluting the language of a subsequent resolution.

Bruce Bechtol, a former military intelligence officer who now teaches at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, recommends another angle:

"Taking strong economic measures will hit North Korea where it hurts -- in the pocketbook."

For instance, it's time to shut down the Kaesong complex, he insists -- and the same goes for the already moribund Kumgang Mountain project, which over its lifetime has served as the source for a billion dollars worth of income to the North Koreans. In the meantime, he says, the U.S. needs to put North Korea back on the State Department's list of sponsors of state terrorism. (The North was removed from the list by the George W. Bush administration, which was trying to lure Pyongyang back to the now-defunct six-party talks, the negotiating forum aimed at persuading the regime to shed its nuclear weapons.)

Critics respond that all of this is easier said than done. There are still hundreds of South Korean employees living in the Kaesong complex, for example, who will make wonderful hostages in the event of a further uptick in tensions. Rand's Bennett says that the important thing is for Lee to devise a punishment for the North that falls on the country's leadership, rather than its already-suffering citizens -- as the West's sanctions have too often done. Now it's time to make life hard for Kim himself, by gearing up psychological operations that would encourage fissures in his regime. Bennett notes that Pyongyang has reacted especially sensitively to balloon-borne leaflets sent into the North by groups of defectors in recent years. The texts of the leaflets usually assail the regime for its incompetence and corruption, as well as describing some of the maneuverings around Kim's succession (an issue that's closed to discussion in the North Korean media).

Perhaps, says Bennett, it's time to open up the information front on a larger scale. And, what's more, he'd like to see the South Korean government declare that, from now on, it will be taking explicit measures to cope with a possible collapse of the North Korean regime and the unification that will inexorably follow. This might sound like fairly obvious stuff, but it was anathema to say as much during the Sunshine years. In the wake of the Cheonan incident, Bennett believes, the overwhelming majority of South Koreans will be happy to support that new tack.

Managing some of these policies will be tricky. Expect many an anxious moment along the way; the North can be counted on to rattle its sabers. But given how well President Lee has handled everything up to now, it seems like a good bet to assume that cooler heads will prevail. In South Korea, at least.

View article…

CHINA & US: Time to Defriend China

MAY 24, 2010

BY ELIZABETH ECONOMY, ADAM SEGAL |

The quest for the illusory "G-2" has wasted everyone's time for long enough.

"This is not a G-2." With those words, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg finally sounded on May 11 at the Brookings Institution the death knell for the much-touted, if misguided, idea that China and the United States would band together to solve the world's problems.

The idea of a "G-2" was first introduced by C. Fred Bergsten, director of Peterson Institute for International Economic, as a mechanism for promoting agreement between the two sides primarily to address international economic issues. However, it migrated to strategic issues, championed by old Washington hands like Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. The idea resonated with the White House and Foggy Bottom, where hopes were high for joint efforts to solve the financial crisis and address climate change. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remarked in a February 2009 visit to Beijing,

"The opportunities for us to work together are unmatched anywhere in the world."

That hope was short-lived. It has become painfully clear during the first year of Barack Obama's administration that mismatched interests, values, and capabilities make it difficult for Washington and Beijing to work together to address global challenges. China's unwillingness to sit down with the United States and its maneuverings with India, Brazil, and South Africa to undermine a larger agreement at Copenhagen were clear signs that building a special relationship would not be easy. America's approval of arms sales to Taiwan in January and the Dalai Lama's visit with Obama in February returned both sides to old suspicions and sensitivities.

But while we now have a more realistic assessment of what the U.S.-China relationship is not, we still lack a positive formulation of what it is -- or should realistically become. Next week's U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED), the annual high-level dialogue on economic and political issues led by Clinton and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner on the U. S side and Vice Premier Wang Qishan and State Councilor Dai Bingguo on the Chinese, is unlikely to address this lack of a larger framework. In fact it will compound the problem.

In the run-up to next week's meetings, U.S. officials have been all over the map in framing the topics for discussion. State Department officials have identified at least 20 issues of strategic importance to discuss in Beijing. The Treasury Department has laid out an equally broad agenda that includes trade and investment barriers, balanced growth, financial reform, and strengthening the international economic and financial architecture. Meanwhile, some White House officials have mentioned specific goals, such as RMB revaluation; others have said the goal is the development of a larger framework to address strategic issues; still others have said they hope that by putting controversial issues like local content requirements on the agenda, they can get the most senior Chinese officials to make decisions on topics that would typically disappear within the bureaucracy.

