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.

Cuba Embargo

This is just plain stupid. And Obama knows it.

The US voted against a resolution condemning the embargo against Cuba. OK. It was a condemnation aimed at the US. But the Obama administration knows - knows (and everyone with a scintilla of intelligence knows) that the embargo is a joke and harms the interests of the US, not to mention the investments that private firms (hotels, etc.) could make there and reap the rewards.

Every US ally in the world voted against the US except Israel (which, incidentally, has investments in Cuba). Bears worth repeating - every ally voted against the US. Obama and Hillary should have voted: abstain.

Unbelievable.

The Alternate Economic Summit

The two-day meeting on Venezuela's Margarita Island this past weekend which mirrored the G-20 summit, addressed a wide range of concerns, from hunger in Africa to the economic crisis and demands for reming the United Nations. That's all well and good. However, having Hugo Chavez and Muammar el-Qaddafi take the leading roles is not.

One of them sees everything exclusively through the lens of anti-Americanism and self-promotion, while the other has frequently professed a desire to form a United States of Africa led by him - which is not about to happen for a variety of geo-political reasons. These are not the leaders of the South. Chavez has a proclivity for childish behavior coupled with clear tyrannical tendencies while Qadaffi is, well, himself.

Chavez has been struggling to grasp a leadership role outside of his small circle of supporters in South and Central America. However, his policy of nationalizing every major industry in sight is not widespread in the region, much less the world. Although he may be largely correct by blasting "...the empires of the North ...the empires of Europe, ...the U.S. empire..." for past economic and military colonialism, he is not the leader of any South/South reform movement.

The meeting also offered Qadaffi the chance to grandstand and rant - some of which was truly bizarre. Again. He exhibited his penchant for theater claiming (correctly) that "colonialism has stolen our riches." Unfortunately, colonialism of the type he refers ended some time ago and, in any event, I don't see him waxing sadly about Libyan oil and gas sales helped mostly through investment by those same former colonialists. He also wanted to reopen investigations regarding assassinations within the UN structure - JFK was mentioned.

His denunciation of the "politics of the club" used by some nations against others was not clearly translated though. Did he mean "club" as in weapon or "club" as in something he will never be allowed to join. If the first, then I suppose that the war in Iraq and the Russo/Georgian war fit the definition. So what?

Quadaffi then, clearly miffed, personalized the issue claiming to be humiliated by the fact that his delegation had to travel 20 hours to reach New York. Well, living in a tent is his privilege. Dropping it in places where he is not wanted, is not. I'm sure the Russians were amused when he pitched it in Red Square - but not for long. After complaining about the 20 hour commute, he called for more air routes between Southern Hemisphere nations - a policy which the beleaguered airline industry would likely not jump at immediately.

Both leaders demanded reform to the UN. OK, fair enough. But, Quadaffi went so far as to claim that the Security Council format is unsustainable because of the right of veto. Well, unfortunately the countries on the Security Council, which includes rotating membership from the General Assembly like Libya, prefer it that way. In any event, the entire concept of the Security Council was based on the major powers taking the permanent seats and not Zimbabwe or Burma. If anything, I can certainly agree the SC should be expanded to include as permanent members India, Brazil and Japan, for example. Beyond that, giving the Mugabe's of the world a chance to set international policy for the planet is laughable.

Others at this meeting, such as Argentine President Cristina Fernandez, were less flamboyant and far more pragmatic. She simply expressed hope that Africa will expand its potential to produce and export food and - more to the point - said her government was willing to provide technology and expertise to help.

Chavez, for his part, also promised investment in Africa. But, much like his promise to supply Iran with gasoline, this is more poor rhetoric than reality since his budget is in shambles due to his economic policies and low oil prices.

Given the recurrent attempts to hijack the under-privileged, under-served and under-represented southern part of the planet, perhaps it is time for the Non-Aligned Movement to reinvigorate itself. Formed during the Cold War, it seems to have lost its way after the collapse of the Soviet Union. After all, all of Africa, except Morocco, are members and so is Venezuela. The problem for Chavez and Quadaffi, but no one else, is that they do not lead the organization and will not likely have a say in its leadership for some time. But, it includes economic powerhouses - India and South East Asia - which could constructively lead an alternative non-political, economic program to the IMF (albeit on a smaller scale) if they really wanted to do so. But then it is politics, not economic development that motivates Chavez, so the Non-Aligned Movement would need to somehow work with or around his type.