Yoon snubbed in Madrid

Note: original post 6.29, edited and updated serveral times thru 7.3 11am EST; fuel price error corrected 7.5.

(Source- Seoul Story youtube 6.28) President Biden's "no look" handshake regarded as a symbol of the humiliating foreign policy of South Korean President Yoon Seok-yeol.


One has to wonder why President Yoon Seok-yeol of South Korea bothered to go to the NATO get together in Madrid. However, Yoon is all about photo ops, with little on substance. In a short video clip taken inside the cabin of his flight to Europe, Yoon was asked by a reporter why he was going to Madrid. He deferred giving a specific answer. Maybe because he couldn't address the substantive issues. Other than this he spent most of his time shaking hands with the press entourage on his flight as if he were still campaigning on his deceptive man of the people platform.

The Europeans and Americans made it clear that the issues at the NATO meeting were to strengthen the alliance against both Russia and China in the ongoing cold war 2.0. So the question is, what is the point of aggravating China or Russia for South Korea? Yoon played his right wing pro-US, pro-Japan stance during the presidential campaign and just had a summit with President Biden in South Korea recently. After Yoon had already shown his hand during the presidential campaign, given away everything at the US-Korean summit, he lost any diplomatic leverage he could have exercised. So what's the point?

The "no look" video clip is just one of what was a series of diplomatic lapses in Madrid concerning Yoon and the "first lady" Kim Gon-hee, who were both obviously out of their element in the international diplomatic setting. A photograph of Yoon standing with the NATO Secretary General and the leaders of Japan, Australia and New Zealand with his eyes closed, was published on the NATO website and went viral in South Korea. Kim Gon-hee could not even be seen in one photograph of the NATO and partner leaders' wives, and was almost entirely out of view in others. Yoon's arrival in Madrid was evaluated as another humbling experience for South Koreans. There was no red carpet, no honor guard, apparently no official reception formalities of any kind when he arrived at the airport in Madrid. Each of these episodes were compared unfavorably to the "VVIP" reception afforded former president Moon Jae-in and his wife, Kim Jung-sook, in similar international settings.

(Source- News and people youtube 7.2.22) Foreign policy issues outlined during the presidential campaign earlier this year foretold outcomes of Yoon's declared positions. Blue column on the left shows the respective policy positions of former candidate Lee Jae-myung with respect to China, North Korea and US. The red column on the right shows the policies of current President Yoon Seok-yeol during the presidential campaign (click to enlarge to read English translations).

What's next a Japanese - South Korean military alliance?
Was this treatment by NATO just the result of incompetence on the part of Yoon and his foreign policy team? Former Chancellor of the Korea National Diplomacy Academy, Kim Joon-hyung suggested that Yoon's foreign policy is reckless and dangerous. Is South Korea really going to ally itself with a Japan which is aiming to become a great military power again with the prospect of joint US-Japanese offensive strikes against North Korea? Kim suggested that Yoon appears headed in that direction. Under what conditions would such strikes take place? Is South Korea going to play the role of puppet behind the US and Japan? The lack of reflection on the potential damage to South Korean national interests caused by such a loss of independence in setting its foreign policy is dangerous according to Professor Kim. It's evident that at some point during the campaign Yoon had considered the possibility of Japanese forces on the Korean peninsula in the event of a national emergency. Really?

Yoon wasn't even invited to the G-7 "plus" meeting and Japan had made it very clear that there would be no one on one summit with Kishida, impromptu or otherwise, until this and this and that, etc. The recent revelation concerning a South Korean committee that Yoon proposes to establish, would appear intended to set aside the Mitsubishi slave labor litigation judgement. The disclosure also reveals that Japan is not making any real concessions or apologies and that a package similar to the "comfort women" agreement reached with the Park Geun-hye administration is on the table. Frankly it's disgraceful. There was a command performance three way summit among South Korea, the US, and Japan, about regional security issues, but most observers understand that Japan would not have attended with South Korea but for the presence of the US President Joe Biden. Yoon was quoted at one point saying that Russia should be held accountable for its actions. What conceivable benefit South Korea could obtain by interjecting itself into a European conflict is unknown.

Allegedly, Yoon's deputy National Security Advisor Kim Tae-hyo said that the agreement for the Yoon, Biden and Kishida to sit down wasn't reached until the "eleventh hour." This means Kishida was the hold out. Kim Tae-hyo is another who has made a comment showing that he could envison the presence of Japanese forces on the Korean peninsula in some future scenario. This apparently is where Yoon may have picked up this entirely impractical notion. Yet, Kishida wouldn't agree to an informal one on one summit with Yoon. Appearing to make concessions to Korea is bad for ones image in Japanese politics. This despite the fact that Yoon and his security advisor are both pro-Japan 친일 and hardliners 강경파 of the cold war variety. Korean Prime Minister Han Duk-soo ludicrously maintained that the South Korean president apparently joining in the NATO/anti-Sino front wouldn't have any significant economic repercussions on the South Korean economy. That economyy is already in the tank with 6.50 dollar a gallon gasoline (about 2200kw per ltr in Seoul), a growth rate projected at less than 2 percent, and a growing debt problem. China helped South Korea when Japan used retaliatory trade measures to damage its semi-conductor manufacturing sector. Is South Korea going to join efforts now to "decouple" from its largest trade partner in order to "safeguard its supply chain?"

The question is what did Yoon get for his humiliating experience in Madrid? Yoon got a photo op with Biden and Kishida (no one on one with Kishida); a deal for Samsung electronics in the Netherlands, apparently; and an opportunity to give a platitudious three minute speech about countries "governed by law." The latter hit a sore spot with critics given his effort to secure direct control of South Korea's police back home. That effort by Yoon is regarded by the political opposition as unlawful, and threatening a return to a police state. (See our previous post Police reforms point to authoritarian future for South Korea, June 28).


https://twitter.com/TimothyS/status/1541946177314324480

윤석열부부의 불안한 첫 외교; 시사건건 youtube 6.28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1xUKdQcGkA&t=212s

세계가 주목할 기발한 외교술! 손금외교! / 하나하나씩 들어맞는 미국 싱크탱크의 예견!; News and people youtube, 7.2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqIVzCl5YJc

김어준의 뉴스공장 youtube 6.29
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dnh0N-m9DwY

Biden moves into foreign policy void created by President Yoon in South Korea

(Source- 언론 알아야 바꾼다 youtube 5.16 ) Cartoon lampooning President Yoon Seok-yeol's press coverage inside and outside mainstream media. (Above in a suit) Inside, known for his taste for rich foods, in fact his visits to restaurants and markets to purchase foods (and liquor) are widely reported in the media. The reference to 화장실 hwa jangshil (bathroom) is probably a play on words, reflecting his tendency to go off on people ( 이봐! 응?,응? ). (Below- dressed as a Shaman or Mudang) Outside (unconventional) media focus on Yoon's superstitious beliefs in wizardry and cults, his partronage of shamanism, his general hatreds (working class, political dissent, media critics, Africans, political rivals), and his characterization as the K-Trump.

CNN summarizes US objectives during President Biden's visit to South Korea:

.…Biden has sought on his trip to link the parallel sets of economic and security issues that have emerged in his discussions with leaders. His trade outline, viewed as a scaled-down alternative to the Trans Pacific Partnership trade pact scrapped by his predecessor, is expected to place heavy emphasis on resilient supply chains decoupled from Chinese parts — a message he conveyed at multiple points in Seoul.

Among the other myriad issues he hopes to raise — which include regional security, trade, the Covid pandemic and the Ukraine war — is the question of improving ties between the two countries he is visiting this week. Relations between Japan and South Korea have worsened over recent years, a combination of long-simmering historical resentments and more recent trade actions.

Biden told reporters in Seoul on Saturday “it’s critically important” the US, South Korea and Japan have a “very close trilateral relationship.*

*Biden set to wrap up South Korean leg of his first Asia trip as President with visit to US troops, CNN by Kevin Liptak, 5.21.22;
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/21/politics/joe-biden-south-korea-japan-sunday/index.html

In addition to his numerous other character flaws, President Yoon Seok-yeol of South Korea, again demonstrates his incompetence in foreign affairs and national security by agreeing in principle to new directions in South Korean foreign policy after only ten days in office. The summit with President Biden took place without an opportunity for ministerial level studies of the impact of any “decoupling” from China on South Korean economics, nor the security implications of totally repudiating the tacit agreements the US made at Singapore with North Korea, and adopting what is in essence an anti-China policy by widening the scope of the alliance with the US. There was virtually no prior opportunity for negotiations at the working level. Yoon and his national security staff are “amateurs” who have virtually conceded to every US demand with no clear assessment of the consequences. In fact, Yoon telegraphed his positions before he even took office. The notion that the US and Japan know better how to handle South Korean national interests is dubious at best.

The CNN article, along with others in western media, refers to Yoon’s presidential office in the former MND building on the old Yongsan military base as the “People’s House.” Isn't the National Assembly Building in Yoido the "People's House?" What the western media miss is former Ministery of National Defense building's unsuitability to replace the Blue House as the national command center. Yoon’s refusal to move into the Blue House has resulted in extensive costs and disrupted command and control of South Korea’s emergency response system in the event of military provocations or national disasters. Yoon’s transition team made clear before he assumed office that the so called “People’s House” would in fact be largely dedicated to “public private partnerships,” installed on the top five floors which would allow lobbyists from the private sector to bargain with Yoon’s staff, over how to carve up South Korea’s state owned assets, including airports, railways, power companies, and other public assets for their own benefit. One of the lower floors will be reserved for the conservative media which will continue its role as a publicity organ for the conservative party and its corporate backers. Hypocritically, Yoon's office had police establish a 100 meter peripheral no public assembly zone around the Yongsan Garrison near the MND location on Itawwonno and the Samgakchi area which was struck down, in part, by two court decisions thus far, which nevertheless placed substantial constraints on such assemblies. There were small demonstrations against Biden and the US military at various points during the Biden visit to South Korea. The general thrust of the demonstrations was that Biden and the US military were creating a crisis that would lead to war.

