Aggravating the regional situation China now increases its influence in Asia. South Korea is at loggerheads with the US over the "security issue". What the US is cooking in this situation is a proxy war in which countries in Northeast Asia turn their backs and fight each other. For this, the Bush administration tries to put in place a structure of confrontational containment against the DPRK and China by the US, Japan and south Korea.
Clearly, ending North Korea's nuclear crisis or even eliminating "evil" is not the ultimate goal of the US. What the US really wants, and is exploiting the North Korea "crisis" to achieve, is to deploy sufficient military forces and resources in the western Pacific (especially close to Taiwan) so as to encourage Taiwan independence, thereby checking China's growth as a power that might compete with the US. Not long ago, the US and Japan were talking about using Japan's Shimoji Island as a military base. Only about 200 miles from Taiwan, Shimoji has a "runway capable of safely handling a fully loaded F-15C fighter jet", observed James Brooke in the New York Times. #msg-4722542
A number of Bush administration sounding boards, such as neo-conservative Charles Krauthammer, have openly advocated Japan going nuclear as a way to offset the growing influence and power of China. Acquiring nuclear weapons would be relatively easy for Japan, which has plenty of fuel to reprocess, as well as missiles and satellite targeting systems. #msg-6547899
U.S. at War With Beijing, Reports Cite China as No. 1 Threat
Both the Pentagon and the Commission on U.S-China Economic and Security Review cited Beijing as a major threat to U.S. national security. The two reports noted the growing military capability of China combined with its predatory economic policy is aimed directly at the United States. #msg-3379438
THE VIEW FROM PYONGYANG Why North Korea isn't talking By An Sang Nam
Jun 11, 2005
(Used by permission of Pacific Forum CSIS)
PYONGYANG - Today, the situation in Northeast Asia surrounding the Korean peninsula is more inflamed than ever before. This causes great concern not only among all the Korean people, but also among people in the region. This urgent situation presses for steps to prevent a new war and ensure the peace and security in the region by concerted efforts of regional countries.
Rising tension The US's hostile policy against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and its arms buildup constitutes a major factor threatening security in this region. The six-party talks have yet to be resumed and the resolution of the nuclear issue has been delayed. To all intents and purposes, this is the fault of the US.
Several times, the DPRK put a just demand to the US to change its hostile policy aimed at seeking "regime change" and shift its policy in favor of peaceful co-existence between the DPRK and the US. If the US does this, the nuclear issue can be resolved.
But the second Bush administration, like that of the first term, stipulated as its policy not to co-exist with the DPRK, but to "overturn" the system chosen by the Korean people themselves.
The Bush administration says that it is not hostile toward the DPRK and it doesn't intend to invade it. But it acts differently from what it says. It sets as its "overriding objective" "regime change" in the DPRK and remains persistent in employing double-faced tactics of stick and carrot for this purpose.
This is well proved by the fact that President George W Bush labeled the DPRK, defining it as part of the "axis of evil" and an "outpost of tyranny". Worse still, he slandered the supreme leadership of the DPRK.
It is well established that Bush, as soon as he took office, reneged on all dialogues and negotiations with the DPRK that the previous administration had held, and defined the DPRK as part of an "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address of late January 2002, and named it as a target of a US "preemptive nuclear strike" in March that same year.
This time, Bush, rather than retracting his labeling of his dialogue partner the DPRK as part of an "axis of evil", overstepped the mark, listing the state-chosen DPRK government as an "outpost of tyranny", defining it as the object to be removed. He thus made the DPRK fail to find any credible reason to participate in the six-way talks.
The US puts its dialogue partner in dishonor, though it says it wants to hold negotiations. All told, this is not what we call a sincere approach to resolving the nuclear issue.
The US is also massively deploying huge ultra-modern war hardware in south Korea under the pretext of "repositioning its forces". The repositioning of US troops in south Korea is part of a new war preparation based on the theory of "preemptive strike". [Editor's note: while North Koreans traditionally refer to their own country as the DPRK, they usually refer to the Republic of Korea as south Korea rather than South Korea or the ROK.]
The US announced in May 2003 an "arms buildup plan" with an envisaged investment of US$11 billion for south Korea. In mid-2004, it began deploying en masse its latest war hardware with an increased fund of $13 billion under the signboard of "relocation of combat forces".
The "arms buildup plan" is justified to fill the "security vacuum" to be caused by the "reduced US troops" in south Korea. This plan [has already been more than half realized].
The US earmarked a lion's share of its budget for the research of smaller nuclear weapons aimed to destroy underground bunkers of the DPRK and simulates dropping nuclear bombs by deploying in south Korea US Air Force planes stationed in Japan, Guam and other places, in addition to the US forces in south Korea. This fact is no longer considered secret. The US brings into south Korea the latest war hardware, the destructive power of which was tested in the aggressive war in Iraq.
