Why It Matters : Asia

North Korea's Nuclear Agenda

Newsweek — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:52:22 GMT

ByStephen Noerper, EastWest Institute

North Korea’s decision to kick out United Nations’ weapons inspectors dramatically ups the ante in its challenge to President Barack Obama and the international community. In response to the U.N. Security Council condemnation of North Korea’s missile launch on April 5, Pyongyang is moving fast to implement a clear-cut agenda. Among its key points:

Test the resolve of a young Democratic president with his first real crisis and push the United States to accept bilateral negotiations as a means of seeking a solution to this issue. North Korea sees the popular U.S. leader—fresh off the G-20 and NATO summits—as someone who may be willing to be far more accommodating than his predecessor, especially now that his administration has already signaled new openings to Iran and Cuba. It desperately wants diplomatic normalization with the United States and the trade and aid that would accompany such a breakthrough. It wants Washington to pick up where the last Democratic President, Bill Clinton, left off: having sent then-Secretary Albright to Pyongyang, there were whispers of a possible U.S. presidential visit. Pyongyang then had leveraged the capture of a U.S. helicopter pilot to secure Washington’s attention, and it now holds two young American journalists who crossed into North Korean territory as bargaining chips.

Test the resolve of the international community, especially of the other six-party talk members. North Korea’s first response to the U.N. announcement was to announce its withdrawal from the multilateral dialogue. In doing so, Pyongyang hopes to drive a wedge between its more powerful dialogue partners. Moscow and Beijing—which pushed the U.N. Security Council away from sanctions or a stronger resolution—now bear the burden of bringing North Korea back to the negotiating table. This will take some doing, with likely guarantees of heightened assistance from the two. Pyongyang also hopes to exploit the low popularity ratings of South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso, further weakening their standing by demonstrating its disdain for their denunciations of the rocket launch.

Quell any whispers among its population or outside observers about the possible shakiness of Kim Jong Il’s regime. Shortly before the latest display of defiance, Kim Jong Il was shown on television receiving parliamentary approval for his renewed tenure as head of the National Defense Commission, the “highest guiding organ” of the military, according to North Korea’s 1998 constitution. This was meant to prove that he is still very much in command, despite persistent rumors about his deteriorating health. But Kim looked visibly weakened by his August stroke, and there are growingexpectations of the announcement of his successor soon. The most likely prospect: his third son Kim Jong Un, extending the family dynasty to the next generation, under the regency of Kim Jong Il’s brother-in-law.

Look impressive to international arms buyers. Despite the general failure of the early April launch—the final two stages of the missile falling into the Pacific—North Korea still managed to surprise many outsiders by sending its rocket 2,000 miles. It may want to test again soon to make further refinements. Given its general poverty and scarcity of natural resources, with the exception of bauxite and a few other low-priced commodities, North Korea may be upping reliance on weapons exports to bring in much-needed cash. A growing challenge, however, lies in South Korea’s decision to join the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a U.S.-led 90-nation effort to interdict banned weaponry. This could trigger new confrontations. <>In the coming days and months, it’s more than likely that North Korea will continue to push Washington and the international community to the brink of crisis—just as it did in 1993, when it withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). When it comes to international crises, the challenge posed by Somali pirates is likely to appear relatively simple compared to what the North Koreans are up to. The most difficult challenge facing the Obama administration will be to coordinate its response with Beijing, Moscow, Tokyo and Seoul, its partners in this enterprise who tend to pull in opposite directions.

Noerper is a Senior Fellow, Asia, at the EastWest Institute.

Thailand's King May Play Politics (No Offense)

Newsweek — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:37:34 GMT

Bangkok -- If you happened to have been in Thailand this week and wanted to read the December 6-10 issue of The Economist, you could have searched the country without finding a copy. That’s because it contained an article and editorial that were critical of King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Rather than risk insulting the king and offending his subjects, Asia Books, which imports the British weekly, chose not to distribute that particular edition.