Here’s a paragraph from the joint statement posted at the official US government web sites:

President Yoon and President Biden emphasize that the path to dialogue remains open toward peaceful and diplomatic resolution with the DPRK and call on DPRK to return to negotiations. President Yoon outlined his vision to normalize inter-Korean relationship through an audacious plan aimed at a denuclearized and prosperous Korean peninsula and President Biden expresses his support for inter-Korean cooperation. Both leaders underscore the importance of ROK-U.S.-Japan trilateral cooperation for responding to the DPRK’s challenges, protecting shared security and prosperity, upholding common values, and bolstering the rules-based international order.

Yoon has no such “audacious plan,” and neither does Biden. President Biden like hia predecessors intends to provide no support for “inter-Korean cooperation,” in fact, the US and Japan are consistently opposed to it. The policy is regime change in North Korea, and no amount of misleading verbiage or dissimulation is going to change that. The consistent mischaracterizations of prior president Moon Jae-in as an appeaser, weak on national defense, a "pinko" and other McCarthyite smears in US media are likely to widen the domestic rift in South Korean politics. Biden reportedly made a ten minute courtesy call to former President Moon which appears to be an effort to offset some of the negative reaction and ill will fomented by US and Japanese policies toward the former administration and Korea in general. Yoon’s support is the lowest of any South Korean president at the outset of his administration. In other words, there is no honeymoon period for the candidate the US obviously preferred to take office, and the US visit is unlikely to help.



惑世誣民 혹세무민

On Rahm Emanuel's confirmation as US Ambassador to Japan

The US military occupation of Japan was initially conceived as a check on Japanese militarism. During the latter phases of WWII and in the lead up to the Treaty of San Francisco, the major role of post war Japan was recast by the US as the bulwark against communism in East Asia. Japan became the rear area of support for US forces in the Korean War and the Vietnam War.

The US has become so comfortable with the view that Japan will always be the reliable ally to count on in Asia, the notion that it still harbors revanchist goals, and seeks to reassert its status in Asia as a "normal country with a normal military" is hardly perceived as a risk. In fact, open discussion of "unleashing Japan," and "strangling China" has recently appeared in American media with US fears of China's emergence as a "peer rival." Necessarily, the right wing LDP leadership of Japan encourages this inclination.

War in Korea, and war in Vietnam was good for business in Japan. Wouldn't war over Taiwan, the former Japanese colony, also be good? The plutocrats in Japan encourage the worst inclinations of Washington. Won't Washington come to Japan's defense if it gets in a military confrontation over the Senkaku Islands? Oh, yes of course we will, Biden reassured them. And Japan's leadership has assured its former colony Taiwan that they will come to its aid, if it is attacked by China. Almost without any critical public discussion, the US has abandoned a more finessed policy toward the PRC and the Taiwan issue adopted during the later stages of the Vietnam era.

The political landscape of the emerging anti China alliance of the US, UK, and Japan resembles the turn of the 20th Century consensus on Asian imperial alliances of convenience that led to a series of wars, resulting in Japan's conquest and acquisition of Taiwan and Korea, and ended ultimately in WWII. The notion that Japan might be considered a revanchist power in the 21st Century, led by the modern day heirs of the Meiji imperialists and war criminals may seem absurd to Americans today, but the Japanese overestimated their reach before. The US is overestimating its reach now encouraged by Japan's leadership. In the echo chamber of alliance enthralled members poring over their geopolitical theories and legalistic rationalizations, the tactics and policies promoted and adopted by the politicians, admirals and "diplomats" in Japan and the US have become more extreme and inclined to take unwise risks staking out untenable positions.

Does anyone think Rahm Emanuel would provide wise counsel and sober restraint concerning such matters? During his hearing Emanuel spoke of the Indo-Pacific concept as a strategy formulated by Shinzo Abe and embraced by the US. He also confirmed that Japan was the paramount US ally in Asia, and that other allies needed to unite with the US-Japanese vision of the Indo-Pacific. Further he asserted that it was the Chinese (and North Korea) who sought to divide the alliance, and construct a world order in which "all roads lead to Beijing." As far as any allies, specifically South Korea, that had grievances or issues with Japan's excesses during the 20th Century, they needed to look to the future, not the past, and see the "possibilities in the 21st Century." In other words "ignore the past." This is truly ironic and in the category of the philosophy behind former President Obama's statement "we tortured some folks." Or as Wendy Sherman once asked, "when are they going to get over it?"

The possibility of the future for South Koreans is to reach some level of social, commercial, and political accomodation over time with North Korea. Our South Korean "ally" was devastated by Japan, who literally followed policies of inhumane brutality, economic expropriation and cultural destruction, during its half century colonial administration. Then Korea was divided permanently by US strategic design after the liberation and remained so after the brutal Korean war. It is clear the US and Japan have no intention of allowing their "ally" South Korea any initiative with respect to its destiny on the Korean peninsula. They will not allow a land based integration through North Korea with the rest of Asia. It might be said in terms of US policy, that all roads lead to Tokyo. The division of China from Taiwan is a similar geostrategic artifact regardless of how it is framed in terms of "our values." The notion expressed by Emanuel that all the nations of Asia are craving US leadership to confront China is a dangerous illusion.

The US: Wages of Destruction

Adam Tooze wrote a book The Wages of Destruction: the Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy. He outlines a now or never perspective among German industrial leaders who saw a closing window of opportunity to defeat Germany's European rivals to become a continental power like the US. The means to foreclose the possibility of slipping into second rate status as a world power was to be achieved by military conquest. Currently, the Russia-China partnership and the belt and road initiative present the MacKinder nightmare of "barbarian uncivilized peoples" controlling the so called "world island." In the Anglo-American geo-political perspective rooted in 19th and 20th Century notions of racial, ethnic and ideological superiority this cannot happen.

(Source- USNI Oct. 4) US aircraft carriers Vinson and Reagan with HMS Queen Elizabeth, and the Japanese small carrier Ise. Taiwan News reported these ships operating north of Taiwan, October 3 and 4, with 13 other allied warships.
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4306367


The 2016 Rand study on the challenge posed to the US by the growth in Chinese power posits a window of US military superiority ending in 2025.* A few respected US analysts of China's military power consider this discussion dangerously mistaken. The Chinese already have conventional military superiority in their littoral seas and on the mainland. Nevertheless, the Rand discussion represents a similar now or never perspective in the US which is widely accepted: namely, act now, while the US has the advantage. In the first half of the 20th Century, Japan suffered from a similar syndrome as Nazi Germany and miscalculated the outcomes possible in the Pacific War.

*War with China, Thinking Through the Unthinkable, Rand Corporation, Gombert et al, 2016; https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1100/RR1140/RAND_RR1140.pdf


The right in Japan currently and the US are in a negative feedback loop overestimating how they can make China submit to the US/UK/Japan imperial redefinition of geopolitical reality in Asia. Similar US miscalculations preceded the disastrous Korean and Vietnam wars, in which millions were killed. The ongoing current delusion shared by the prior early 20th Century allies, who carved up Asia and the western Pacific before their falling out during WW II, represents a revival of obsolescent geopolitical views. The US unfortunately appears ideologically and culturally incapable of engaging in any kind of geopolitical ceasefire with China as some critics of US foreign policy have sensibly recommended.

The US will be encouraged to engage in further abandonment of the "three communiques" concerning the one China policy by the UK and Japan. Provocations in this regard will continue with respect to Taiwan. Exaggerated and false claims concerning Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Tibet and the South China Sea repeated in Enlish language media daily are accepted uncritically by insular domestic audiences who literally know nothing about East Asia. Already the anti-Beijing Olympics strategy is being rolled out for propaganda purposes. Anyone who studies the so called human rights campaigns sponsored by the US against various Asian states, knows that they signal the end rather than the beginning of negotiations, because they are an in essence interference in the internal affairs of those states and represent regime change efforts. It goes without saying that no objective analyst could take western claims of genocide in Xinjiang seriously. The domestic racism and xenophobia against China and its nationals in the US has been whipped up to a frenzy for political purposes and now really can't be contained. Anyone proposing diplomatic solutions will be ridiculed, accused of disloyalty or worse as 1950s era McCarthyism reemerges.

One China Policy legal review claims the Allies have title to Taiwan

Currently there are disputes about the "One China" policy and what it means. One, admittedly older, penumbral style legal analysis of the One China policy and what it purportedly means runs through a historical examination of the events leading to the current ambiguity or dissimulation, if you prefer, giving rise to the dispute over what the One China policy means. Frank Chiang's law review article merits review.* Some no doubt will find the legal discussion supportive of their view that the One China policy means something other than one China. In other words those who agree that Taiwan is not in fact Chinese territory may like the article. The opinion expressed here, is that the logic applied in the legal thesis is specious and fanciful, satisfying foreign policy objectives of the US, UK, Japan, and Taiwan separatists.

*One-China Policy and Taiwan, Y. Frank Chiang (2004)
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1950&context=ilj

(Source- USNI Oct. 4) US aircraft carriers Vinson and Reagan with HMS Queen Elizabeth, and the Japanese small carrier Ise. Taiwan News reported these ships operating north of Taiwan, October 3 and 4, with 13 other allied warships. .:
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4306367


After reading the detailed history, in Chiang's lengthy law review article, it appears that the west engaged in the kind of prevarication and equivocation with China that characterized prior agreements with Cuban and Philippine independence fighters and indigenous American peoples and Hawaiian natives before that. One Asian statesmen not too long ago, referred to a US diplomat as a long haired general on horseback, a sharp characterization of how current US Asian policy does resemble earlier treatment of indigenous Americans in the not too distant past. Present US equivocation (or doubletalk) on the One China policy by the Biden administration, clearly takes the form of 19th Century gunboat diplomacy. The administration attempts to treat China as some third rate power that it can it fool and intimidate, while making transparently false representations that it isn't seeking confrontation.