These are all worthy objectives and outcomes, but the lackluster history of similar dialogues suggests there are better ways to spend our time and effort. Past such dialogues have achieved only modest success delivering on specific goals. Yes, it's true that the last S&ED yielded agreements on EcoPartnerships, collaboration on electric vehicle standards, and development of smart grids. Yet such small-scale cooperation and capacity-building have been a staple of U.S. energy and environmental talks for decades. These narrow goals would hardly seem to merit flying more than a dozen U.S. cabinet members and agency heads crossing the Pacific.

Let's be realistic: Progress on core U.S. strategic interests largely emanates from outside such talks. For instance, at Copenhagen, China reversed its stance on two core issues related to its climate change negotiation position, establishing voluntary emission reduction targets and offering to move to the back of the line for international funding assistance. Both of these moves, however, were a response to concerns in the developing world, not U.S. pressure. Similarly, Beijing's apparent willingness to rescind the most controversial portions of a proposed government procurement strategy that would have closed off a large portion of the Chinese market to foreign technologies arose from widescale global protest, not simply U.S. objections. And China's recent decision to support the U.S.-led sanctions against Iran depended largely on Russia folding first and leaving China without political cover to maintain its opposition.

Having expended significant time and energy creating this overarching bilateral dialogue, the temptation for the Obama administration will be to keep the S&ED, move forward on all fronts, and see what sticks. This would be fine if the issues didn't actually matter and our policymakers had unlimited time and patience. Neither is the case.

Joshua Cooper Ramo, Kissinger Associate Managing Director, has suggested a second option: disband the S&ED. In its place, the two sides would build à la carte dialogues around issues of real strategic interest that can be established and disbanded at will. This would free hundreds of people to work on other pressing issues, as well as eliminate the almost inevitable cycle of Washington defending what it did or did not get from high level dialogues. But it would also mean the loss of institutional continuity and personal connections that are an important part of the bilateral relationship, especially in times of crisis.

Going forward, it makes the most sense to keep the S&ED, but to downsize it. The Treasury secretary and the secretary of State should continue their discussions with their Chinese counterparts about the broad strategic issues in the relationship, but everybody else should stay home. Issue-specific discussions should be carried out by individual agencies on their own timelines: The Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade will continue conducting negotiations on innovation and industrial policy will carry on in; and the Department of Energy, the EPA, and the National Science Foundation will continue their good work on energy and climate change.

Downgraded dialogues would also more closely resemble the true state of U.S.-China relations. It would be a symbol of the possibility of greater cooperation when, and if, there is a convergence of the values, interests, and capabilities of the two sides. It would recognize the importance of the bilateral relationship, but simultaneously acknowledge that less is likely to be accomplished just by Washington talking with Beijing.

The sticking points in U.S.-China relations are mirrored in China's relations with much of the rest world. The European Union and Japan, for example, find it no easier to negotiate with China on issues such as trade, climate change, cyber conflict, and the Dalai Lama. As a result, the United States is more likely to make progress when it spends time and energy cultivating allies throughout the rest of the world. We shouldn't shed any tears for the G-2. Its demise enables us to make real progress with China by looking elsewhere.

View article…

S. KOREA: Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern

bizarre_ep_south-korea_228x128.jpg 

In this episode airing on the Travel Channel, Andrew travels to Seoul, South Korea, where he feasts on the country's most authentic soups, barbecues and fermented foods. Andrew's Asian adventure goes beyond eating when he makes his first batch of fresh kimchi.

More details…

CHINA: Beijing's Most Embarrassing Allies

MAY 24, 2010

BY JOSHUA E. KEATING

As China has grown into a major economic and military power in the last two decades, its mad scramble for energy resources and trading partners has led it into alliances with some of the world's most unsavory governments. Here are five regimes that couldn't survive without Beijing.

NORTH KOREA

Beijing's interests:  Stability, bilateral trade, and a buffer between China and South Korea

The relationship:  Chinese support for North Korea dates back to the 1950s, when Beijing loaned military aid and fighters to Kim Il Sung's communist government during the Korean War. China quickly became North Korea's primary benefactor and trading partner, a relationship that has continued under the rule of Kim Jong Il. Ninety percent of North Korea's energy imports, 80 percent of its consumer goods, and 45 percent of its food now come from China.

The relationship isn't all one-sided. An increasing number of Chinese firms are investing in North Korea to take advantage of its rock-bottom labor costs and large coal and mineral deposits. Bilateral trade between the two countries reached $2.79 billion in 2008, up more than 40 percent from the year before. More importantly for Beijing, North Korea provides a friendly buffer zone between China's northeast and capitalist, democratic South Korea -- as well as the 37,500 U.S. troops based there.