The pre-emptive move was a sign of respect for the king but also an act of self-preservation. Few people or organizations in Thailand will risk doing anything that might be construed as an insult to the monarch. Thailand’s lese- majeste law may be the most draconian in the world, and it is strongly enforced: Offenders face up to 15 years in jail. Foreigners have been jailed for months and then expelled from the country. The riposte from friendly Thais to a farang contemplating a violation of the law is, “I hope you don’t plan to ever return to Thailand.”

The Economist, writing about Thailand’s current political imbroglio, alleges that the king, who turned 81 earlier this month, plays a role in politics. Officially, the sovereign, as head of state in a constitutional monarchy, is above politics. That alleged involvement, the magazine argues, is not helpful--especially in this time of political instability. Ever since the military ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a bloodless coup in September 2006, the country has staggered from one government to the next. Just this week Parliament selected the fourth prime minister since the coup. Few people are willing to bet that the new premier, Abhisit Vejjajiva, of the Democrat Party, will last much longer that his immediate predecessor, Somchai Wongsarat, who hung on for 77 days.

Members of the royal family are said to be dismayed about the magazine’s stories, which get into controversial areas last visited in “The King Never Smiles,” a 2006 unauthorized biography by freelance writer Paul M. Handley. The book, banned in Thailand before it was even published, makes similar allegations about the monarchy. “The concern is the myth of a conspiracy between the king and the military,” says an individual with links to the Palace who spoke only on condition of anonymity and because he believes the articles are unfair. People in the king's inner circle “are genuinely distressed, because this fosters the ideas of conspiracy theorists.”

The Economist, the source pointed out, was not banned by the government. There was no need to do so because distributor acted voluntarily to withhold the offending edition. In the age of the Internet, banning publications anywhere is a tricky–and often futile–proposition, apart from in countries like China, Burma and North Korea, which tightly control acces to the Web. “Banning a magazine doesn’t make much sense any more, because it gets through – and they know that,” the source said, referring to the Palace. The Economist argues that the lese-majeste law should be revisited. For now, no such plans are on the drawing board.

Bangkok's Bizarre Power Struggle

Newsweek — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:00:58 GMT

By Jamie Seaton and George Wehrfritz

Many Thais believe that a 100-year-old bronze likeness of King Rama V located in downtown Bangkok emits powerful magic. That is why, fully a century after it was cast in Paris, the likeness has become the object of struggle between top government leaders and a band of rightists seeking to oust them. A few weeks ago, anti-government agitator Sondhi Limthongkul, whose People’s Alliance for Democracy has occupied key official buildings for four months in an effort to topple a government he considers illegitimate, accused his opponents of employing wizardry to channel the statue’s protective forces their way. And to reverse that alleged sorcery, he deployed his own mystics to encircle the statue with used sanitary napkins (collected from the PAD’s rank-and-file) to form a shield of menstrual blood.

It’s no secret that Thailand’s democracy is embattled. But what’s less well known is the extent to which its rival camps have fallen back on astrology and mysticism as they seek to best their political foes. After deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra returned from exile temporarily this year, for example, he toured 99 Buddhist temples in what was interpreted as an effort to garner merit for an anticipated political comeback. A month later, unidentified vandals smashed numerous statues at Phanom Rung, one of the shrines he visited, purportedly to nullify Thaksin’s powers. Sondhi frequently denounces one of Thaksin’s allies as a “Khmer wizard” and was caught on video recently clad in priestly white robes as he sprinkled holy water at a government complex occupied by PAD demonstrators and called on Thais to resist “evil magic.” Bangkok-based political scientist Chris Baker says supernaturalism ebbs and flows in Thailand, but “at times of crisis these things bubble to the surface.”

They did so dramatically this week when the PAD, mounting what it called its “final offensive” to oust a democratically elected government led by Thaksin’s brother-in-law from power, seized Bangkok’s international airport in an effort to thwart Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat’s return from the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Peru. Thousands of club-wielding thugs stormed the terminal and blocked traffic on the main airport expressway, stranding thousands of tourists, businessmen and triggering flight cancellations across Asia. “We sympathize with the passengers but this is a necessary move to save the nation,” PAD leader Sondhi said.