Japan's war against China began in 1894 in the Sino-Japanese War. It was this Japanese war that resulted in the Treaty of Shimonoseki and Japan's annexation of Taiwan. This US/UK/Japanese/Taiwan legal theory postulates that this treaty conveyed legitimate "title of Taiwan" to Japan. Further, when the KMT occupied Taiwan after Japan's defeat in WW II they did not get "title" to Taiwan but were only authorized by MacArthur to administer Taiwan as the "agent of the Allied Powers." (Not suprisingly the western diplomats, according to the account, deprived the KMT of their own agency with a treaty device). While Japan was divested of its "title" to Taiwan, after its defeat in WW II, title did not then vest in the KMT because the provisions of the Treaty of San Francisco did not give "title" to Taiwan to them. Nor did any subsequent treaty. According to the author, the Allied Powers were the vested successors in interest to the Taiwan "title" and this really hasn't changed since. At one point in this discusion, Chiang admits his view that as a practical matter, "title" to Taiwan, actually rests in the United States. This imperial theory posits that the promises made to China concerning the return of Taiwan to China at Cairo and Potsdam were not implemented because leaders of the US and UK didn't want to give it to them and expressions of the Allies intent at those wartime conferences were allegedly without legal significance or import. Note that no equitable theory is raised. This contrived legal argument is then used to undermine the One China policy statements in the three communiques issued by more recent US presidents. The claim purports to distinguish the "acknowledgement" by the US of the PRC's position on Taiwan, contending that an "acknowledgement" is not an "acceptance of" or "acquiescence to" the PRC position that Taiwan is part of one China.

The attempted repudiation of promises made at Cairo and Potsdam to China, which the US and UK left out of the San Francisco Treaty while upholding nonsense legalisms about Shimonoseki, demonstrate the 19th Century imperial mindset that potentially could result in a major war. Americans in general can't live with indefiniteness. Consequently, the current public sentiment, exploited by the administration and the Pentagon for that matter can simply be expressed as, "US right and China wrong." This western attitude of superiority is historically racially based and ethnocentric in nature. Nevertheless, the days of the great white fleet are long over, Americans just don't realize it yet. The typical American response in support of Taiwan independence now, and rejection of the One China policy is that too much time has passed, that was then, this is now. No one can really make a persuasive adverse possession argument, because the mainland government never gave up its national claim to Taiwan.

Frank Chiang's law review article isn't very persuasive. Not surprisingly, parts of it previously appeared in some Japanese journal. If you follow the logic of the Shimonoseki argument, the Chinese should take Taiwan by force because according to the author of this law review article that's a legitimate way to get "title," by force. Take possession at gunpoint, then force the former political leadership, under duress, to sign a "treaty." In conclusion, the author goes on to talk about the principle of self determination and how the US and others should call for a UN sponsored referendum on independence. Similar shenanigans preceded the US-Vietnam War and the Korean War which were manipulated by the US as exigencies arose. The US divided those countries and laid the groundwork for devastating wars in which millions died. Such a plan would be vetoed by the Security Council today, and wouldn't even pass in the General Assembly.

On the "Changing Nuclear Balance."

A response to Peter Heussey's, September 29. article in The National Interest, "The Nuclear Balance is Changing- and Not for the Better" *

* https://nationalinterest.org/feature/nuclear-balance-changing%E2%80%94and-not-better-194526

The US proclivity to entertain the use of nuclear weapons when its conventional military campaign is in jeopardy in an actual confllct is ignored in the Heussey article. Ostensibly, the US motives are pure, and it is the other who would resort first to nuclear weapons. It was the US that considered the use of nuclear weapons in the Korean War and the Vietnam War. During WW II of course, the US did use nuclear weapons. During the second Iraq War, the US adopted a nuclear strike response doctrine that would apply if it were to suffer unexpected battlefield reversals or if its forces experienced any sort of special weapons attack.

Part of the current problem is the decreasing relative dominance of US forces in the Chinese theater usually characterized as the rise of China. While think tanks readily entertain the vision of US conventional superiority in armed force projection, it is at least, in part, an illusion based on assumptions such as the ability to shut off Chinese lines of communication, choking its industrial infrastructure with naval and air blockades and so forth. This conventional military view, as conceived in the US think tank studies, is convincingly disputed by a few US experts on Chinese military capabilities. The US tends to take a static or very mechanical view, which fails to entertain the disadvantages the US has, such as its distance from the battlespace, numerical force limits, the possibility of even partially effective Chinese blockades of strategic straits to its own near seas, the possibility of successful Chinese interdictions in aerospace and open Pacific waters, and the prospect of potential destruction of US forward bases in Japan and elsewhere. It also rules out Chinese strategic depth, and the eventuality of a long war which will attrite US forces and national resources. While Chinese losses would be great also, if not catastrophic, as the defender of its home territory, their level of commitment would be much higher than that of the US. Far from harming CCP legitimacy and cohesion, a long conflict will enhance the bond of party and people. Many historical studies confirm this phenomenon in major wars where civilian populations are subject to attack by a foreign enemy.

Pursuing the natural US inclination to regain a decisive initiative in war with China, the US leadership will entertain using nuclear weapons to extract themselves from a prolonged conventional conflict from which they otherwise would be unable to withdraw, except at great political cost. It is unlikely that Russia would be a deterrent to US use of nuclear weapons on Chinese targets. In US game theory, the Chinese would presumably back down because of the overwhelming US advantage in nuclear weapon delivery systems. Therefore, unless the current Chinese buildup and improvements in their nuclear weapon delivery capability are stopped in the near future, the US will be faced with the inability to exert nuclear blackmail, and be effectively deterred from initiating tactical nuclear first strikes. Then the US would have to live with a growing inability to successfully end a conventional conflict which, as time goes by, will also become more unfavorable to the forces fighting far from home. It is doubtful that the US will find a technological fix in the form of new weapons systems or countermeasures to resolve this situation, so the diplomatic route of seeking nuclear arms control with China is sought.

What's in it for the Chinese? Nothing, so far. What can the US offer? The last two administrations worked the US into a corner, surrounding the Chinese with the modern version of gunboat imperialism, ostensibly giving the US insurmountable conventional warfare advantages, that it enjoyed in the 19th and 20th centuries. It's another tragic case of US illusions about China leading us on a path to another disastrous war, one on a scale probably not seen since WW II. A much weaker China fought a conventional conflict with a nuclear armed US during the Korean War. If its own territory or armed forces are attacked by the US (and any misguided allies), it will do so again.

In terms of the Peter Huessey article, US determination to maintain a "nuclear firebreak" rings hollow, as it the US that has developed smaller and smaller yield "precision" nuclear weapons. The US has an extensive arsenal of sophisticated "tactical" and arguably first use nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. It is the US that has created a pneumbral zone where the boundary between conventional and nuclear strikes is blurred. Moreover, US reluctance to tolerate substantial losses of high value conventional forces makes it more reliant on the nuclear option. The notion that the US can indefinitely maintain a conventional force advantage against a major power like China in its own backyard is just fundamentally mistaken. At some point US diplomacy is going to have to conform to the strategic reality that China is reaching peer power status, and that proposed military solutions are just futile. The US will only succeed in weakening itself further by its pathologically disproportionate allocation of resources to the business of war which may give rise to a horrible conflict. The goals and attitudes of the gunboat imperialist and the nuclear arms contol advocate are innately contradictory and cannot be "compartmentalized."

Vice President Kamela Harris in Asia

The intemperate remarks of VP Harris about Chinese "bullying" and "intimidation" in the South China Sea, and their alleged failure to comply with the "rules based order," (whatever that is) reflects poorly on her leadership ability and judgement. I noticed that she dropped the typical rhetoric about "democracy" and "our values," basically the only recognition that she wasn't addressing a US audience. Otherwise, she appeared to be lost in the imaginary world of the DC echo chamber with absolutely no grasp of the history or situation in East Asia. That she would continue with the disastrous course and tone set by Blinken and company in Anchorage, suggests that she is clueless when it comes to foreign policy.

Ostensibly, this entire US approach seeking allies in Southeast Asia against China rests on the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). One has yet to see any American publicly question the soundness or jurisdiction of the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) "compulsory arbitration" decision against China in 2016 purportedly based upon UNCLOS. China had opted out of UNCLOS with respect to the South China Sea disputes ten years earlier. The ITLOS was shepherded by a Japanese diplomat and jurist who had been Japan's former ambassador to Washington. Shunji Yanai, the ITLOS director, appointed four of the five “arbitrators” to the Permanent Court of Arbitration tribunal.* The decision was one sided, and based on little more than illogical reasoning and clever wording. What does one expect in what amounted to default judgement in the absence of the principal party who never acquiesced to jurisdiction? Neither the PRC nor Taiwan recognize the decision. The decision is void for lack of jurisdiction both in terms of process and subject matter. The ITLOs decision on the Philippines maritime dispute with China is a poor decision upon which to stake out international policy.

*News Analysis: Shunji Yanai, manipulator behind illegal South China Sea arbitration (Xinhua) 13:12, July 17, 2016; http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/0717/c90000-9087223.html


UNCLOS is inapplicable to "the issues of sovereignty or historic titles and rights." Disputes between states arising before the implementation of the Convention on the Law of the Sea are also not subject to its jurisdiction.* The constant references to the PCA's inapplicable and void UNCLOS based decision in Western media is just one sided advocacy that omits countervailing facts and arguments. The decision is based upon faulty logic and bizarre findings applied to reach a decision unfavorable to China despite the obvious lack of jurisdiction. Among the bizarre findings dismissing Chinese claims to an EEZ in the Spratleys out of existence is the fiction was that Itu Aba (Taiping Island) was "not an island."

