Fathoming China's Foreign Policy

What on earth is China doing?  While smiling and proclaiming it wants good relations with its neighbors, China has embarked on a foreign policy frolic that lays claim to the entire South China Sea, has intercepted Malaysian seismic study vessels in Malaysian waters claimed by China, aggressively challenged Japan over islands lying within its self-declared maritime borders,  instigates a nationalistic fervor resulting in smashed windows and destruction of Japanese car dealerships in China and deliberately provokes other countries – the Philippines being a prime example – with its legally absurd sovereignty claims (considering it is a signatory to the Law of the Sea Treaty). 

One can only assume that the People’s Liberation Army has acquired a tad too much influence and control over the government policies.  Backlash is in the air - and water.

Every country in the region, as far away as India, now wants the US to increase its presence. The  newly elected Japanese government, while not actively hostile, is discussing rearmament and vows to take a more forceful stance toward China (not good considering the history involved).  The only exceptions for China are Pakistan and North Korea, not exactly the best group of friends.

This could not possibly be the result desired by Beijing.  It is exactly a case of “not what I say, but what I do” and what China is doing is irritating everyone – from Japan to South East Asia to India.

New, Old World Order

I am, finally, returning to a thesis not widely supported but which I believe is rapidly taking shape: the world has returned to a pre-1939 political structure where regional powers are making more foreign policy decisions based on national interests rather than within alliances. Blocs like NATO, ASEAN and even Shanghai Cooperation Organization are have become largely clubs without transnational impact, except at times militarily like NATO, and even then are severely constrained by the conflicting international interests of their members.  This is also true of the European Union where the political (and perhaps fiscal) unraveling of the Eurozone is proceeding apace.

Some caveats.  First, this is not about the perceived decline of the United States because it is not a decline except in relative terms.  It is about the reality of multi-polarity and local dominance and not absolute decline and fall – something a vast number of Europeans and Americans simply are too reluctant or obtuse to understand. The United States is still the leading military power on a planet-wide basis in general.  Its navy with accompanying air power can go anywhere, anytime and push anyone out of the way. No one can project military power like the US and no one is going to be able to do so for a very long time. In the wrong hands, as we have seen, that has been a problem.  But, there is simply no competition.

Nevertheless, on land and in foreign affairs, it is a different matter. The ill-conceived war in Iraq and the seemingly endless war in Afghanistan have drained the power of the United States militarily, economically and politically.  The policies of the neo-cons and the far right in the US have destroyed the “city on the hill” image that Ronald Reagan tried to push both domestically and internationally. The eight year Bush administration buried the credibility, economy and good will felt toward the US with its astonishingly arrogant, incompetent (but unsurprising) foreign policy otherwise known as the ‘go-it-alone’, ‘with us or against us’ and ‘international agreements be damned’ posturing. 

Second, the European Union remains a creation with enormous potential; but the failure to push for more political integration is now fraying the edges of its economic foundation.  If it is able to resolve the fiscal issues of its member states fairly, then the opportunity to conduct a unified foreign policy will have a chance.  It is not, in my opinion, likely.  Which is why the EU is not included in my list as an entity – just a few member states.

Third, a seismic event could reverse the trend toward the nation-centric foreign policy of pre-1939. I believe in the improbable and dismiss facile bell curves, models and forecasts based on hindsight. It’s what you have dismissed as improbable that will hurt you – usually badly.  The fiscal crises which began in 2008 could have been such an event and should not have been unforeseen, but that moment has dissipated with the uneven recovery – some countries doing much better than others such as in the case of Germany which unfortunately, also proceeded to vocally relegate some member states –the southern tier and Greece in particular - to second citizen status with some distasteful,  nationalistic  remarks bordering on bigotry.   

So, on a region by region basis I believe we are looking at an old, new world order.  It may last a decade or fifty years.  My bet is that it will last longer than anyone expects.  Its structure is that of the realpolitik world of pre-1939 which largely came crashing to a bloody end in 1945 with the rise of the blocs. Some blocs are still around but in reality began a rapid disintegration with the collapse of the Soviet Union. 