China has frequently used its position on the U.N. Security Council to block harsher sanctions against Kim's regime. Since North Korea began its pursuit of nuclear weapons, Beijing has seemed more exasperated with Kim's belligerence and at times, has even supported international sanctions. Although the support is not as unconditional as it once was, China remains North Korea's most important ally, as evidenced by the reclusive Kim Jong Il's recent trip to Beijing, where he met with President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao and reportedly suggested once again that he might be willing to return to the negotiating table.

Most embarrassing moment:  China was instrumental in cajoling North Korea into participating in the 2003-2005 six-party talks aimed at denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, which culminated in a 2005 agreement by North Korea to dismantle its nuclear program in exchange for foreign aid. So when Pyongyang tore up the agreement and tested a nuclear weapon in October 2006, it was widely perceived as a "slap in the face" to a Chinese government that had repeatedly stuck its neck out for its troublesome southeastern neighbor. One week after the tests, China agreed for the first time to support U.N. sanctions on North Korea, and the political relationship between the two countries has been strained ever since. Fearing the chaos and potential refugee crisis that might result if the Kim regime were to fall, however, China is still wary about applying too much pressure, and trade between the countries continues to increase.

IRAN

Beijing's interests:  Oil and gas

The relationship:  The economic relationship between Iran and China dates back to the days of the Silk Road, but has taken on a new geopolitical importance in the last decade, as China has sought out reliable sources of oil to fuel its growing economy, and an increasingly isolated Iran has looked eastward as relations with the United States and Europe have deteriorated.

Iran is China's third-largest source of oil, supplying about 11.4 percent of its oil imports. Bilateral trade between the two countries totaled $21.2 billion in 2009, up from 10.1 billion in 2005. The China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC) has reached deals to develop new oil and natural gas fields throughout the country. Because Iran lacks the capacity to refine its own oil into gasoline, it's also a major importer of Chinese petroleum products.

As Iran has, over strong U.S. and European opposition, continued to develop its nuclear program, China has repeatedly opposed, on the Security Council, international sanctions against its new business partner, generally proposing that diplomatic efforts be given more time.

Most embarrassing moment:  China's stated position, that the Iranian nuclear issue could be resolved through negotiations, took a hit in November 2009, when Iran rejected a deal to ship its uranium abroad for enrichment. China joined with the other members of the Security Council in expressing disappointment with Iran's decision and has publicly urged Iran to accept the new agreement. China welcomed a similar fuel-swap deal negotiated by Brazil and Turkey this May, but it was apparently too little too late. The United States quickly announced that China had finally agreed to tougher sanctions, but the devil is in the details, and it's still unclear whether Beijing will sign on to the most punitive measures backed by the other big powers.

SUDAN

Beijing's interests:  Oil

The relationship:  As China's insatiable demand for energy has led it to invest more and more in Africa, it has come under frequent criticism for its relationship with unstable and unsavory regimes -- but none has been more controversial than Sudan. Cooperation between the two countries began during the 1970s, when Mao Zedong provided the country's then-Marxist government with loans and medical aid. But it wasn't until the 1990s that energy cooperation between the two countries took off, after American oil companies pulled out due to U.S. sanctions.

The international sanctions applied to Sudan following the country's bloody civil war and the ongoing violence in Darfur have allowed China overwhelming dominance over the country's energy sector. CNPC is the largest investor in Sudan's state-owned oil company, and China purchases 40 percent of the country's oil output, accounting for about 6 percent of China's imports.

Even more controversially, human rights groups allege that China has sold Sudan more than $55 million in small arms -- weapons that have been used to kill more than 300,000 people in the Darfur region. Chinese cooperation with Sudan has continued even as Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir has been charged with crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court. China, along with Russia, has blocked sanctions against Sudan on the Security Council.

Most embarrassing moment:  Next to Tibet, China's relationship with Sudan is the most frequent cause of anti-Chinese ire from human rights activists. In the run-up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, for instance, Darfur activists disrupted the Olympic torch relay and then U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton called on President George W. Bush to boycott the opening ceremony. Bush went, but another high-profile guest, American film director Steven Spielberg, who had signed on as a consultant to the opening ceremonies, pulled out of the project over his objections to China's policies in Sudan.

BURMA

Beijing's interests:  Natural gas and mining

The relationship:  Burma has traditionally exported raw materials like timber and gemstones to China, but nowadays Beijing has its eyes on a much bigger prize: Burma's estimated 21.19 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves. CNPC signed a 30-year natural gas deal with Burma in 2008, and a pipeline carrying gas to China's Yunnan province is expected to come online in 2012. China has also begun work on an oil pipeline through Burma that will save Chinese tankers a costly trip through the politically sensitive Strait of Malacca. China gave Burma about $2 billion in military aid between 1995 and 2005, including fighter jets and naval vessels.