*The South China Sea Arbitration (The Philippines v. China): Assessment of the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju Author Chinese Journal of International Law, Volume 15, Issue 2, June 2016, Pages 265–307, https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmw019 Published: 20 June 2016 https://academic.oup.com/chinesejil/article/15/2/265/2548386

It is somewhat telling that the US never even ratified UNCLOS. The UK not too long ago rejected an international tribunal decision on the Chagos Islands, where the US Diego Garcia base is located. No sanctimonious statements on the rejection of the "rules based order" heard on this issue. In geopolitical terms, the US continues to act as a 20th Century hegemon in the western Pacific, and South China Sea. Yet, the region is returning to a more traditional pattern that existed among Asian states and China before the days of "gunboat diplomacy" and the century of humiliation. This is reflected primarily in the "soft" dimension of Chinese economic and diplomatic relationships with its neighbors rather than in the military dimension with which the US is obsessed for domestic reasons. It is up to the states in the region to negotiate their conflicting EEZ claims in the South China Sea. The US so called "Freedom of Navigation" (FON) operations are a wedge to bootstrap US military and commercial interests onto the EEZ claims of neighboring states in the region with the traditional US gunboat approach.

As an elected official, Harris was in a position to exercise her own judgement, apply some diplomatic tact, and speak with restraint and subtlety. Instead, out of ignorance or cynicism, she chose to opt for jingoistic sloganeering to appeal to the "blob" back home. Why would regional Asian states be willing to accept the position of a belligerent US official to the detriment of their own national interests? Why would they be interested in a militarized approach to regional issues promoted by the US, Japan, and Australia, risking military confrontation with their number one trade partner, China? Poorly advised, Harris was sent on a fool's mission, in a manner similar to Wendy Sherman's mission. It is as if, by having US officials overreach themselves internationally on multiple occasions, the US will achieve its objectives. Perhaps Harris thought her trip would enhance her credentials in "foreign affairs," for her next election bid?

"Unleash Japan" Really?

Recently, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson in an interview with Paul Jay,* recommended withdrawing the US nuclear umbrella over Japan, and encouraging them to defend themselves:

(Wilkerson) So, what do you do? Well, if you’re going to be pragmatic and you’re in the Pentagon and you’re thinking about it, you’re going to unleash Japan. You’re going to say to Japan, we no longer guarantee you a nuclear security umbrella. In fact, we no longer feel like the security relationship with you is the way it should be. In other words, we think you should grow up. Think about what China would think about that, how that would change the power calculus in the region. Now, we’ve got an entirely different situation.

Now, China confronts a country that is capable of building a nuclear complex that could outstrip them in a matter of months and it’s no longer hemmed in, controlled, cajoled, kept right, by the United States of America. I’m going back to my conversations with Wang Yi and Cui Tiankai, and with Richard Haass, in 2001, when we did policy planning talks. Restraining Japan is looked at by Beijing, as a plus. Unleash Japan and see how the situation changes in Northeast Asia. This−

Paul Jay
But it makes it more dangerous. (emphasis added)

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson
Maybe, maybe it doesn’t. Maybe it makes a dangerous balance of power, or it creates a balance of power that isn’t there now. The balance is being destroyed by China. China is becoming more powerful than the United States in that regional context.

*The Threat of War (Nuclear) With China – Col. Lawrence Wilkerson By Paul Jay, August 11, 2021; https://theanalysis.news/the-threat-of-war-nuclear-with-china-col-lawrence-wilkerson/


"Unleashing Japan" is the most dangerous idea Wilkerson or any other US policy analyst has proposed in some time. This reveals his insight into Asian geopolitics is superficial. The "who lost China" movement in the fifties was accompanied by the "unleash Chiang Kai-shek" nonsense and US threats of nuclear war against China. So Col. Wilkerson criticizes past policy and then proposes a similar policy approach just as stupid. His recommendation, if adopted, would lead to a similar alignment of imperial Pacific powers in the early 20th Century that led to WWII: the UK, US, and Imperial Japan. Wilkerson's entire analysis during the Paul Jay interview, otherwise more or less sound, is deeply flawed by this one critical delusion. Worse still, Wilkerson proposes abandoning nuclear non-proliferation to restore a "balance of power" he claims no longer exists.

This is the same kind of grave lapse of judgement involved in committing the US to the Iraq war while he served as Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff. If the colonel thinks this is some sort of clever bluff to bring China to the nuclear weapons negotiating table, he is completely ignorant concerning Asian history. An "unleashed Japan" in the early 20th Century accelerated the rise of the communist party in China, whose entire raison d'etre was legitimized by its nationalist role defending the mainland against Japanese imperialism. Any current military action taken by Japan aimed toward China will probably precipitate a general war the scope of which hasn't been seen since WWII. Wilkerson's statement is made in the context of recent public statements by Japanese officials, particularly Taro Aso, encouraged by the US, committing Japan to the defense of Taiwan, a former Japanese colony. Seen in this light, any US adoption of Wilkerson's policy proposal would have dramatically catastrophic consequences for Japan and Taiwan. How could anyone in their right mind publicly propose taking such a dangerous and irresponsible course of action?

The NY Times anti-democratic pro- Japan prejudice toward South Korea continues

This recent NY Times article cited below reveals more anti-democratic, anti-Moon Jae-in prejudice in its editorial policy toward the current South Korean administration:

Vietnam War Victims Wanted Justice. They Were Given ‘30 Bags of Rice.’

South Korean troops were the largest foreign contingent fighting alongside American soldiers during the Vietnam War. They have long been dogged by allegations of brutality.

By Choe Sang-Hun, Aug. 21, 2021

...Nearly a half-century after the war ended, victims of the massacre at Phong Nhi and Phong Nhut are seeking compensation from the Seoul government in the first lawsuit of its kind being tried in a South Korean court.

Stung by shocking testimony, South Korean lawmakers and civic groups are also pushing for a special law to investigate long-held allegations that South Korean troops killed thousands of civilians when they were the largest foreign contingent fighting alongside American soldiers during the war.

more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/21/world/asia/vietnam-war-south-korea-massacre.html

Interesting how the NY Times tries to pin this on President Moon Jae-in. The fact is that the US-Japan supported dictator Park Chung-hee is responsible for this episode. The leadership cadre and training of ROK forces was formed early on by those officers, like Park himself, who participated in counter insurgency operations during WWII as Japanese trained members of its occupation forces in Manchuria. The Japanese Army's occupation policy for subjugating Chinese and Korean resistance fighters in North China was "kill all, burn all, destroy all." The Japanese Imperial Army trained Korean officer corps formed the cadre of the ROK Army during the Syngman Rhee dictatorship, as well. The earlier Rhee dictatorship was responsible for similar atrocities against civilian communities in South Korea before and during the Korea War. During the Rhee dictatorship the domestic atrocities were carried out by armed fascist youth league militias with the tacit support of the ROK military cadre trained in Japanese counter insurgency tactics. Some of the atrocities they committed were witnessed by US military officers.

The timing of the article is suspect as well coming so soon after President Moon's speech saying he was open to talks with Japanese leaders to resolve the issue of war crimes by Japan against Koreans during the Pacific War, specifically, the slave labor, and so called "comfort women" issues. Moon said he would like a resolution to take place consistent with international law and standards.

The Times' article implies that the Moon administration is trying to cover up ROK Army war crimes in Vietnam. The South Korean responses could be readily explained by earlier conservative administrations actively covering up their crimes by destroying records. Is the Times suggesting bad faith on the part of the Moon administration? Sure looks like it. Typically, forensic anthropologists and pathologists, have to examine the burial sites, remains, and other evidence of mass killings to determine the truth, because the bad actors, and their influential political supporters, have worked assiduously to cover up their crimes. One can understand the bitter feeling experienced by Vietnamese survivors of ROK Army atrocities. As to the "300 bags of rice," this practice, or something similar to it, is known as a solatia payment in the US Armed Forces, and is pathetically indequate to compensate families whose loved ones have been crippled or killed by the acts of the military. Obviously reconciliation and reparation proceedings are required. They will require cooperation between Vietnam and South Korea.

These issues have been buried indefinitely by South Korean conservative administrations. Fortunately, that's not the situation currently. The Times is actively trying to change the subject on the matter of outstanding and divisive war crime issues between Japan and South Korea, by substituting another atrocity discussion to unfairly tarnish the Moon administration.

In another article ostensibly concerning South Korean dislike of China,* the New York Times completely distorts the reality of election politics by throwing its weight behind presidential candidate, Yoon Seok-yeol, the far right "gaffe a day" extremist who has corrupted the administration of justice in South Korea. This candidate is notorious for his lack of knowlege on domestic and foreign policy issues. He and his family are just one step ahead of the jailer for a train of alleged corrupt acts. His mother in law was imprisoned recently after a trial conviction for a large scale medical fraud scheme. The case is currently under appeal. There are at least six investigations currently pending against Yoon, his wife and his mother in law.

*South Koreans Now Dislike China More Than They Dislike Japan, Choe Sang-hun, Aug.20, 2021; https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/world/asia/korea-china-election-young-voters.html?auth=login-google

Young voters are shown by the most recent polls to favor democratic candidate Lee Jae-myung over Yoon Seok-yeol. Yoon is viewed as Kon Dae, an officious old fart, out of touch with modern reality. The over sixty demographic is the only decade that supports Yoon at this point. His numbers have declined and stalled at a low level for weeks, because of his stupid pronouncements, and his on going political dispute with Lee Jun-seok. Lee Jun-seok who is the defacto leader of the youth vote in the conservative opposition People's Power Party. Lee himself is no prize as the pututive leader of South Korea's misogynist movement among young men. The NY Times also tries to make it appear that the opposition movement against the US THAAD missile base is somehow a thing of the past. The local demonstrations against THAAD have continued since 2017 without letup. Corruption of poll results in South Korea is a current issue. There are large discrepancies in polling results depending on the sources. *

*See: Skepticism grows over contradicting poll results in run-up to presidential elections, Yohnap News Agency, 8.18.21; https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20210818006100315?section=national/politics

If you want to be woefully misinformed about Asian affairs read the NY Times.