The PAD hopes its violent street actions will muster enough power to oust political opponents it can’t beat at the ballot box. Comprised mainly of conservative militarists, Bangkok’s old elite and royalists who see Thailand’s democracy as a threat to its monarchy, the anti-government coalition lost the last election but now seeks to reverse that result by claiming that the victorious People Power Party stole the contest – a claim for which there is scant supporting evidence. What really irks them is that the PPP is unabashedly pro-Thaksin and draws on his immense popularity in rural Thailand to dominate national polls. Their fear is that the party – should it ever fully consolidate power – would quickly return Thaksin to office despite his recent conviction on corruption charges stemming from his 2000-2006 rule.

The PAD’s methods are extreme. They’ve turned occupied government buildings into tent camps guarded by golf club-wielding thugs. They’ve closed several airports – Bangkok International is merely the latest – and urged state-owned airlines, power and transport companies to stage general strikes. Sondhi, a media tycoon-turned political raconteur, claims his movement is solely aimed at defending Thailand’s monarchy against a secret anti-royalist plot by Thaksin and his allies (who deny the claims and profess loyalty to the throne). The PAD advocates a limited form of democracy that, in essence, would disenfranchise rural voters who Sondhi has claimed “lack intelligence and wisdom.” His supporters believe their campaign has a supernatural subtext. Sondhi “uses [mystical] ceremonies to protect people,” says one female PAD supporter who is college-educated and works in an architectural firm in Bangkok. “I believe the spirits can help us sixty percent of the way, but that we must do the rest ourselves.”

Foreign observers agree that Thailand’s political landscape is unstable. As one Western diplomat in Bangkok puts it: “The PAD obviously has effective control of the airport and this is an issue of concern. But is this a general breakdown of law and order? Not yet.” On Wednesday Thailand’s army commander said Prime Minister Somchai should step down and call new elections. The prime minister – who returned from the APEC confab via a military airport late on Wednesday – quickly refused. Robert Broadfoot, managing director of the political risk consultancy PERC, warns that today’s crisis has the potential to “upset the [political] balance in the country,” and that the damage to Thailand’s democracy could take “years to repair.”

Few dispute the claim that Thailand is moving in reverse. Its economy, which grew robustly during Thaksin’s rule, thanks to rural reforms including village-level business loans and free medical care, is back in the dumps. Its multi-billion-dollar tourism industry has been dealt a staggering blow just as it enters the all-important winter holiday season. And the return of supernaturalism in politics, one could argue, marks a sardonic retreat from modernity. Thais revere King Rama V as a great modernizer who abolished slavery, forged diplomatic ties with Western powers and prevented the kingdom’s colonization during his 42 years on the throne. Yet with little apparent irony, today’s leaders seek to channel the powers of a legendary monarch who embraced new ideas using sorcery, holy water and menstrual blood.

Japan: A Powerful Message

Newsweek — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:25:11 GMT

By Akiko Kashiwagi

Tokyo- Analysts and commentators alike took the election results as a testament to America’s strong desire for a change and responded positively. The image of thousands of Americans listening to his victory speech, some with tears in their eyes, seems to be sending a strong impression that the United States is going through a historic moment. “I see an enormous urge among Americans to want to see change and to see that [as I watch the campaign] in turn makes us foreigners feel excited about what changes are to come,” says Kenichi Sakata, a 31-year old think-tank researcher. “This is a scene we haven’t seen here,” says an anchor woman in the evening news.

On Wednesdy, all the television channels have been doing news shows from morning till evening. That’s not probably surprising as the Japanese have demonstrated an unusually high interest in this U.S. election. Over the last few days, scores of Japanese media organizations including all the major network stations have sent dozens of reporters to U.S. cities including Chicago , Phoenix and even to Kenya to beam back live programs. The energy and time spent on the coverage is no less generous compared with domestic Japanese elections.