Viewing the political map from this geo-political perspective, there are several clear, locally powerful players – China and India; Russia; Turkey; Germany and France; the Visegrad group; and, of course, the US.  Oh – and BRIC is not a bloc – it is a label of convenience mostly for economists who, like Linus and his blanket, need to pigeon-hole un-related countries into nice chewable morsels. 

I have not included Iran because, compared to the others and despite the hysterics of the galactically stupid right wing in the US, it simply doesn’t count.  Its economy is in shambles and it is politically unstable and cannot risk going to war or cutting off the Strait of Hormuz because that would invite retaliation of the most unpleasant sort by almost everyone.  It’s not near to building a single nuclear bomb and couldn’t afford to toss it in any direction even it did manage that amazingly difficult task because then it would be wiped out.

I did not include any African country because, well, if you can name one that is a regional power with enough influence both economically and militarily to do anything with significant impact except very locally, you win a cookie.  South Africa is the sub-Sahara elephant in the room– but its absurd attempts to play on the world stage as it has in Libya make it more of an annoying busybody than effective player.  The African Union in general is an old boys’ club intent on maintaining the status quo. Just look at the lack of effective condemnation of Mugabe’s reign by the AU. 

I also do not include any South American country despite my strong temptation to present Brazil as a player.  Maybe soon, but not now.

That’s my pre-amble.  Next time, and as a first choice, let’s look at Turkey or, more to the point, how Turkey looks at everyone else and their reaction.

South Sudan - So Far So Partly Good

Back at the end of September I posted that the world was not paying attention to what could turn into a vicious bloodbath starting this week. I was writing in reference to Sudan and the vote for or against secession in the south. So far I am glad to have been proved wrong and President Bashir has said that he will respect the results of the vote, now in its second day out of six. He also offered to assume all of Sudan’s debt after the referendum if the south secedes, saying that it would be unable to handle any debt in its current economic condition.


As everyone now knows, the violence in Sudan between the Muslim north and Christian south (and, more to the point, the racial differences between the north and south) has been going on for decades. The problem in the Darfur has been covered only recently. Fighting goes a long – a long way back and had only marginally to do with what has caught the attention of the media now – oil.

Although thankfully major violence appears to have been avoided at this point in time, it remains a serious and dangerous possibility. Reuters reported yesterday that 36 have died in clashes around the likely new border and claims that Khartoum is supplying arms to Arab Misseriya militias in the Abyei region – where the oil is.

The oil producing regions in the south do just that – produce. Khartoum control, because it has the infrastructure, refining and export. Agreements will need to be signed upon independence (and there is no question the south will become independent) that restructure the revenue sharing. Although so far the fighting has been somewhat confined, I don’t see a peaceful ending to this as a given and some sort of international intervention may be required.

Expect the Chinese to be a major player in the negotiations and outcome.

Weekend Quick Hits - Korea, Wikileaks, START

China is stepping up to control the dangerous situation on the Korean peninsula - and if you don't think it is dangerous keep in mind that the political atmosphere in Seoul is toxic and another attack by the North Koreans may not be met with great restraint. However, this remark by its Foreign Ministry is an interesting example of how China views a US carrier battle group steaming around its front yard:

We oppose any military act by any party conducted in China's exclusive economic zone without approval.

From an international law standpoint, China is not on shaky ground here. There is no ground. If China somehow claiming that the Yellow Sea is off limits to any naval units then the Foreign Ministry in Beijing needs to go back to school.  I prefer to think this is for domestic consumption which is fine, but inherently dangerous as it sets up the reply: "Or else, what?" resulting in the loss of face from the ultimate climb down.