The US, as it reinforces its armed forces in south Korea, commits itself to continued joint military exercises on a large-scale basis against the DPRK. Last March, the US and belligerent forces in south Korea staged in the whole area of south Korea joint military exercises codenamed "Foal Eagle". Such military exercises are, to all intents and purposes, a nuclear war rehearsal with its eye on the north, and include massive participation of elite forces in south Korea , the US mainland, and overseas and other nuclear strike forces such as aircraft carriers.
Through such exercises, the US pursues efforts to upgrade maneuverability beyond the Korean peninsula at a moment's notice, not making its operational field confined to the DPRK, but is designed in the light of the changed mission of US forces in south Korea to become a "mobile force in the wider region".
To cope with the grave situation created by the US hostile policy toward the DPRK, the DPRK on February 10 clarified that it was compelled to suspend its participation in the six-party talks for an indefinite period until there was justification for it to attend and there were ample conditions and atmosphere to expect positive results from the talks. The DPRK also took a measure to bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal in order to protect the ideology, system and democracy chosen by its people as the US disclosed its attempt to topple the political system in the DPRK at any cost.
It is quite natural to respond to nukes in kind.
Aggravating the regional situation China now increases its influence in Asia. South Korea is at loggerheads with the US over the "security issue". What the US is cooking in this situation is a proxy war in which countries in Northeast Asia turn their backs and fight each other. For this, the Bush administration tries to put in place a structure of confrontational containment against the DPRK and China by the US, Japan and south Korea.
Recently, the US fans Japan over Tokdo islet, sacred territory of Korea, and Tokyo's bid for permanent membership on the UN Security Council. This puts a great spur to Japan in its undisguised bid to seize territories of other countries and distort history.
The US does not like to see the Korean nation moving toward reunification hand-in-hand and tries by all possible means to put a fifth wheel in the smooth development of inter-Korean relations. This year alone, the US has put pressure on the south Korean authorities to "keep pace with the speed of economic cooperation" and "make it clear on the conception of a principal enemy".
All the facts prove that the US does not seek reconciliation and cooperation between the north and the south of Korea and security in Northeast Asia, but instead seeks confrontation between the north and the south.
How to ensure security First, in order to ease tension in Northeast Asia and ensure regional peace and security, it is essential for the US to renounce its hostile policy toward the DPRK and co-exist with it in peace.
The nuclear issue between the DPRK and the US is a product of the Bush administration's extreme hostile policy. Such being the case, the key to this resolution lies in the US changing its hostile policy into a policy for peaceful co-existence between the DPRK and the US. As long as the US does not change its hostile policy against the DPRK, we can neither expect regional peace and stability nor the resolution of the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the US.
It is par for the course that the US should apologize and withdraw what it said about the DPRK "ending its tyranny" and gives up its hostile policy aimed at "regime change" in the DPRK. It also should make clear its political will to move toward peaceful co-existence. Through all this, the US should put its money where its mouth is.
The DPRK remains unchanged in its principled stand and maintains its overriding objective: to denuclearize the Korean peninsula and resolve the nuclear issue peacefully through dialogue and negotiations.
The DPRK is prepared to participate in the six-way talks at any time if the US provides the DPRK with conditions and justification for the resumption of the six-party talks without disregarding the DPRK. The switchover of the US policy from hostility toward the DPRK to one of peaceful co-existence with the DPRK and a complete solution to the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the US will naturally bring about settlement of the security issue in Northeast Asia.
Second, one way of ensuring regional security is that those countries interested in the security in Northeast Asia and linked to the continent meet to discuss the issue of security. The master of Northeast Asia is the countries and people in this region. They are deeply interested in this security and have the potential and capacity to be responsible for regional peace and security. That is why it is very important for these countries to meet to discuss the issue of regional security. As the US is across the ocean and Japan is away from the continent, they have no interest in the peace and security of Northeast Asia - nor can they have any responsibility for them.
Third, it is possible to ensure the security of Northeast Asia only when all aggressive forces deployed in this region are completely removed. In order to ensure regional security, US forces along with all its lethal weapons must be withdrawn from this region and US interference in the internal affairs of other countries be terminated.
Fourth, the militarism of Japan must be checked at any cost. Japan's ambition to beautify and justify its dirty history of aggression, to grab the territory of other countries and step up preparations to reinvade Asia must be frustrated at all costs as it is a very dangerous development from the viewpoint of peace in Asia and the rest of the world.