Behind Japan’s enthusiasm with this U.S. election is their sense of frustration and stagnation with their own politics, say experts. Japan has been ruled by the same party for nearly half a century and dominated by second or third generation politicians. For that reason, Obama’s fresh messages seem to have a strong appeal. Yusuke Inoue, a 30-year old businessman who works for an ad agency, is one of those many Japanese who are watching the presidential race closely. “Personally, I am glad to see him win. I’d never been so intrigued and inspired by a politician’s speech until I heard him. He gives out a message so powerful that I’ve been tempted to even read speech scripts since the primary and watch him on YouTube. His speeches make me feel that there is something I can do, too.”

Expectations are high for the new president. “Traditionally politicians tend to become more conservative in a crisis. But my expectations this time are that he would not go that way, but would pursue international cooperation and policies that are based on global interests. I hope to hear him elaborate on these issues as soon as possible,” says Mitsushige Tsuruno, who runs a business consultancy in Tokyo. Says Inoue: “I hope he will try to exert strong leadership not just domestically but globally.”

The news comes as Japan expects to see its own election in the near future, though the timing is still up in the air. Inoue feels Japan does not have strong political leaders who can deliver effective speeches and excite the public. Even so, Obama’s arrival at the White House has added to his expectation for Japanese politics to change somehow, he says. He was particularly impressed by the role Obama’s massive campaign volunteers and small donors played in the election, both of which hardly exist in Japan.

Sakata, a researcher at a think tank affiliated with Japan’s opposition party, says Obama’s campaign style has prompted a debate among his colleagues. “The crucial problem in Japan is that people tend to feel that [Japanese] politicians exist in a far away planet.” To see Mr. Obama reach out to American people underscored his impression that there is a gap between Japanese people and politicians that should be filled somehow, he says. Sakata has all the more reason to take the latest news seriously as Japan’s opposition party is seen having a chance of overtaking the majority of both houses, a watershed event. “[Obama’s victory] gives us a huge opportunity.

Meanwhile, one small city in northern Japan is having a field day, celebrating the election of Barack Obama as if it were in the United States. That’s because the city happens to share the same name as the new president: Obama City. The town started a voluntary campaign in February to root for the Senator as part of its effort to revitalize its aging port. On Wednesay, locals were serving up “Obama burgers” and performing with hula-hoops in city hall.

South Korea: Worried about Free Trade

Newsweek — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:32:47 GMT

By B. J. Lee

Seoul- South Koreans have mixed feelings about Obama’s election. On the one hand, they expect Obama to reduce tensions on the Korean peninsula by engaging in dialogue with North Korea, as he promised many times during his campaign. Unlike President Bush who refused to talk to Pyongyang during the first six years of his term, Obama is likely to try and resolve the North’s nuclear weapons program. On the other hand, they worry that Obama’s protectionist stance could hurt the Korean economy, which depends heavily on trade. The Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement has to be ratified by the U.S. Congress as well as the Korean National Assembly, and experts in Seoul fear the new Democratic administration in Washington may not be enthusiastic it. Obama has said the FTA is unfair in that Korea exports hundreds of thousands of cars to the United States and buys only a few thousand American cars every year.

On security, Obama is expected to continue the six-party talks for the North’s nuclear problem, which involve the U.S., Japan, Russia, China and both Koreas. The six-party talks have recently shown some progress, with the North agreeing to disable its nuclear facilities in exchange for Washington’s removal of Pyongyang from the list of terrorism-sponsoring states. “Obama said he will even talk to enemies,” says Yang Sung Chul, a former Korean ambassador to Washington. “Such a conciliatory attitude will help promote trust between Washington and Pyongyang, reducing tensions not only on the Korean peninsula, but also the Far East.” But for the current Korean administration of President Lee Myung Bak, that can be a problem. Lee is not very keen on engaging with the North until its nuclear threat is removed completely. “Lee’s tough and Obama’s soft stance toward Pyongyang can collide at times,” warns Lee Jung Hoon, a professor at Seoul’s Yonsei University.