US Approach to China Inept and Dangerous

One should be wary of the word "partnership" as used on both sides of the US-China rift. The reality is that this expression is a substitute for the word alliance. The US has to say the Quad is a partnership, especially when it is trying to disguise or at least dilute the anti-China objectives it wishes to achieve through the Quad. This is part of a bait and switch strategy when the Quad is pitched prospectively to other so called "partners." Once you sign up, then you are moved to act by the US as if you are in the anti-China alliance.

By the same token, the "partnership" between Russia and China which may be more significant, complementary, and meaningful from a geo-strategic standpoint than the Quad, could also potentially be subject to fissures. But the US seems incapable of creating those fissures. One doesn't need to be an international relations expert to observe that the relatively recent US alienation of Russia and China simultaneously is an extraordinary strategic blunder. The former US president, with a marked anti-China policy bias, tried to take a different approach toward Russia but was essentially unable to do so.

It is a US policy choice, poorly considered, to ever increase the hostility toward both "peer rivals," which provoked this potentially disastrous international situation in east Asia. The US appears incapable of resisting the interminable and inexhaustible "national security" demands from both the eastern and western halves of the US world wide military empire. Despite the so called "Asian pivot," it cannot establish reasonable priorities in any theater, and must pursue the internal institutional impulses for more military resources on both fronts simultaneously. This is true not only militarily but diplomatically. The frontiers of the various disputes with Russia and China, respectively, are ever expanding. Across a broad range of issues and areas with each great power, the US assumes a consistently hostile approach, ideologically, economicaly, politically, and militarily. The US does not hesitate to interfere in the internal affairs of either state. Nor does it refrain from creating new military threats on their borders. In a sense, there is no strategy, just indiscriminate hostility. The US repertoire consists almost exclusively of accusations, sanctions, threats, recriminations, and military displays.

Only a few critics have observed that Japan's influence on US Asian policy appears to be playing a strong, if not dominant role, in the defective foreign policy formulation by the US in Asia.* For all practical purposes the so called Indo-Pacific policy is formulated primarily by the Indo-Pacific Command, after consultation with their Japanese intermediaries in Asia. Neither the US nor Japan understand how the world has changed nor their current role in it. The traditional western allies, the UK and France, lend token support to the "values based" Indo-Pacific strategy of the US when, in effect, their contributions are marginal. Britain itself recently displayed a hypocritical intent to violate the NPT and an UNCLOS tribunal judgement against it with respect to the Chagos Islands. So much for the democratic allies' "rules based order." The fact is the US is guilty of overreach when it comes to an almost exclusively confrontational approach to China. This sort of approach toward China lacks depth and sophistication, and can hardly be characterized as diplomatic. Japan, England and France, as old imperialist legacy states, support the anti-China approach.

*See the blog's three part South China Sea Dispute series:

Part I: Taiwan's Claim to a South China Sea EEZ, August 11 2020
Part II: Forbes: "Strangle China's Economy," August 24, 2020
Part III: US-Japanese plans to "strangle China, August 30, 2020

What is the end goal, Chinese submission? Hardly likely. The US is no more likely to affect change in Hong Kong, or Xinjiang than it was in Tibet. US expressed concerns for human rights in China are hypocritical, pretextual excuses for interference in Chinese internal affairs. In essence they represent thinly disguised regime change efforts and a "divide and conquer" strategy. The sources on reports on human rights abuses in China are almost invariably linked to sponsors in western alliance governments and defense industries. No one has a more oppressive treatment of minorities than the US. To assume that the US government treats its citizens better than China is a cultural affectation that is used to support the cassus belli. In a phrase, the drift is, "we're better than you." A military solution to the Taiwan problem is non-existent. Confrontation in the South China Sea could end in a war.

Over-commitment of US national resources to the military industrial complex and the national security apparatchiks creates the weakness in the US economy and other soft power indices that leave the US less competitive with China. Further it results in a compulsion to engage in threats, sanctions, and other confrontations to compensate for those very deficiencies. It won't work. It's a vicious cycle that leads to domestic instability, less international US credibility and legitimacy, and greater risk of military conflict.

Finally, it must be emphasized, that the inability to negotiate with China is a product of two deep seated deleterious trends in the US. The first is relentless militarism, arising from the aforementioned constituency of the military industrial state, traditional media, and other civil institutions in its service. The second is a deep seated intolerant ethnocentrism, often characterized as American exceptionalism, but now propagated as American "values," to bolster the public relations' appeal of US policies. The renamed exceptionalism is, in large part, a manifestation of a powerful historical tradition of imperialism, racism, and condescension toward Asian peoples in particular. These historical impulses effectively overwhelm the necessary consideration, restraint, flexibility and tolerance that is required in any foreign policy that is in the long term strategic interests of the US and its allies.

US FON operations in the Chinese theater

This is a list from The Tufts University, Fletcher School, Law of the Sea Policy Primer, concerning the US dispute with China's "unlawful" claims to the South China Sea:*

Other Unlawful Coastal State Restrictions on Military Activities Within an EEZ

Eighteen States purport to regulate or prohibit foreign military activities in their EEZs, but of these only China, North Korea, and Peru have demonstrated a willingness to use force to impose their excessive EEZ claims. A list of the most common of these unlawful constraints is provided below:

• Restrictions on “non-peaceful uses” of the EEZ without consent, such as weapons exercises;
• Limitations on military marine data collection (military surveys) and hydrographic surveys without prior notice and/or consent;
• Requirements for prior notice and/or consent for transits by nuclear-powered vessels or ships carrying hazardous and dangerous goods, such as oil, chemicals, noxious liquids, and radioactive material;
• Limiting warship transits of the EEZ to innocent passage;
• Prohibitions on surveillance operations (intelligence collection) and photography;
• Requiring warships to place weapons in an inoperative position prior to entering the contiguous zone;
• Restrictions on navigation and overflight through the EEZ;
• Prohibitions on conducting flight operations (launching and recovery of aircraft) in the contiguous zone;
• Requiring submarines to navigate on the surface and show their flag in the contiguous zone;
• Requirements for prior permission for warships to enter the contiguous zone or EEZ;
• Asserting security jurisdiction in the contiguous zone or EEZ;
• Application of domestic environmental laws and regulations; and
• Requirements that military and other State aircraft file flight plans prior to transiting the EEZ*

*Military Activities in an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-4/

Several of these "unlawful" restrictions as the US characterizes them are not so unreasonable. Is it really asking too much to have a US aircraft carrier or other foreign warship not conduct military flight operations within the contiguous zone? The US has a historical tendency to push these legalisms to their operational limit. The US Navy and US Air Force are accustomed to doing so. Maybe you can get away with it in the case of Cuba or Libya.

Should foreign warships be allowed to operate weapon systems with ranges capable of reaching the territory of China within the contiguous zone? Is this a good idea or gunboat diplomacy? If I were Joe Biden i would be leery of letting the Defense Department set these policies. These are a matter for civilian control, and discretion is the order of the day. Should the relevant state of the EEZ not be able to regulate the environmental laws in the EEZ? Would practice bombing, discharging munitions, fuel or waste in the South China Sea not damage the environment and ecology?

Military vessels and aircraft can always expect to encounter the armed forces of the ADIZ, EEZ, or contiguous zone state especially when intentionally entering the contiguous zone. I know that Chinese aircraft occasionally enter the ADIZ of S.Korea or Taiwan, without giving notice and it always referred to in the western media as some form of an "airspace incursion" or implied military aggression but when the US does it, it's under the rules of international law. (When i do it it's love, when you do it, it's adultery). As far as the relevant nation wanting to have some supervision of the use of pipelines or the passage of nuclear powered vessels or hazardous cargo in its EEZ, this doesn't seem unreasonable either.

One can make the case that military aircraft should be able to have free passage right up to the twelve mile limit, which is what the western powers do. I have read scores of reports of US military aircraft operating in the Chinese littoral in the East China Sea and South China Sea in the last few years WITHOUT incident. The Tufts article I linked to here, reports on about a half dozen incidents of what military flyers call "thumping" of US aircraft by Chinese interceptors over roughly a twenty year period. Admittedly it's a dangerous practice. When one flies a military aircraft in the contiguous zone of major power, this is an anticipated risk. Tufts is one of the academic headquarters for US military policy advocacy. They use the official Navy JAG source as their authoritative source for their write up on this subject. Another portion of the "policy primer" portrays the PCA compulsory arbitration on the Philippine claims as if it were the bible when international scholars have questioned the putative jurisdiction of the court over China under the the law and the facts of the case.

I have presented the argument elsewhere on why the ITLOS/PCA compulsory arbitration concerning the Chinese Philippine dispute is a nullity and legally void. The bottom line is there is no PCA/ITLOS jurisdiction over Chinese sovereignty claims:

…The overall obligation to submit to a compulsory conciliation procedure under 298(1)(a)(i) will however not apply in respect of a maritime boundary dispute which “necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over the continental shelf or insular territory”.21 In other words, obligation contained in article 298(1)(a)(i) to submit a conciliation procedure is subject to three conditions: (i) the dispute should have arisen after the Convention entered into force; (ii) no agreement could be reached between the parties settling the dispute within a reasonable period of time; and (iii) that the dispute did not involve “the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental shelf or insular land territory”.*

*The South China Sea Arbitration (The Philippines v. China): Assessment of the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju Author Chinese Journal of International Law, Volume 15, Issue 2, June 2016, Pages 265–307, https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmw019 Published: 20 June 2016 https://academic.oup.com/chinesejil/article/15/2/265/2548386

The US position on FON is an advocacy position based upon the greatest extension of US national interests. The Chinese claims represent the greatest extension of Chinese historic national, economic, and military interests as well. FON itself except insofar as it affects core national security interests of China such as in US military operations in the contiguous zone of Hainan, or of the mainland, is not the main issue. The main issue concerns the EEZ claims of China associated with the various island groups. Likewise, the artificial islands confrontations are simply a wedge issue to shoehorn the US Navy into the claims of other states in the region to competing or overlapping EEZs. Other than for Japan and Australia, it isn't clear how welcome these unnecessary US provocations are. The US military flyovers and encroachments within twelve miles of artificial islands are going to provoke a military response from China, whether they are technically legal or not.