On another front, Wikileaks is about to publish another release which even the US is warning will contain some embarrassing documents including, it seems, US support for the PKK, Turkish support for al Qaeda supporters in Iraq and some unflattering characterizations of Russian leadership.  Of course, this is as yet speculation and it could very well be that the US was talking to the PKK - which is a terrorist organization but secular and opponents to the Kurdish Hezbollah which works with al Qaeda. This is called realpolitik. The idea that Turkey officially supports al Qaeda is absurd merely because it would involve the military which is not known for supporting non-secular movements.  Nevertheless, this could be fun. Really.

And entering the world of he terminally stupid (the US Republican party), Senator Richard Lugar (R - Indiana) one of the last of the breed with brains, had to warn members of the lizard party that the failure to ratify the treaty could have drastic consequences for other facets of U.S.-Russia nuclear cooperation -- especially the Nunn-Lugar effort to secure loose nuclear materials throughout the former Soviet Union. If START fails, the cooperation between the United States and Russia on securing loose nukes could be imperiled, representing an even bigger risk for national security, Lugar said.

The money quote:

There are still thousands of missiles out there. You better get that through your heads.

China, Credibility on the Line

Now that South Korea's defence minister has resigned, what will be the next step?  China is the direct beneficiary, if that is the correct term, to the attack by North Korea on the South.  Beneficiary because it is an opportunity to repair its damaged credibility in the region as a leader by taking some action with its ally. As it is, China will be terribly embarrassed, and not a little bit angry, with the movement of a US carrier task force into the South China Sea - something it has condemned in the past as a provocation should it ever happen - again. This is a gutsy move by the Obama administration to pressure China into action. Maybe it will work.

Nevertheless, the infantile, deadly antics of the lunatics in Pyongyang in and of themselves may finally rub out China's patience, with the help of the George Washington battle group.

Tantrum Time in Hermit Land

Speculation is flooding the airwaves regarding why the North Koreans decided to unload over 200 artillery shells at a populated South Korean island just outside the sea border.  More important than the fact of the event, is the motivation.

It is unlikely that the sole basis of killing South Koreans was to force the party of six back to talks. It is also not a particularly wise method of obtaining more food aid following this season's disastrous crop, although it fits with the usual infantile "pay attention to me NOW" tantrums of the government.  After all, the sinking of the Chon An was far more serious. So, why now and why a conventional attack as opposed to, say, testing a nuclear weapon (which is coming)?  Pyongyang may be pushing the limits of what constitutes "acceptable" provocations to conventional attacks to determine how far it can raise the threshold of a response from the South.  If the latter, then the situation becomes exceedingly dangerous. South Korea has every ability to inflict a great deal of pain on the North Koreans but is unlikely to do so because of the risk of a war.  But that restraint is unlikely to continue for long and if there is no military response, what does South Korea know that we don't?

Reports are that Korean ports are empty of warships.  There are at least 50 major combat ships heading toward the Korean coast including elements of the US 7th Fleet- something that probably puts it on the top ten list of  least favourite things in Beijing. Having a fleet of that size parked in your front yard is not designed to improve anyone's mood.  And, in the end, China is key. This sort of thing makes them uncomfortable.But loss of credibility as the regional leader is worse. China needs to step up and deal with its ally.

Right Wing Russia - A Mirror of Right Wing America

This alarming analysis  out of Moscow (Russian only)  just shows that right wing reactionary nightmares in the Russian Federation are very similar to right wingnut fantasy scenarios regarding Iran in the US.  The entire article is an review of the military status of countries in Central Asia and the threats to Russia - but goes on to postulate a Chinese seizure of Central Asia.  With ease.  The paranoia about China in Russia is deep.  I'm not sure why - unless it has something to do with the ancient Mongol domination of Russia.  Whatever.  This is simply not going to happen. 

China to the Rescue

The recent announcement by China that it would buy Greek bonds when they are issued, likely early in 2011, and to double bi-lateral trade is definitely good news for Athens. It is also an interesting maneuver by China to gain influence within the EU as a whole through bi-lateral agreements with individual members that expose fault lines in attempts by France and Germany to impose a uniform foreign policy. 