The changes Obama promised are also met with mixed feelings in Korea. Liberals are hopeful that Obama’s bold reforms will fix economic and other problems of the United States as well as the whole world. “Obama’s election is a historic democratic revolution,” Yang notes. “He is the message of hope for the underprivileged people in the world.” But his promises for sweeping changes also make conservatives nervous. They worry drastic measures to change Washington’s foreign policy can further aggravate troubles in Iraq and elsewhere. “To tackle the recession and other problems in the U.S., Obama needs bold measures,” says Professor Lee. “But for foreign policy, we don’t need too many surprises that can undermine the existing order.”

See the full round-up of the world's reaction to the election of Barack Obama.

What the World Thinks of Barack Hussein Obama

Newsweek — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:24:09 GMT

By Barrett Sheridan and Fred Guterl

The most common reaction across the world to Barack Obama’s Tuesday night victory was a simple one: “Thank you.” It was a sentiment directed not at the president-elect himself, but at the American people. Having felt abandoned by the United States for so long, and especially after the 2004 reelection of George W. Bush, people across the world saw Obama’s victory as an affirmation that yes, America still does represent something special. Nelson Mandela, in a congratulatory letter to Obama, perhaps summed it up best: “Your victory has demonstrated that no person anywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place.” It was also a good excuse to celebrate. Kenya, the home of Obama’s father, declared a national holiday, and Brazilians proclaimed a new era of "esperanza". The few disappointed by the final tally—a dour-looking Tory in London, some security-conscious Israelis—did little to dampen the global celebration.

Parisians reacted with enthusiasm and relief to the news, some of them turning on a dime to become Amero-philes. The French newspapers, after 8 years of George W. Bush, might perhaps be forgiven for getting a little tipsy on Obama. Obama fervor reached South Asia, too, although the candidate's promise to follow terrorists into Pakistan with or without Islamabad's approval cooled the excitement of some there. In Iraq, everyday citizens have their doubts about what Obama means for peace in the country, but politicians agree that he is "presidential material." South Koreans struck a balance between pessimism and optimism; they worry over the future of a pending free trade deal with the U.S., but are encouraged by Obama's attitude towards negotiations with the pariah state to their north. In Japan, Obama's victory served to remind some voters of stagnation in their own domestic politics.

Our team of foreign correspondents has cavassed the globe for the morning-after reaction to this historic election. The event was cause for celebration and contemplation in London, Paris, Jerusalem, Seoul, Durban, Lahore, Baghdad, Tokyo, Russia and Rio.

Some Thawing of Relations in Kashmir

Newsweek — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:07:33 GMT

By Sudip Mazumdar

What guns and bullets, terrorists and troops could not establish in the disputed region of Kashmir, boxes of apples, bottles of honey and sacks of spices achieved this week when trade links between India and Pakistan were revived after nearly six decades of hostility. Two convoys of trucks carrying the goods from two sides of Kashmir crossed a "Peace Bridge" in an historic journey reviving hopes of peace to the strife-torn region. As school children cheered and waved flags, officials and security personnel from both sides, hugged each other and exchanged gifts amidst much bonhomie. "Today marks the beginning of the dismantling of the border," said Mubeen Shah, president of the Kashmir Chamber of Commerce and Industries. "I am sure this trade will grow and help bring peace in the region."

The move to revive the old historic trade routes and links that stretched all the way to Central Asia was proposed by Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh nearly two years ago, but could not get off the ground as both sides remained constrained by mutual suspicion, their respective domestic politics and unrest. Things began to thaw when Singh met Pakistan's new president, Asif Ali Zardari, in New York in September and they agreed to push for the opening of the trade routes. Officials and diplomats from both sides quietly worked on the modalities and a new era of confidence-building measures started with the trucks crossing the bridge. "Today is an historic day marking yet another chapter of friendship in Indo-Pak bilateral relations," said H.H. Tyabji, a senior Indian official.