Although China has been more than willing to turn a blind eye to Burma's crackdowns on political opposition and has stood up for the Burmese junta in the Security Council, there are signs that the relationship has begun to deteriorate. Burma's long-running military campaign against ethnic minorities in its northeast has sent thousands across the border into China, bringing narcotics and HIV/AIDS with them. China expressed its "deep concern," in August 2009, prompting the junta to issue a rare apology. Above all, China is looking for stability from its southern neighbor and energy provider, and the increasingly isolated junta seems unable to provide it.

Most Embarrassing moment:  Burma's 2007 anti-government protests were a wake-up call to China. The images of Buddhist monks taking to the streets en masse to challenge the junta's authority was not a sight that Chinese leaders particularly wanted to see replicated throughout the region, particularly in Tibet. Burmese Foreign Minister U Nyan Win was publicly admonished on a trip to Beijing that year by senior Chinese diplomat Tang Jiaxuan, who told him to "restore internal stability" and "push forward a democracy process that is appropriate for the country." Perhaps hedging its bets, China has lately begun to reach out to imprisoned Burmese democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi. China's wavering commitment to the junta will likely be tested again later this year, when the government has tentatively planned to hold elections with Suu Kyi's party banned from participating.

ZIMBABWE

Beijing's interests:  Precious metals

The relationship:  Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe is a long-time Sinophile, dating back to his days as a rebel leader fighting the white-dominated Rhodesian government, when he received arms, training, and funding from Beijing. Mugabe made a point of visiting China in 1980, the first year of his leadership, to thank the Chinese for their support.

The Chinese government has publicly supported Mugabe's controversial land-reform policies and has granted the country billions in agricultural aid. China has also sold Mugabe's regime the latest military technology, including FC-1 fighter jets, 100 military vehicles, and a state-of-the-art radar system at Mugabe's mansion in the suburbs of Harare.

In exchange, Mugabe has opened up Zimbabwe's vast mineral deposits, including the world's second-largest supply of platinum, to Chinese investment. Chinese companies have pumped millions into rebuilding the country's struggling mining sector, expanding economic cooperation as Western governments have slapped increasingly harsh sanctions on Mugabe's regime.

Most embarrassing moment:  During the Zimbabwean government's 2008 crackdown following a disputed presidential election, China was caught red-handed when a ship carrying small arms intended for Zimbabwe -- including 3 million rounds of ammunition and 1,500 rocket-propelled grenades -- was turned away by South African authorities at the port of Durban. After it was prevented from unloading at several African ports, the ship was eventually forced to return to China.

View article…

S. KOREA: Films Recognized at Cannes International Film Festival

Eric Gaillard/Reuters

The Cannes Film Festival is the world's most prestigious film festival, looming over all others, a privileged moment for celebrating past glories and great expectations. Established in 1946, it takes place each May at Cannes, a town along the French Riviera.

Every year Cannes appears, alluring and forbidding, a haunted palace that knows better than to open wide its doors, become democratic or user-friendly -- leave that to the North Americans. The competition choices obey a certain logic: the festival is faithful to those who have triumphed and those who have suffered.

The Marché du Film, where meetings, negotiations and deals take place in parallel to the Festival de Cannes, draws more than 10,000 buyers and sellers from around the world, according to the festival's organizers.

This year two Korean films were recognized.

Award for Best Screenplay
LEE Chang-dong for POETRY

Movie Picture

Best screenplay went to the South Korean Lee Chang-dong for “Poetry,” a beautifully directed, emotionally wrenching drama about a grandmother who discovers that her only grandson has been party to a horrific crime. Mr. Lee, speaking in English, acknowledged his powerhouse female star, Yun Jung-hee, who gave one of the most memorable performances of the festival.

Un Certain Regard Prize - Groupama Gan Foundation for Cinema
HAHAHA directed by HONG Sangsoo

Movie Picture

On Saturday the Certain Regard prize went to “Ha Ha Ha,” a wistful, intricately structured comedy from the South Korean director Hong Sang-soo. In a festival that tends to be crammed with films that skew toward the grave — religious fundamentalism was a recurrent theme — the humor in “Ha Ha Ha” was also a relief.

Although the Certain Regard films are not part of the main competition, this section has consistently become a showcase for some of the strongest, most innovative and daring work at Cannes. Such was the case this year with a largely well-received slate . . .

View article…

Complete NYT coverage of the Cannes International Film Festival

Festival de Cannes