The DPRK, as a responsible country located in Northeast Asia, will make every possible effort to ensure regional peace and security, as it did in the past.
An Song Nam is senior researcher at the Institute of Disarmament and Peace, Pyongyang, DPRK. This paper was originally presented at the 19th Asia-Pacific roundtable that was recently held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author.
U.S. to use Taiwan Strait as base for US-Japan bilateral military cooperation
This is very good, it skims some of the steps being taken that will spawn the most catastrophic war in history.
-Am
Whereas the current bilateral defense guidelines do not explicitly mention the Taiwan Strait as a playground for US-Japan bilateral military cooperation, the revised guidelines are expected to do just that. So far, the geographical scope of possible US-Japan military cooperation in Asia has been referred to as "areas surrounding Japan even if all interested parties, including China, agreed a long time [ago] that Taiwan and the Taiwan Straits are very much part of that vague geographical concept.
Japan shows some muscle By Axel Berkofsky
Jun 21, 2005
Japan's defense planners are clearly on a roll. Initiatives, alone or with the US, to boost Japan's security policy profile and capabilities have been so numerous that commentators and analysts are beginning to have trouble seeing the forest for the trees. But let's give it a shot anyway.
The country's defense planners and hawks have put in a lot of overtime since last December, when Japan's revised National Defense Program Outline was implemented. The new guidelines, greeted at the time with only very limited enthusiasm in China and South Korea, replace Japan's 1995 defense guidelines, ease its decade-long ban to export weapons and weapons technology, and, among others, authorize Japan's military to fight a "potential terrorist threat" inside and outside the country. They also call for an increase of Japanese contributions to international peacekeeping missions and speedy progress developing a US-Japan missile defense system protecting Japan from North Korean ballistic missile attacks.
As expected, the part of the guidelines that called China a "potential threat" to Japan's security infuriated Beijing, which for its part instantly urged the Japanese government to publish the defense guidelines minus the "China threat" section. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of course did no such thing and decided to hold talks with the US on joint strategies to care for security in the Taiwan Strait instead.
And there is more. The December 2004 defense guidelines also called for a review of the US-Japan defense guidelines and, through them, for the strengthening of bilateral military cooperation in East Asia to fight regional and global evil-doers.
Tokyo and Washington got down to business without further ado and formally announced in May they would revise their so-called US-Japan Guidelines for Defense Cooperation, implemented in 1997.
Whereas the current bilateral defense guidelines do not explicitly mention the Taiwan Strait as a playground for US-Japan bilateral military cooperation, the revised guidelines are expected to do just that. So far, the geographical scope of possible US-Japan military cooperation in Asia has been referred to as "areas surrounding Japan even if all interested parties, including China, agreed a long time [ago] that Taiwan and the Taiwan Straits are very much part of that vague geographical concept".
There is still little clarity, however, on when exactly Washington and Tokyo will put their plans to upgrade their alliance on paper. Although both countries are optimistic that a joint statement elaborating on details for the revision of the guidelines could still be published by the end of June, it now seems likely that the hawks in both Washington and Tokyo might have to hold back for a few additional months.
Already there is talk about postponing the joint statement until this autumn, even if the US seems keen on getting a Japanese commitment in writing to help keep China and its growing military influence in check sooner rather than later.
That the US has asked Japan to become militarily (even) more assertive right now seems to show that the Pentagon and controversial Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld have rediscovered China as a military threat. Rumsfeld and his associates have over the last several weeks voiced their "concerns" on numerous occasions about China's growing military expenditures, its saber-rattling tactics toward Taiwan and Beijing's plans to shop for European high-tech military equipment once the European Union lifts its weapons embargo imposed after the Tiananmen massacre in 1989. (Although no final decision has been made, the EU is eager to lift its 15-year-old arms embargo on China, much to the displeasure of the US.)
Japan, too, worries about its increasingly assertive neighbor but seems to want more from the upgrade of the alliance with the US than scaring China.
The upgraded alliance, Tokyo hopes, will also be accompanied by a reduction ("realignment" in diplomatic lingo) of US troops stationed in Japan. That, however, is pretty much off the agenda as far as the US is concerned, at least judging by the rhetoric coming out of the Pentagon. The 47,000 US troops in Japan are there to stay and will only be reduced when we say so, has been the message coming from the Pentagon over recent months.
Tokyo as it turns out this time will not cave in that easily and thinks it has another trump card up its sleeve. Last month the government also announced plans to shorten the duration of bilateral agreements with the US on sharing the costs of hosting US forces in Japan. Whereas currently Japan and the US negotiate a new pact every five years, Tokyo wants to reduce the term to two years, possibly allowing Japan to negotiate cuts in financial support every two years.