Ever since the British divided the Indian subcontinent in 1947 into India and Pakistan, the two nations have had disputing claims on the state of Kashmir. Following a war a year later, a tense Line of Control (LOC) sliced Kashmir into two and triggered an unrest that later turned into an Islamic separatist insurgency. India has deployed nearly 300,000 troops to keep peace while Islamic separatists launch terror attacks from across their sanctuary in the Pakistan-held Kashmir. Both sides deployed troops on the LOC and they often skirmished as terror attacks and civil unrest kept the valley of Kashmir on the boil. Barely four months ago, a popular uprising against the Indian rule nearly derailed a faltering peace process between the two nuclear-armed rivals. But with the revival of trade routes and the enthusiasm it has generated among the people on both sides, Kashmir appears to be at a turning point to see an end to its strife, and maybe an end to the terrorism that has turned South Asia into one of the most violent places on earth.

Is China's Economy Starting to Stagger?

George Wehrfritz — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:09:21 GMT

On May 26, the Singapore-based financial company OCBC Investment Research initiated coverage of FerroChina, a small Chinese steelmaker listed on the city’s main stock exchange. OCBC’s inaugural report hailed the Jiangsu-based smelter for “sterling” 2007 performance, characterized it as smartly positioned to answer an “urgent need” for infrastructure steel in its home market following a devastating earthquake in Sichuan earlier this year, and cited FerroChina’s overseas expansion into Vietnam to justify a “buy” rating on the company. On Friday, Oct. 10, OCBC suspended coverage of the steelmaker after it revealed that it couldn’t repay $104 million in bank loans that had come due. “FerroChina is technically insolvent,” OCBC analysts Kelly Chia wrote in what will likely be her final report on the company.

In a week when panic gripped global stock markets, the FerroChina implosions made barely a ripple. But it might, in time, prove to be a symbolically important inflection point for Chinese industry. The core issue: are the factors that led to its apparent demise exceptional among the tens of thousands of companies that drive the world’s fastest-growing major economy today, or commonplace?If FerroChina is no aberration, watch out.

For starters, the steelmaker – like most companies in China – had stellar performance numbers until very recently. According to Bloomberg, it reported in August that net profits for the April-June quarter tripled from the second quarter of 2007 to $35 million; the first indirect hint of liquidity problems came when it announced last month that it was looking for a strategic investor. Yet in a statement issued on Thursday, it cited “the current economic crisis” for its inability to honor “working capital loans” now due and said that it had begun negotiations with lenders and would seek “new equity and loan funding.” The company reportedly shut down its main production facility, which makes corrugated metal sheets, last week, triggering demonstrations among its workforce.

Due to the lack of transparency that typifies China Inc., it is hard to determine if FerroChina’s problems arose due to reckless expansion, a sudden evaporation of new business or cash-strapped clients that can’t pay their bills. The safe guess is that each factor contributed to the fall (though an outside observer would be forgiven for thinking that the company looked great right up until it the moment it revealed that a crisis was at hand).

Experts have long-realized that China’s steel industry is particularly risk-fraught. Overcapacity is a chronic problem, yet investment in additional mills is forecast to rise more than 20 percent in 2008. Most analysts believe a painful consolidation is looming, and demand – linked as it is to the production of everything from white goods to cars and skyscrapers – is highly dependent on China’s ability to clock double-digit growth rates. Of course, that’s getting harder for the world’s largest exporter as the global economy lurches toward recession. In a report on Asia’s steel sector issued three weeks ago, the Hong Kong-based brokerage CLSA wrote that a “death spiral” for the industry in late 2008 “has to be the base case for China.” Indeed, it may have begun.

But is steel the exception, or the rule? Construction, autos, and other sectors have also experienced explosive growth in China since 2000 but now are visibly sluggish. And like steel, they too are thick with small-time players like FerroChina that may also be undercapitalized and operating on thin margins. With growth slowing and stock prices in China down almost 70 percent from their peak a year ago, the risk is that a large number of small and medium-sided companies in key industries could now be falling into stealth distress. For China’s rising middle class, that would spell greater job insecurity and a further stock portfolio battering. Systemically, the biggest danger is that non-performing loan rates will soar, hobbling China’s financial system.