Bi-lateral agreements with individual members of a bloc can provide significant leverage. For China, this form of diplomatic initiative will assist in lifting the EU ban on certain high-tech exports to China and for the EU to recognise China's market economy status, a long-standing request that would limit the EU's room to impose anti-dumping duties on Chinese imports. 

Will other debt burdened EU members turn to China as the financial saviour?  If so, then the results of bad financial policies in the EU and the US will very much affect global relationships in an unanticipated way.  As the US devolves toward banana republic status under control of its Republican and teabagger overlords and the EU struggles with the increasingly worrisome single currency, the balance is tipping.

The Upcoming Surprise War

Image via Wikipedia

It will be a surprise in the West, at least.  Get ready for a vicious little war in Sudan that will spill over into Uganda and Ethiopia. And it will be about oil.

Come January, the independence referendum in southern Sudan will either have been approved resoundingly or Khartoum will delay the vote.  Both will result in war and if anyone thinks that Darfur is bad - well, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

The proposed border is vague, to say the least. The oil resources straddle the border. Northern Sudan has been at war in the south for three decades. Over 1 million people have died. Both the north and south depend on the oil revenues while China and India depend on the oil. The rest of the planet is distracted - there will be no US or EU intervention.  The African Union is weak and broke.

The factors coming together - oil, religion, geography and no prospect of outside intervention - are deadly.  The importance of avoiding a major conflict cannot be overstated.  If Uganda and Ethiopia become destabilized the prospects of penetration by trans-national Islamic militants is huge and their own internal problems will be made worse.  Loss of oil production will force China and India to look elsewhere - and prices will go up.

Three months and counting.

The Russian Are Coming - Again

Back in August, 25 Islamic militants escaped from a high security prison in Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikistan.  The government immediately initiated a hunt.  It's not going well.  On September 19 in the northeastern valley of Rasht, militants ambushed a Tajik patrol and killed at least 25 soldiers.  Nothing like this has been seen in a decade.

There are a whole variety of different militant groups operating in Tajikistan whose terrain is difficult, to say the least. Similar groups exits in Uzbekistan and the Kyrgyz Republic. The sudden increase in activity coupled with the upcoming withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan just to the south may spell trouble for the entire region.

Which is why the Russians are coming.  They have never rally left and have bases in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, most notably along the Uzbek border who the Russians fear may have designs on becoming the regional power since it has the largest population and a ruthless military. But all the countries have an interest in making sure the conflicts of the 1990s don't return, especially in the form of Islamic militancy. So the Russian just sent around 25,000 troops to Tajikistan.  More will be coming and China will certainly take an interest as some of the militant groups spill over into their territory. 

As the US pulls back and the latest iteration of The Great Game dials down, these Central Asian republics are in for a ride.  It will be left to the Russians.

Who Lost India? Courtesy of Robert Kaplan

Image by amanky via Flickr

Robert Kaplan has been around for some time now and could be characterized as a "reasonable" neo-con. He supported, indeed promoted, the invasion of Iraq before he opposed the war.  He is all for intervention by the US against leaders like Saddam Hussein. Still.  Because he travelled to these oppressed countries and saw for himself the suffering of the population.  Now, in this paper he explains why, if the US deserts Afghanistan it is deserting India and because of the geography of the sub-continent and its history, India will be driven into the arms of China.

Although Kaplan does not explicitly state that the US should remain in Afghanistan, its pretty much there in the background.  He says that the US should not spend enormous amounts of money in Afghanistan specifically to impress India, but it must be part of the considerations regarding the Afghan strategy.

I find this whole line of reasoning to be somewhat STRATFOR-ESQ (one of the leading foreign policy analyst publications with a geo-political bent).  This is not a zero sum game among China the US and India. India is concerned about a Taliban takeover after the US leaves next summer. But so does Russia and China.  Pakistan might benefit as their security apparatus uses the Taliban to its own ends - but that particular relationship is pretty much soured - and provide them with a secure rear when facing India.  But that's not the point. India was not leaning toward China before the Afghan war despite Taliban control. It is unlikely to jump into the arms of the Chinese - a major competitor both economically and politically - after the US withdraws.

