 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| ||
|
October 28, 2004
You are on the invidual archive page of A different kind of international trade. Click Simon World weblog for the main page.
|
|
A different kind of international trade
Could Colin Powell's controversial statement on Taiwan yesterday, which didn't go down so well, actually be part of a greater bargain with China? US efforts to get North Korea talking again and China more involved in the process require a quid pro quo, says this article. China is extracting its price from the US in order to get Kim Jong-Il to the table again. The article says the payoff may include concessions on Taiwan, the US backing off selling advanced weapons to Taiwan, a lifting of the US arms embargo and improved engagement with East Asia by the White House. Some of this is unlikely regadless if the Bush administration is re-elected, except perhaps the change in stance on Taiwan. However if Kerry is elected things could become a lot more interesting. Kerry has a more bilateral approach to North Korea rather than the current administration's multilateral one. The article thinks Kerry may be more open to a deal with China and North Korea on the basis of pragmatism and national interests than Bush, whose ideological preoccupation has been seen as a major obstacle for the past four years by friends and foes alike. That makes absolutely no sense at all. Kerry's North Korea policy emphasises bilateral talks concurrently with the 6 party talks. His op-ed piece from August 2003 in the WaPo makes no mention of China at all. So this talk of a bargain with China over North Korea doesn't stand up if Kerry's elected. Yes he's pragmatic, but he's not going to make bargains with an emerging world power over North Korea. At least I hope not. It's interesting that on this issue Kerry has the more hawkish position. Whether his approach could get results remains to be seen. He's got to get elected first. posted by Simon on 10.28.04 at 11:31 AM in the
Trackbacks:
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/51853 Send a manual trackback ping to this post.
Comments:
There's a firm in Kowloon that do trips to North Korea, if you're interested. posted by: Harry Hutton on 10.28.04 at 12:24 PM [permalink]A boys tour? Sounds good, Harry. Count me in...are they offering discounts? posted by: Simon on 10.28.04 at 12:30 PM [permalink]Not discounts. But after you´ve paid in Hong Kong it is completely free. You don´t have to pay for the flight, the hotel, the restaurants, the trips, nothing. posted by: Harry Hutton on 10.29.04 at 05:18 AM [permalink]First, thanks for the links and the occasional response. Second, your color scheme is hard to read, especially for someone with tinted glasses reading the newspapers in the pre-dawn morning. Third, I disagree with your assessment of the Bush and Kerry foreign policy stances. Bush is the pragmatist, who jusges alliances based on shifting, provisional criteria. Kerry wants to return to the bedrock of post-war alliances with Europe. What this means for E>Asia, where there is no clear precedent for an ally, except Japan, spells disaster for 4 more years. I prefer Bush\'s approach, even if I disagree with his specific choices. In the end, I am not voting on foreign policy, but domestic policy, but Kerry worries me, because I agree that the old alliances are dead. posted by: Infidel on 10.29.04 at 06:09 AM [permalink]Infidel: the colour scheme shouldn't be too hard to read as I deliberately have the text in plain black against a white background. If you could tell me exactly what makes it hard to read I'll see what I can do about fixing it. Re the candidate's stances and alliances. We clearly disagree because I don't see the "old" alliances as dead, otherwise NATO wouldn't exist. Alliances are always shifting, they are rarely static. The world is going through a re-jigging of these alliances and the results on Tuesday will have a large baring on that. Kerry's position is to continue with the 6 party talks and engage directly with the North as well, which I see as a practical way to move forward given the North has made it clear they don't see the 6 party talks giong anywhere anytime soon. Kerry's approach allows the East Asian parties involved to continue to engage on the issue while actually achieving results whereas Bush's position seems stuck as it stands. posted by: Simon on 10.29.04 at 11:24 AM [permalink]Harry, these are return tickets aren't they? posted by: Simon on 10.29.04 at 11:25 AM [permalink]It must be Unipeak (I still need to use Unipeak or an RSS aggregator) to read the site or some strange interaction with two separate SK PC systems, one at home and one at Dong-A University. Your background has always been royal blue against dark blue, with black text and light blue links. Perhaps I have to set Unipeak or something, but this situation has persisted ever since you introduced this new blogging scheme. I flirted with light text on a dark background years ago, but it hurt even my eyes. So, I just found a shade of off-white I could handle, and I have been happy since. I will check preferences on the XP program and on Unipeak, but its happening on two different computers. posted by: Infidel on 10.29.04 at 02:28 PM [permalink]Re Alliances: Alliances are always temporary. NATO is exactly the prime example of an organization so diluted in its function, diplomats probably need a history briefing just to remember what they are doing. The EU is a grand alliance losing its cohesion. Hell, even Washington had to resort to force to keep the Union together, and the only thing keeping the country together is the memory of all that bloodshed. Permanent alliances lead to coercion by minorities. There is both a normative and factual component to Bush\'s pragmatism. RE 6-Party talks: 6-party negotiations are breaking dow, because for more than one reason. First, Beijing is trying to flex its diplomatic with Pyongyang, Washington, and Seoul, to improve its image. Second, Seoul and Moscow are trying to unite the peninsula to ensure economic gains and energy maximization, something Beijing and Tokyo each are resisting. Thirdly, Washington and the rest of the other parties have a fundamental difference of opinion over approach. Washington takes a legalistic approach and is trying to salvage non-proliferation. The other parties take an historical approach and do not want to lose the chance to arm at their discretion, because they resent American double standards on non-proliferation. The way each of the 6 parties cannot reach agreement, paradoxically, proves the virtue of the 6-party approach. Direct negotiation removes Washington\'s unique approach from the table, and strengthen\'s Beijing most of all. I would even predict that without some sort of continuing 6-party diplomatic process, east asia will witness an international war within two generations. Finally, Kerry and the Dems are creating an issue just to distinquish themselves from the GOP. It will take a stronger mandate than any president will get now to reverse course now. Unless, of course, the Dems have a bedrock core of ideologues waiting to pin Kerry to a script, as the conservatives did with Bush. But the Dems have never been cohesive, and the without another 9-11 disaster, even the American population will never tolerate another flouting of the minority\'s will again. posted by: Infidel on 10.29.04 at 02:48 PM [permalink]John Kerry and the Dalai Lama "I mean, look at the Dalai Lama who I've spent some time with and who is absolutely intriguing. Extraordinary person." Did you put up with someone like this in grade school? Someone who just WOULD NOT QUIT spinning fantasies while looking you straight in the eye? I did a google search on "John Kerry" and "Dalai Lama". This one doesn't count (http://www.cooperforpresident.com/id270.html): Sarah: God, you are a genius! It makes me happy to be a Democrap. So apart from winning the 'tard vote, and getting soccer moms all hot and moist, what other advantages does putting John Edwards on the ticket create? 11: cyclingplatypus.modblog.com: ModBlog - What is a CyclingPlatypus? |
|