It seems to me that all these issues are ripe for negotiation with China. I don't think the US is really interested.

(Added notes Feb. 13)

This is the underlying US motivation:

Exxon's South China Sea oil project tests Chinese influence

SINGAPORE (Bloomberg) - An Exxon Mobil oil and gas project off the coast of Vietnam is becoming a test of Beijing’s growing power in the South China Sea.

Vietnam’s foreign ministry this month sought to shoot down rampant speculation that Exxon will sell its 64% stake in the country’s largest offshore energy project Ca Voi Xanh, or Blue Whale, a joint venture with state-owned Vietnam Oil & Gas Group some 80 kilometers (50 miles) from the coast of Danang. While the project sits just outside of China’s claims in a nine-dash map of the waters, it would tap the same basin that Beijing is seeking to develop.

Vietnam has become increasingly isolated in its efforts to push back against China, which is nearing a deal with the Philippines for joint energy exploration in a contested area of the sea and just set up one-on-one talks with Malaysia to settle disputes in the waters. At stake are unexploited hydrocarbon resources the U.S. says could be worth $2.5 trillion.

https://www.worldoil.com/news/2019/9/23/exxon-s-south-china-sea-oil-project-tests-chinese-influence

U.S. sanctions China’s CNOOC on drilling in disputed South China Sea

CNOOC has been at the center of territorial disputes in the South China Sea since 2012, when it invited foreign drillers to explore blocks off Vietnam that Hanoi’s leaders had already awarded to companies including Exxon Mobil and OAO Gazprom. In 2014, the countries traded accusations that each other’s boats had rammed vessels, including around a CNOOC oil rig near the Paracel Islands.

The Philippines in October resumed oil exploration in the South China Sea for the first time since 2015, when the nation filed a case with the Permanent Court of Arbitration over the disputed waters. The resumption came after Manila and Beijing reached a framework agreement for joint exploration. Philippine firm PXP Energy Corp. has said it’s in talks with CNOOC for such a partnership.

https://www.worldoil.com/news/2020/11/30/us-sanctions-china-s-cnooc-on-drilling-in-disputed-south-china-sea

LA Times bias evident in article about THAAD affair in South Korea

This is a critique of the recent LA Times article presenting an erroneous view of the THAAD affair in South Korea:

From a crab shack to Hyundai, China’s wrath over a U.S. missile defense system still weighs on South Korea, By VICTORIA KIM NOV. 19, 20202 AM; https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-11-19/south-korea-china-beijing-economy-thaad-missile-interceptor

The THAAD incident demonstrated not so much the undue commercial influence of China on current South Korean policy as the reemergence of traditional Korean foreign policy values formulated to retain sovereignty amongst overbearing and more powerful competing great powers in the region. The reappearance of such an outlook in South Korea after more than 125 years of domination by foreign powers reflects the true emergence of democracy and independence. This has been reflected in the long sought removal of the US presence in Yongsan in central Seoul, (site of the old Japanese imperial garrison), and the removal to Pyongtaek of US military bases and forces from the traditional bases and operating areas north of Seoul and close to the DMZ. Similarly, the current administration of South Korea is not going to lock itself into an anti-China Indo-Pacific alliance which will further restrict its freedom of action to adopt policies seen to be in its national interest.


First of all, it was the prior pliable, corrupt conservative administration of Park Geun-hye that agreed to allow the installation of THAAD launchers in South Korea. The LA Times article focuses it's critical remarks implicitly on the current democratic South Korean administration which acted to block the erection of any additional THAAD batteries. This occured after a vehemently opposed local reaction and the strong Chinese reaction arose during the installation of the first unit in Seongju, South Korea. By way of comparison, Japanese communities objected to installation of anti ballistic missile systems on land in their own country, and the central government stopped the development and construction of AEGIS ashore facilities in July 2020. (The US claims it is only suspended).

What Americans need to keep in mind, is that South Korea is no longer a military dictatorship which will automatically submit to the dictates of US military commands or "diplomats" concerning South Korean defense policy. Nor is the current representative government merely a conservative successor of the corporate chaebol and militarist interests remaining from the dictatorship period of the 20th Century. This is evident in the democratic Moon adminstration's resistance to extortionate US military cost sharing demands for a greater than 400 percent increase in the ROK contribution. It is also manifest in the ongoing contest over when and whether operational control of the ROK armed forces during wartime will ever be transferred to South Korea.

It should be noted that the LA Times estimate of the damage to the South Korean economic interests as a result of the THAAD incident is placed at the low end of estimates. The US made no effort to mitigate these losses but to the contrary followed with extortionate demands on military cost sharing and extended military commitments beyond the scope of the current alliance to the entire Indo-Pacific. There are also technical questions about the effectiveness of the THAAD system and whether its high altitude detection envelope doesn't in fact leave most of South Korea undefended from North Korean missiles with the Korean military in the position of having to purchase and construct other ABM systems anyway. This suggests that Chinese accusations that the system is actually more likely to be directed against China than North Korea are well founded. What the LA Times article also leaves out is that US defense planners and Pentagon representatives have been promoting the notion of deploying US offensive intermediate range missiles in allied countries in the Asian theater. This discussion revealed the true intention of US planners and their complete disconnect from political and economic realities on the ground, not only in South Korea, but in East Asia generally.

Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha and Sexist Foreign Policy

This article from the Hankyoreh about Foreign Minister Kang's presentation on sexism in foreign policy was illuminating:

Minister of Foreign Affairs Kang Kyung-wha said she has been constantly aware of discrimination and prejudice toward women while working in a “male-centered culture of vested interests.” Her remarks were seen as reflecting awareness of persistent speculation about her being “bypassed” as South Korea’s first female foreign minister.

While participating in a conversation at the “Future Dialogue for Global Innovation” co-organized by the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) and the network tvN on Nov. 16, Jared Diamond, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and author of the book “Guns, Germs, and Steel” commented on the lack of an environment where women are able to show their capabilities. In response, Kang said, “I’m very working very hard in this important position of being the first female foreign minister, but there are times when I feel myself asking, ‘Is this kind of [response] because I’m a woman?’”

Kang Kyung-wha opens up about sexism in “male-centered culture of vested interests” Posted on : Nov.17,2020 17:02 KST Modified on : Nov.17,2020 17:02 KST Hankyoreh South Korea By Gil Yun-hyung, http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/970335.html

Wow. Here are my observations:

1) S.Korea is the weakest of among the three pertinent states including the US and Japan who typically seek obsequious foreign policy from South Korean leaders.

2) Kang Kyung-wha is a brilliant and able diplomat who represents the new democratic policy of asserting South Korea’s sovereignty against overbearing allies previously accustomed to demanding and getting their way. Her determination and independence are mistaken for some kind of feminine “weakness” that succumbs to naive idealism and unrealistic expectations in a harsh world rather than the actual foreign policy of the Moon Jae-in administration.

3) The male dominated ultra conservative governments of the US and Japan are sexist in nature.

4) South Korea is a male dominated patriarchal society with a deeply seated sexist bias. Therefore, attempts to sway its erstwhile overbearing allies are going to tend to move her out of the way to appease their sexist inclinations.

5) I noticed the inappropriate demeanor and “touchiness” of Pompeo’s early interaction with Foreign Minister Kang. When he didn’t get his way in policy terms, the Korea passing and other protocol slights not only to Kang, but to the entire Moon cabinet began.

Very interesting article.

US-Japanese plans to "strangle China"

South China Sea Dispute series:

Part I: Taiwan's Claim to a South China Sea EEZ, August 11 2020
Part II: Forbes: "Strangle China's Economy," August 24, 2020
Part III: US-Japanese plans to "strangle China"

Toshi Yoshihara in his report Dragon Against the Sun, presents the views of Chinese strategic thinkers particularly with respect to the "island chain" problem for China. The author makes an extensive presentation on the Chinese maritime strategy perspective from open sources published in China, and then proceeds to critically examine them. In a video presentation associated with the report the author makes a telling Freudian slip in connection with the US-Japan alliance aimed at containing China. Wishing to emphasize the need for US-Japanese "cohesion," he slips and says "coercion."