Therefore, Kaplan is just throwing up his straw-man of the "who lost India" genre in order to forestall the end day of US involvement with Kabul on a military basis.

Israel is to the US as North Korea is to China

Thought for the day: 

President Obama needs to sit down with Hu Jintao and trade ideas on how to handle behaviourly challenged children who are seriously alarming the neighbors with thunderingly moronic actions.

China Speaks

The ramifications of the sinking of the Chon An by North Korea is entering a new, but likely closing phase as preparations are made for additonal sanctions by the United Nations.  Although the bellicose rhetoric from the North and the all but severing of economic and political contacts by the South continue, no sense of military action by either side is evident.  It is in everyone's interest that it stays that way. 

China has taken position that comports with its traditional desire to maintain the status quo on the peninsula. Even Beijing seems to be having difficulty with the reasons for this escalation by the North.  Despite the event, the reason for the sinking is less important than containing the potential damage. The next phase in the UN will begin to define how China's position in the region will be judged, but this remark will be parsed until the sanctions regime is subjected to a vote: "China will defend no one" whatever the outcome may be, Wen (China's Premier) also said, according to Lee (SK President).

Depending on the nature and extent of the sanctions, that remark could mean an abstention. If so, the North is in for a very rough time if sanctions are imposed.  China cannot afford an unstable North - particulary one which might lash out militarily confronting China with an even worse foreign policy dilema. The deal may this - China abstains, sanctions are imposed, China feeds the North to keep it from collapse. Face is saved.

Final: Chon An Sunk by North Korean Torpedo

The blame from the sinking of the South Korean frigate Chon An has now been formally laid at the feet of North Korea. The consequences are coming, but it is unlikely that the South Korean government will resort to any sort of violent response. The fact that the findings were announced with the concurrence of all the investigators, which included representatives from Sweden, Australia, Britain and the US, will put North Korea in the position of denying the obvious.

Back in April, I questioned the “why” not the “how”. That question is still unanswered although it may simply be one of retaliation for successful defensive measures taken by South Korea in previous naval incidents. However, a pre-meditated attack is of a different order.

Various scenarios will begin to play out, including a call for additional sanctions in the United Nations. Korea is already an unpleasant place to live – more sanctions could make it all the more so. Which brings up China.

This might be the least welcome event for China during its period of negotiations with Japan over fishing rights and its position on financial matters with the United States. North Korea is supported economically by China and a surge of refugees that could result as North Korea is further penalized with sanctions is not tolerable prospect for Beijing. The US is likely now to bring additional, unwelcome, pressure on China to do something with North Korea. Japan may join the push as well. Certainly the South Korean will not look favourably on China if it fails to take any action or opposes additional sanctions.

The reality is that North Korea is a drain on China, both economically and politically. At the same time, an unstable North Korea is a threat to all her neighbours’ and, by treaty, to the US. The reaction of China to the findings will be important in maintaining stability while simultaneously dealing with a dangerous state prone to tantrums resulting in damage and deaths. 

I suspect that a new set of sanctions will be discussed, but not imposed.  China would not want the UN to further exacerbate North Korea's economic problems which could escalate uncontrollably.  It certainly does not want another tantrum from North Korea that could actually provoke a military response. But, China will need to give up something for their neighbor's latest provocation.

The Chon An Incident - Why?

The questions that have surrounded the sinking of the South Korean corvette Chon An are now focused on the why, not the how. South Korean Defence Minister Kim Tae-young told the National Assembly on 2 April that of the two possible causes, torpedoes or mines, that a torpedo was the likely device.


All the indications, from the massive inward damage and the fact that she fired her guns north before sinking, to the order for her sister corvette to open fire at an object travelling north (the NoRK have semi-submersibles which carry 2 torpedoes and travel at 30 knots) then there is only one actor who can be identified - North Korea.