According to Kelly Chia’s final FerroChina report, Chinese lenders hold most of the steel-maker’s problem loans, making it Exhibit A for how firms struck down by the global economic slump will pass on the pain to the major source of investment capital in China: state banks. And because so much of China’s manufacturing capacity now targets export markets, faltering demand in the U.S. and Europe “cannot help but slow China’s export economy,” wrote Peking University finance professor Michael Pettis on his blog last week, adding that an export slowdown “is one of the most likely channels by which global financial difficulties will become Chinese financial difficulties.”

It’s important to watch Beijing’s policy response should failures like FerroChina’s multiply. Speculation is rife that an economic stimulus package is in the works, yet the details aren’t yet known. If it aims primarily to boost domestic consumption, thereby weakening the national economy’s dependence on export markets for growth, great. But if Beijing props up the export sector by, say, halting renminbi appreciation, reducing taxes on exports or otherwise intervening against market forces, the outcome will be sustained over-production. And that will only make today’s problems worse.

Formula One in Singapore: A Night at the Races

Manuela Zoninsein — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:25:41 GMT

Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone is beaming. The completion of last night's Singapore F-1 broke a bevy of barriers. In a startling upset, former double world champion Fernando Alonso rose from 15th on the starting grid to claim Renault's first win of the season. Singapore’s inaugural race signaled to the world that the city-state– generally considered socially conservative– is a capable host for the hard-partying speed-fest. And Ecclestone showed up the critics who doubted his sanity when he began requesting that some F-1 races take place at night.

Night races are key to Ecclestone's plan to expand F-1 to emerging markets in the Middle East and Asia because they would make live broadcasts available at convenient times for big European and American audiences. High costs have been an obstacle. Singapore, for instance, ponied up about five million Euros to rig up 1,600 lantern-like projectors, which shine at about 3,000 lux (a unit for the intensity of light), or 300 times as strong as regular streetlamps. These were strung along a temporary aluminum truss, held up by 100,000 meters of cabling and 240 steel pylons, that lined the 5-kilometer Marina Bay street circuit.

The success of the Singapore race, however, now gives Ecclestone's push for night races some traction. After noticing the attention that Singapore's scheduling has attracted, Abu Dhabi is discussing a night race for its first F-1 event next year. Both South Korea and India are building their courses from scratch, which means night-lights could be integrated into blueprints. The Australian city of Melbourne, against which Ecclestone had threatened not to seek a contract renewal unless it raced at night, has also opted for a twilight start-time. Although Malaysia’s Sepang International Circuit chairman Mokhzani Mahathir announced Sunday, the last day of Singapore's F-1, that the Sepang race would not be held at night as promised, he agreed to push the start time back from 3pm to 5pm to coincide with the European morning.

Ecclestone can now turn his sights on other locations. He’s now pressuring Japan to reconsider its timetable for 2009. China's Shanghai route has never entertained a night race. Come 2010, South Korea promises to be ready. India, which originally aimed to open in 2010 as well, has postponed until 2011. By that time, nine out of 21 races will be Asian. Now that the technology has been shown to be a success, it won't be as much of a gamble for the next customer.

North Korea Won't Be Giving Up Its Nukes

Christian Caryl — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:09:42 GMT

The other day I attended a thought-provoking presentation by Art Brown. Until 2005 Brown worked for the CIA; he spent twenty-five years in the agency as an East Asia expert until resigning out of dissatisfaction with the Bush Administration's handling of intelligence about Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction. When the journalists here in Tokyo asked him what he thought about the news that North Korea was moving to reactivate its plutonium-processing facility in Yongbyon--the same facility that it shut down with such great fanfare a few months ago--his answer was simple. "North Korea has no intention of giving up its nuclear weapons."