The current Special Measures Agreement between Tokyo and Washington will expire in March 2006 and the US has already indicated that Japan might be asked to come up with even more cash after the planned realignment of US forces in Japan. The agreement covers Japanese government support for labor, utilities and training relocation costs incurred by US forces in Japan. Bottom line: shortening the bilateral agreement and further reducing the cash flow from Japan are non-starters as far as Washington is concerned. The US$5 billion Tokyo spends yearly on US forces protecting Japanese citizens from North Korea and international terrorists is money well spent, according to Washington.
The US is also keen to boost "interoperability" between US and Japanese armed forces when it revises the bilateral defense guidelines. Japan, however, is slightly less enthusiastic about interoperability as it could go along with joint US-Japan commando structures in the case of a regional contingency. "Joint commando", Tokyo fears, will be a synonym for "US commando", authorizing trigger-happy US generals to order Japanese military to join the fighting in the Taiwan Strait or elsewhere.
Political realities and Japan's infamously slow decision-making process aside, the revision of the guidelines, Washington and Tokyo hope, will be in place by the end of 2006. Drawing up revised contingency plans (one for North Korea, one for the Taiwan Strait and probably several others for the rest of the region), however, can easily take another couple of years.
And then there are Japan's plans to shoot down incoming North Korean missiles. The country's Defense Agency appears to be in a rush and plans to install a new sensor system to detect, track (and eventually) shoot down ballistic missiles in no time. The so-called Advanced Infrared Ballistic Missile Optical Sensor System will be installed on aircraft later this month to monitor missile launches 24 hours a day, seven days a week with high altitude, unmanned reconnaissance planes equipped with the flashy new system.
But "monitoring" only will not be good enough forever, Japan's Defense Agency chief Yoshinori Ono has said. Japan, the outspoken Ono announced recently, will enter joint development of a state-of-the-art missile defense system the with the US as early as fiscal 2006. And even now Japan only wants the best to defend itself from incoming rogue missiles (North Korean).
Tokyo has only recently agreed to buy a US-made missile defense system (the sea-based Standard Missile 3, SM3) with a defense capability of several hundreds of kilometers. The system to be jointly developed with the Pentagon would have about double that range defense agency officials cheer. To avoid legal problems (read: to make legal what is illegal under Japan's constitution) the government last December issued a statement that placed joint development and production of missile defense systems outside of Japan's long-standing ban to export weapons and weapons technology.
Both governments, reportedly in preparation for the development of the missile defense system, are also planning to establish a joint operations center at Yokota Air Base in Tokyo. Through US early-warning satellites, Japan's armed forces will receive information on "suspicious" activities at North Korean missiles sites at the same time as the US military, and not 10 minutes later. This is especially helpful for the defense of Japanese territory as it takes less than 10 minutes for North Korean missiles to reach Tokyo.
Back on planet Earth in the meantime, Tokyo and Washington have agreed to carry out their first joint interception test for a sea-based missile shield next March in Hawaii. If things go well, an interceptor missile will shoot down a mock target over paradise island. To create the legal basis in Japan for intercepting the real thing, Japan's House of Representatives recently passed a bill to revise Japan's Self-Defense Forces Law in order to authorize the armed forces to intercept incoming missiles with a missile defense system.
The bill, however, still needs to pass parliament's Upper House to become law, thereby authorizing the military to deploy Standard Missile 3 interceptors on vessels and ground-based Patriot Advanced Capability 2 interceptors. The military, of course, is eager and warns that North Korea has deployed up to 200 Rodong missiles capable of reaching Japanese territory in less than 10 minutes. China, too, the conservative newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun and other alarmist commentators warn continuously, has already deployed more than 100 intermediate-range missiles capable of reaching Japan and everywhere else in Asia.
"Threatened" by a US-Japan missile defense system, China for its part will probably feel once again "obliged" to increase the number of missiles it has targeted at Taiwan, even if Tokyo and Washington point out in parrot-style that the system is purely defensive.
All the action on Japan's defense and security front is music to the ears of the country's defense hawks. They have long believed Japan needs to arm itself as much as possible to be able to turn to credible saber-rattling tactics should North Korea (or anybody else) in the region decide to launch a few rogue missiles toward downtown Tokyo.
Japan's recent far-away-from-home missions in the Indian Ocean and Iraq, helping the US to fight an ill-fated war against terrorism, have freed Japan's armed forces from its long-standing "laughingstock image" for good, the military has said.
And sure enough, China isn't laughing either.
Dr Axel Berkofsky is senior policy analyst at the Brussels-based European Policy Center (EPC). The views expressed here are his own.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