The issue is no longer what happened but why North Korea would seek to escalate tensions by taking a provocative action that is of a far higher order than previous incidents of patrol boats exchanging gunfire in disputed waters? Earlier running engagements were the result of patrol in disputed areas and rarely occur. They were not pre-meditated attempts to engage and destroy, by either side.



However, torpedo attacks are not the result of random patrols running into each other. A torpedo attack involves precise tactics that include intelligence reports, tracking, targeting and firing the weapon with the intention to sink the target and likely resulting in the death of the crew. The captain knows this and it is highly unlikely that he acted without orders.



So, what was the intention? This is not simply a factor of a demand for attention – the usual reason even if it involves testing a nuclear device or arresting journalists. The South Koreans are acting very judiciously by not instantly accusing North Korea and may simply be waiting for the atmosphere to cool off. They will need to say something sooner or later. Then the question is one of response.



The entire incident, its purpose and what the South Korean government knows or chooses not to reveal, is very strange. I suspect that the incident will not result in any formal action against North Korea but the one player that such an overt act of aggression would irritate is China. This is not something they need with relations with the US beginning to thaw.



Stay tuned for the ‘butterfly effect’.

Confusion in the Kyrgyz Republic

Following up on the events in the Kyrgyz Republic, the cause of the successful revolt does appear to be grounded solidly on the intensity of anger, building up over the past three years, over the dashed hopes for reform ushered in by the Tulip Revolution. The latter revolt elevated the now ousted President Kurmanbek Bakiyev to a leadership role that quickly degenerated into a kleptocracy of extraordinary magnitude spearheaded by his son, Maxim.


Maxim sold off the resources of the country and pocketed the funds for himself and his family. He sold water to Uzbekistan far beyond the Kyrgyz Republic's resources and electricity to, of all places, the Republic of Kazakhstan. The water sold could have been used to generate electricity rather than endure the twice daily power shedding that occurred in 2006 leaving even the capital, Bishkek, in the dark. He then raised electric rates by 170% as well as cell phone rates and pocketed that as well. In 2006 I witnessed his thugs cut down the surrounding two meter metal fence from the grounds on the Hyatt in retaliation for the hotel's refusal to increase his percentage ownership of the casino. The purported reason? So the public could visit the monument in the park without the need to pass security. The man needed to be removed - one way or another.

Bakiyev did nothing to stop the deterioration of the economy while indulging in conspicuous consumption and, on days he was bored, murdering journalists. Little has been done to find and punish the murderers of Alisher Saipov (killed in 2007), Almazbek Tashiev (2009) and Gennady Pavlyuk (also 2009). More than 60 cases of assaults on journalists have been reported since Bakiyev took control in 2005.

I am also sure that Moscow was not pleased after bribing him with a $2 billion loan channeled through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to close Manas airbase to NATO and then watching as the US outbid the bribe and he broke his promise to close the base and then suggested that he would give the US a second base.

This brings up the issue as to whether the revolt that toppled the government was aided by Russia. President Putin immediately called interim the president and promising support and aid. Meanwhile, in the US, the State Department in another example of saying too much when asked to comment implied that it was working with Bakiyev. Philip Crowley said,

We work with that sitting government. We have — as we’ve outlined in various reports, including the Human Rights Report — we have concerns about issues, intimidation by the government, corruption within the government…but that said, there is a sitting government. We work closely with that government. We are allied with that government in terms of its support for international operations in Afghanistan.

How about, "We urge calm and restraint on all sides to avoid further bloodshed". Period. Rumours are flying about in Bishkek, according to my former colleagues that Maxim has fled to the US. Not.Very.Helpful. Russia is viewed as helpful. The United States as a supporter of a corrupt regime.

Finally, domestic politics has played a key role. The country is divided between northern and southern clans. In 2005 as a result of the Tulip revolution, Bakiyev, a representative of the southern clans, came to power as president. That did not entirely please the northern clans, a feeling that was made worse as he failed to keep his promises including to avoid assigning his own clan to governmental positions and avoid press censorship . He did the opposite.