In his report, the author presents this Chinese view of the Japanese strategy:

Zhang Ming concurs:
From Japan’s perspective, complicating and internationalizing the South China Sea problem will create an interactive dynamic between the East China Sea and the South China Sea disputes. This linkage will help to diffuse the energy of China’s rights protection [维权] efforts in the direction of the East China Sea, exhaust China’s good-neighbor diplomacy, and confer
more leverage to Japan in negotiations with China over the East China Sea.95*

*Dragon Against the Sun: Chinese views of Japanese Seapower, Toshi Yoshihara
https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA8211_(Dragon_against_the_Sun_Report)_FINAL.pdf
https://csbaonline.org/research/publications/dragon-against-the-sun-chinese-views-of-japanese-seapower

Necessarily, Toshi Yoshihara finds Chinese assessments of Japanese motives for an offensive maritime strategy that challenges the growing Chinese "threat" are based on faulty Chinese analysis. According to Yoshihara, the Chinese experts are unduly influenced by caricatures of Japan as a warlike civilization, if not outright Chinese racism against Japan. This is a most ironic projection, as both the US and Japan are notoriously subject to ethnocentric, if not wholly racist, concepts of exceptionalism, providing justifications for their condescending views of other countries. But to Yoshihara, the Japanese strategy (like that of the US) is ostensibly motivated by principle seeking only the rewards of the so called "rules based order." So he is, in effect, preaching to the choir here in the US. Yoshihara does yeoman's work trying to defuse, disguise and dismiss the Chinese notion that there is historic continuity with Meiji military expansionism in the current Japanese maritime strategy. Japan's modern maritime policy reflects their tradition of adopting western and US theories of seapower which are essentially offensive in nature. The US role of enabling Japan's offensive maritime domination of East Asia in the early 20th Century is attributed to England for obvious reasons. One might otherwise be somewhat reticent about wholeheartedly embracing an imperial maritime alliance strategy that could lead to a major war, again, by underestimating the scope of Japanese strategic goals.

Yet increased risk of war, is attributed by Yoshihara to growth in Chinese naval power and irrational "self referential" Chinese myopia concerning US-Japanese alliance motives. It is far more likely, that the reinforcing phenomenon of two powerful states, Japan and the US, both with extensive traditions of imperialism and a religious like faith in gunboat diplomacy will cause the next major war. The institutional nature of the alliance as a structure, whose requirements are served by an infrastructure that permeates government institutions, industry, business, academia, and media in both countries raises the possibility that the Japanese "self defense" forces are not just subservient to the American naval command, but may in fact be unduly influencing American strategy to Japanese ends. In the echo chamber of alliance enthralled members poring over their naval theories, legal rationalizations, and institutional accolades, the tactics and policies promoted and adopted by the politicians, admirals and "diplomats" in Japan and the US become more extreme and inclined to take unwise risks staking out untenable positions.

Yoshihara's work is worthwhile to review because a presentation of the Chinese strategic perspective in English allows the US reader an unprecedented view of Chinese naval thinking without having to succumb to the author's "self referential" characterizations of Chinese bias. Some of the Chinese observations are sufficiently profound that they withstand the expert's criticisms quite well. Although definitely not his intention, it's almost as if, Yoshihara by publishing this report makes the Chinese case for them.

Forbes: "Strangle China's Economy"

Below is the latest representation in American delusional thought concerning China from the editors at Forbes:

Cutting off China from its trading partners and sources of oil, natural gas and other resources could be the best, and least costly, way for the United States to defeat China in a major war.

To that end, the U.S. Navy should prepare to blockade China, according to Bradford Dismukes, a retired Navy captain and political scientist. “Globalization has made China, a great continental power, dependent on the use of the sea and thus vulnerable to coercion from the sea,” Dismukes wrote.

Blockade is an ancient strategy. Surround your enemies. Starve and impoverish them.*

*To Defeat China in War, Strangle its Economy: Expert: Forbes August 24, 2020, by David Axe “Editors Pick"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/08/24/to-defeat-china-in-war-strangle-its-economy/#677bda7131a9

Expert? Forbes? Editors Pick? Loved this part, “That’s easier said than done, of course. Blockading China would require a coordinated effort by the whole of the U.S. government and its closest allies.” Which allies are going to participate?

I’m a big fan of James Bradley's book, The China Mirage. Bradley, a historian, reviews US ignorance and miscalculation concerning Asia, imperialism, etc., which caused one military debacle after another in Asia in the 20th Century. He was an advisor to John Pilger for his video The Coming War with China, available on youtube. He appears in the video.

The South China Sea claims of China are consistently misrepresented as “aggression” in English language sources. The US styles the Permanent Court of Arbitration decision against China as the last word on the subject and conducts it’s naval and air operations accordingly with zero regard for Chinese claims and legal arguments. The principal issue isn’t freedom of navigation as the US claims but rather the sovereignty over the associated 200 nm maritime economic zones that the Chinese claim (Taiwan included) around the Pratas, Spratlys, and Paracels. There are enormous oil and gas fields in the South China Sea, that is the real US interest, a commercial one. When one includes the economic zone around the Chinese island of Hainan, the Chinese claims related historically to the so called 9 Dash line in the South China Sea don’t seem so absurd as the western media depict. The Chinese claims to the extensive maritime zone are of course disputed by other states in the region.

This article cited below depicts the Chinese position on the so called “arbitration” by the Permanent Court of Arbitration under the International Tribunal for Law of the Sea. Please refer to the article for a more complete description of the PCA's unsound assumption of jurisdiction and decision. The Chinese never acquiesced to PCA jurisdiction and the court's reasoning on jurisdiction is defective. Consequently, the decision is void.

The bottom line is there is no PCA/ITLOS jurisdiction over Chinese sovereignty claims:

…The overall obligation to submit to a compulsory conciliation procedure under 298(1)(a)(i) will however not apply in respect of a maritime boundary dispute which “necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over the continental shelf or insular territory”.21 In other words, obligation contained in article 298(1)(a)(i) to submit a conciliation procedure is subject to three conditions: (i) the dispute should have arisen after the Convention entered into force; (ii) no agreement could be reached between the parties settling the dispute within a reasonable period of time; and (iii) that the dispute did not involve “the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental shelf or insular land territory”.*

*The South China Sea Arbitration (The Philippines v. China): Assessment of the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility
Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju Author
Chinese Journal of International Law, Volume 15, Issue 2, June 2016, Pages 265–307, https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmw019
Published: 20 June 2016 https://academic.oup.com/chinesejil/article/15/2/265/2548386

The PCA decision proceeds from a Philippine admission arguendo on the jurisdictional exclusion for territorial claims to a complete rejection of Chinese EEZ claims in the Spratley’s (and the Paracels by western operational extension).

“73…To this extent there is obvious contradiction or lack of consistency in the position of the Tribunal. On the one hand, it declares that it is not empowered to deal with issues of sovereignty and maritime delimitation in view of the Chinese Declaration pertaining to the disputes under the UNCLOS but, on the other hand, it declares itself competent to examine “the source of maritime entitlements of China in the South China Sea”. In that sense, the position of the Tribunal is manifestly self-contradictory.”*

*Id., https://academic.oup.com/chinesejil/article/15/2/265/2548386

Shunji Yanai, the jurist and then president of ITLOS, is “a rightwing Japanese intent on ridding Japan of post-war arrangements.” He is the Baron Kentaro Kaneko of the 21st century as James Bradley might characterize him. The Baron was Teddy Roosevelt’s colleague from Harvard who worked for Ito Hirobumi. He and Roosevelt were of one mind in carving up East Asia to their respective advantages. When the romance wore off some decades later, WWII began. WWII in Asia for the Chinese and Koreans began much earlier, before WWI.

Shunji Yanai, the ITLOS director was a former Japanese ambassador to D.C. He appointed the “arbitrators” to the PCA. He is the darling of Abe and the right wing of Japan, who want to make Japan “great again.” All the higher ups in the current US naval chain of command, the Air Force, and BG Stilwell in the State department are adherents of an irredentist Japanese view of Asia, where all historical disputes should be decided against China (including Taiwan) and Russia for that matter, and other pre-colonial claimants like South Korea. The Japanese are historical revisionists, the US is tied to their Meiji revisionist view of history and territorial claims particularly of the maritime nature in the East Asian littoral. Most Americans are unaware of how the Japanese view of history, which is contrary to the US experience of WWII, has permeated contemporary media, government, business and military circles in the US, as it is consistent with the innate imperialism of the US and Japan just as it was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

US "freedom of navigation operations," are based upon little more than jingoism, covering up a seriously defective treatment of international law and history.

.

Taiwan's Claim to a South China Sea EEZ.

I looked at some discussions of the Permanent Court of Arbitration decision on the South China Sea, which is the basis for five eyes + Japan policy with respect to China's exclusive economic zone claim on the South China Sea. The key issues seem to pivot on one island that belongs to Taiwan that one rarely hears discussed, Taiping or Itu Aba. The PCA decision is styled as an arbitration adjudication of competing claims of the Philippines and the PRC in the South China Sea. The PRC did not participate in the arbitration and doesn't recognize the Court's decision. The court claimed it didn't decide any matter of sovereignty but it did. It discredited Chinese claims to an extensive EEZ in the South China Sea.

Taiping Island, also known as Itu Aba, and also known by various other names, is the largest of the naturally occurring Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.[3][4][5][6][7] The island is elliptical in shape being 1.4 kilometres (0.87 mi) in length and 0.4 kilometres (0.25 mi) in width, with an area of 46 hectares (110 acres). It is located on the northern edge of the Tizard Bank (Zheng He Reefs; 鄭和群礁). The runway of the Taiping Island Airport is easily the most prominent feature on the island, running its entire length.

The island is administered by the Republic of China (Taiwan), as part of Cijin, Kaohsiung. It is also claimed by the People's Republic of China (PRC), the Philippines and Vietnam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Island

Contrary to the contentions of the PCA which purport to find that Taiping Island is an "uninhabitable rock," Taiping is a habitable island that can and does support human habitation. This is the argument of Taiwan.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of China (Taiwan) 中華民國外交部 - 全球資訊網英文網
Taiping Island is an island, not a rock, and the ROC possesses full rights associated with an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf in accordance with UNCLOS...

https://www.mofa.gov.tw/en/News_Content.aspx?n=8157691CA2AA32F8&sms=4F8ED5441E33EA7B&s=174B7FC38E9C9F9B

So US arguments about PRC "aggression" in the South China sea appear to be based, at least in part, on a poorly reasoned "arbitration" relying on crafty wordsmithing which finds that Taiping is a rock rather than a habitable island. There are a few expert opinions published on the web which question the reasoning of the decision. A simple perusal of the Wikipedia entry on Taiping renders the contention that it is not a habitable island a hard sell. Taiping Island is the largest island of the Spratly Islands.