Apparently, the northern clans gave him an ultimatum about three weeks ago to remove his brothers and son from their positions. In response, he had opposition leaders arrested which lit the fuse of the revolution in Talas which then spread across the country to Bishkek. It was in Talas that the head of the interior ministry was found shot as well.

So, now Bakiyev has escaped south and has no support in the more powerful north. Buh bye Bishkek.

Now both the US and China are assessing the change. The US from a military standpoint and China from security and balance of power issues. Russia is the clear winner whether or not it supported or had any hand whatsoever in the revolution and continues its progress to rein in the former Soviet republics. Orange, Rose and Tulip revolutions have all been rolled back and perception always trumps the truth.

What will the new regime bring? Probably little change, although one can hope. Omurbek Tekebaev and Temir Sariev, the two most visible opposition figures, are the same people who were in power under both Akayev and Bakiyev. Both were reelected to parliament in 2005 in a fraudulent election that sparked the Tulip Revolution. Both retained their seats under Bakiyev, and Tekebaev served briefly as speaker in Parliament. In the 10 years they have been in politics, nothing changed and indeed became worse. It is unlikely they can or will change anything now.

China Syndrome

Image via Wikipedia

Japan has ended its refueling mission in the Indian Ocean which was part of its support for the Afghan war. On the other side of the coin, this will be interesting from a foreign policy perspective if it comes to pass.

The Chinese navy is slowly extending its permanent blue water reach into new zones. Although ostensibly a mission merely to support the continuing war in Afghanistan (and therefore in support of the US military), this step really goes far beyond the naval mission against piracy that China has heretofore engaged. It creates a permanent presence. How this will play out with India, its regional rival, and Pakistan, its regional ally, if it actually happens?

On the other hand, will the US really, really agree to having its warships refueled by the Chinese? Somehow, it seems to me that this might be a sea lane too far.

Japan & Russia to End Word War II

In a little reported event on Sunday, the Russian and new Japanese governments have agreed to sign a peace treaty ending the last vestige of World War II.

Japan agreed to the peace treaty with no strings attached - a significant departure from previous negotiations. The fact that the issue of the South Kuril islands will not be linked to the treaty may stir up some political trouble in Japan; but, it seems that Japan is pushing the issue to back burner in order to concentrate on its economic position with China and re-entering South East Asia. Russia may also want to resolve any remaining issues with Japan precisely because Japan would be a counter to China. Russia is not particularly formidable in its eastern regions and a settlement with Japan would allow Russia to concentrate its efforts in the west.

Request for the Day

We hear it often - usually from governments who are criticized for their less than open and transparent political and economic systems:
"(Fill in Country)practices its own form of democracy."

Note to the media. Please stop repeating this stuff. Western democracies vary in their systems, but Russia, China, Iran and similar states do not practice "a form of democracy". They practice a form of government that is distinct from Western forms of democracy. They are not democratic systems regardless of what they say.

Turkey and China

It is difficult to understand the rhetoric, now highly charged, coming from Prime Minister Erdogan, who referred to the crack-down on Uighurs in the northwestern Chinese province of Xinjiang a “genocide.” That is not a term that Turkey tosses around easily, given the issue with the Armenian claims of genocide by the Ottoman Empire.

Clearly, there is domestic pressure on the ruling AKP to take a strong stand, but aside from that it is difficult to understand why Turkey would deliberately poke China, a major trading partner, in the eye with an inflammatory condemnation and statement that it would raise it in the UN Security Council. The latter is unlikely since China would need to give permission to raise the issue, which is clearly considers internal.

So, what's up with Turkey? I understand that the Uighurs are Turkic and Muslim. But Turkey has even less connection with them than the other Central Asia Turkic peoples. I suspect that the escalation is due to local politics as the AKP wants to establish its leadership in the Muslim world closer to home.

China's response has, so far, been dismissive. Whether this escalates to involve the trade and political relationship between Turkey and China is the next stage.