Once one realizes that Taiping is a habitable island capable of supporting a small community, the whole US discussion about Communist China's "unsupported" claim to the South China Sea EEZ within 200 nm of that island falls apart. In the west, the historical claim of China to the nine dash line is ridiculed as some ridiculously feeble claim without a discussion of the historical Chinese presence in the region and their claim to Taiping Island. Their claim to economic hegemony in the Spratly's has a basis on an exclusive economic zone around the island of Taiping. The diplomatic history during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries also supports their historical claims to an internationally recognized Chinese interest in the South China Sea.

Typically, the US media focus on the "artificial islands" that the PRC is building in the South China Sea, and claiming that they interfere with "freedom of navigation." Therefore the US claims it's naval and air operations in the South China Sea are "freedom of navigation operations." Yet, the actual bone of contention is the unwillingness of the United States, the five eyes partners, and the local states with sovereignty or EEZ claims contrary to those of the Chinese, to concede exclusive economic exploitation rights to China. ROC sovereignty of Taiping Island is a valid basis to claim an exclusive EEZ as far as 200 nm from that island. In addition, the PRC sovereignty over Woody Island, the largest island in the Paracels gives China a strong claim to another 200 nm EEZ. Vietnam disputes PRC sovereignty over Woody Island.

One wonders what sort of mental gymnastics would be required to conclude that Woody island is not a basis for a PRC EEZ in the South China Sea. While the PCA's ruling is lauded as a legally sound one in the west, the fact is that it is not based in law, but rather loosely construed equity considerations such that it is not equitable for rights to such an extensive economic maritime domain to be determined by such a small geographic feature. Also, the distance of Taiwan to Taiping was a consideration, "giving a remote country rights." Clearly this is specious reasoning. The real party in interest is the sovereign of China, not so far away, wrongfully deprived of its legal interests during the imperial era, and having legitimate economic and military interests in the "South China Sea." Because the west and the smaller states who can not practically assert their interests against China don't like the reemergence of Chinese power in the region, they seek to deny the normal definition of words and impose a rule of "equity" which just happens to favor western oil and gas interests. These commercial goals dovetail with US military objectives of containing Chinese naval power and denying them offshore bases to defend their perimeter and extend their ability to project maritime power. The principle of equity in law essentially means that the legal definitions of record don't provide a suitable remedy from the jurists point of view so we are going to reinterpret them to do what's fair. Fair in who's eyes? Fair in the eyes of the "remote" naval hegemon operating in the traditional role of imperial gunboat diplomat.

Artificial islands do not affect the boundaries of the economic zones in any way. The US Navy routinely closes within 12 nm of the artificial islands China has created merely as a form of confrontation. There is a loophole in UNCLOS concerning artificial islands. It seems when the convention was negotiated no one anticipated the creation of artificial islands in international waters. So artificial islands don’t have territorial buffers around them. US warships and aircraft can approach as close as physically possible to these artificial islands. This is clearly something that could be negotiated to create a safe zone around the islands and their airspace. There is no significant impact on “freedom of navigation” or territorial claims to economic exploitation of the area outside the immediate limit whether it is established at 12 nm or less. A terminal control area or similar airspace could also be recognizable around and above the artificial islands. The only colorable argument against the presence or construction of an artificial island would need to based on a finding that it was constructed in the EEZ of another state. A finding that Taiping was an island would have created another untenable situation the PCA apparently sought to avoid, creating an extensive EEZ for the ROC which would not avoid the PRC claim but only postpone its recognition without lowering the potential for confrontation. The PCA finessed the situation by defining the principal problem into non-existence with a legal fiction contrary to the common meaning of words.

As a practical matter the overlapping national claims to economic zones are a serious problem, that can only be negotiated among the affected parties. The US position actually reflects the interest of western corporate interests who wish to be free to exploit mining rights in South China Sea under the national flags of non-Chinese states with competing South China Sea claims to such areas. So the FON claims of the US are to a large extent a wedge issue serving as a pretext, under the color of "international law" for physical confrontation to define interests that the traditional colonial powers can exploit. The risk of war is obvious. The Permanent Court of Arbitration decision is a contrived decision which provides an inadequate base for resolution of the complex competing claims in the South China Sea. It is clear that it will not ever be acknowledged by the PRC.

Thoughts on Japanese objections to addition of South Korea to G-7

Saw this in the English web version of Kyodo News today:

Japan has conveyed to the United States its objection to President Donald Trump's idea of adding South Korea to the Group of Seven summit, saying Seoul is not in lockstep with G-7 members on China and North Korean issues, diplomatic sources said Saturday.

Japan conveys objection to Trump's plan to add South Korea to G-7
KYODO NEWS - 6.28.2020
https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/06/f4cef06fe71f-japan-conveys-objection-to-trumps-plan-to-add-s-korea-to-g-7.html

Abe's popularity is dropping in Japan as the country is suffering from the world wide impact of the pandemic. But Japanese suppliers to S.Korea's semiconductor industry are also suffering as Japan shot itself in the foot by taking S.Korea off its so called "white list" of preferred trading partners. After taking measures to reassure Japan that there were no security risks in supplying those raw materials, the Japanese government has not responded, and South Korea has renewed its lawsuit against Japan at the WTO for unfair trade practices. Japan has been unresponsive on trade issues, because the actions were taken as retaliation against Seoul for court decisions in private lawsuits against Japanese corporations for the exploitation of Korean workers during WWII as slave labor.

The US has said it is neutral in that "trade" dispute and it is for Japan and S.Korea to resolve between themselves. Japanese producers of semiconductor raw materials have probably permanently lost a substantial percentage of the S.Korean semiconductor manufacturing market as S.Korea has developed alternative sources of materials. In addition, the dispute aggravated the old resentments of Japanese colonial exploitation of Korea and resulted in a boycott of Japanese goods by South Korean consumers which hurt Japanese automakers and beer exporters in particular, among others. S.Korean tourism of Japan had already fallen off by about 40 percent before the pandemic. Japanese attempts to coerce South Korea are counterproductive and cannot succeed unless South Korea returns to its prior status as an authoritarian government that can force the pro-Japanese outlook on an unreceptive public.

The Japanese framing of the G-7 membership in terms of a block of countries opposed to China is likely to receive a warm welcome among the usual interests aligned against China, but not so much in South Korea, except among the discredited right wing. The ultra conservative Mirae Tonghap Dang, is still in the process of free fall in South Korea, after its farcical and extremist actions running up to its significant losses in the April 15 elections. Ironically, the abbreviated term for the party Mi Tong Dang is appropriate as the conservatives are totally aligned with US policy without reservation, unlike its more embarrassing historical relationship to Japan. A new US deputy secretary of state, Keith Krach, recently made the mistake of characterizing the rapproachement between China and Moon Jae-in, after the disastrous move of installing THAAD at one location in South Korea, as being the result of US steadfast support for the ROK-US alliance.* This is preposterous. The result was obtained by Moon Jae-in assuring the Chinese there would be no further installations of THAAD missile batteries on the peninsula, that South Korea would not integrate its missile defense capabilities with the US, and that it would not join the US and Japan, in an alliance against China. This same under secretary said that South Korean participation in a multinational economic arrangement Economic Prosperity Network which is aimed at disrupting Chinese based supply lines, would not foreclose their trade relations with China. Does anyone see a credibility problem here?

* VOA 뉴스] “한국은 ‘중국 보복’ 대표적 피해국” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbNzlJhF_YM

There has been a lot of discussion on VOA Korea and elsewhere in the US East Asia policy echo chamber about the purported benefits of having the so called "working group" dominate South Korean policy initiatives toward North Korea. The working group is viewed warily by the South Korean administration. It is viewed, correctly one might add, as a semi-colonial vestige, akin to the Japanese protectorate, attempting to dominate and thwart South Korean initiatives. One might consider the oppressive nature of the "working group" on South Korea as akin to an "I can't breathe" problem. Pompeo and Biegun prefer to use the "no daylight" metaphor, rather than no air. On a daily basis, US Asian policy "experts," advise South Korea to join the "strategic alliance" with Japan, the US and others in the Indo-Pacific aimed at China. Why should they? This isn't in South Korean interests, nor is it in keeping with Korean policy historically. As Jeong Se-hyun, the former South Korean Unification Minister has pointed out, the US establishment in the Defense Department and war industries, have no interest at all in a negotiated agreement with North Korea or they risk losing their lucrative sinecures, bases and markets in Japan and South Korea. Their view is that the South Korean and North Korea interest in a step by step approach to denuclearization, an end to the Korean conflict, and normalization of relations, reflects an essentially an unrealistic and "naive" perspective of what is possible on the peninsula. But the US and Japanese approaches represent the legacy of the nineteeth and early twentieth century policies of overtly imperialist states, ,such as, one may dare to say if they knew, the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and Japan. Allowing Korea some breathing space in terms of sovereignty and national autonomy is just not one of the concerns of the US, UK, France and Japan, and historically, despite protests and arguments to the contrary, never has been.

Today on VOA's Washington Talk show, Defense expert Bruce Bennett from Rand, appeared to be gleeful that it appears there isn't enough to eat in Pyongyang. He also expressed the notion that it was North Korea that wasn't adhering to the principles agreed to at Singapore, rather than the US. In terms of maximum pressure, the US consistently adheres to the hostile all or nothing "Libyan model," lauded by John Bolton. Any easing of sanctions as a trust building measure in a step by step approach to negotiations, as recommended by South Korea, was described absurdly in a recent piece by Victor Cha, as "extremism." So it's not the US hardline maximum pressure "one bundle- all or nothiong," approach which even the South Korean administration finds unworkable that is extreme, it is the desire to engage in the give and take of reciprocal trust building measures which allegedly is a threat to US national security. This is a hostile approach which seeks capitulation rather than negotiation.