As for the Six-Party Talks, the international negotiations aimed at ridding the North of its nukes, he described that process as "a sham, a pretense. "That's a pretty provocative statement. After all, even the Bush Administration, long opposed to talking with the North, has spent most of this year working hard to reach an agreement. Why would it waste its effort on a pointless exercise? Other experts on the Hermit Kingdom who share Brown's skepticism. They argue that creating a nuclear arsenal is pretty much the only real achievement that Kim Jong Il's government can point to in the fourteen years since the Dear Leader came to power in Pyongyang. His people have starved and his economy has shriveled while he has poured huge amounts of money and resources into his nuke program, and which is now pretty much the one thing he has left that forces the international community to take him seriously. (Along with his missiles and his weapons of mass destruction and the thousand or so artillery tubes aimed at Seoul.) If he gives away his nukes, North Korea goes back to being just plain Upper Volta again. Even worse, in fact, since Upper Volta doesn't have the disadvantage of being surrounded by some of the world's most dynamic economies. For that reason the possession of nuclear weapons is not just a means of scaring Kim's enemies; having those nukes is actually key to the very survival of his regime.

Didn't the North Koreans demonstrate their seriousness earlier this year when they dismantled the Yongbyon processing plant? They pulled fuel out of the reactor, invited in a team of international inspectors (including Americans), handed over 18,000 pages of impressive-looking documents about their plutonium program, and even blew up a cooling tower on live TV. Surely that must have proved their bona fides. Brown has a good answer to that one. Yongbyon, he points out, is the one part of the North Korean nuclear program that we know a lot about. It's above ground, entirely visible to any curious satellites poised overhead. (We know that the North Koreans, who suffered from intense American bombing back during the Korean War in the early 1950s, often bury many of their important military installations deep underground. So why leave this one in plain sight?) Plutonium reactors also give off by-products that can be monitored by sensors like the ones on U.S. spy planes that routinely sample the air above North Korea. All that makes Yongbyon, as a "known known" (to borrow Donald Rumsfeld's bon mot), an ideal bargaining chip, something that's easy to give up in return for goodies--fuel oil, perhaps, or food, or perhaps even diplomatic recognition--from relieved potential victims.

Meanwhile, according to the skeptics, the North retains another source of fissile material for its weapons: highly enriched uranium produced in a separate, parallel program whose existence has yet to be officially acknowledged by the North (unless you count the now-notorious negotiating session a few years back when a North Korean official boasted about such a program to his U.S. counterparts). As Brown points out, countries that have tried to develop clandestine nuclear weapons programs in the past, including South Africa and Libya, concentrated their efforts on enriching uranium, since the process is easy to conceal by packing centrifuge cascades into underground facilities. U.S. intelligence officials have advanced the claim that the North Koreans received uranium processing technology from the black-market nuclear technology network of the Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. If the suppositions are true, the North can easily go on cranking out the bombs even once it's surrendered its plutonium reactor. At the Six-Party Talks this year the U.S. side has spent plenty of time cajoling the North to reveal details of its uranium program (though perhaps Washington's negotiators haven't always been quite as insistent on that point as some would like).

As for the theory that Kim Jong Il's recent illness might have triggered the North's new intransigence on the nuclear issue, no one knows for sure. But it is worth noting that the brinkmanship we're seeing from the North right now bears a conspicuous resemblance to earlier North Korean maneuvers when Kim was clearly at the helm....

So why, then, continue with the Six-Party Talks? Well, perhaps because it's convenient for everyone involved to keep up appearances. Talks are better than no talks. As long as they go on the governments can claim that they're at least trying to address the problem, rather than the unpalatable option of acknowledging that North Korea is actually a nuclear power, with all the attendant consequences. That may sound cynical to some. But then, of course, nuclear weapons have always had a way of inspiring unappetizing compromises.

Thailand: What Emergency?

Newsweek — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:48:11 GMT

By Jaimie Seaton

Yesterday, when Thailand’s Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej declared emergency rule, I took a break from reporting, ran to the store and grabbed batteries and candles. After all, anti-government demonstrators calling themselves the People’s Alliance for Democracy were threatening chaos. They said they’d cut water and power, halt rail and air traffic and organize sympathetic trade unions to stage a crippling general strike. I awoke the next morning expecting gridlock, blackouts and chaos on Bangkok’s streets. But the threats turned out to be empty. The biggest news: one Thai Airways flight was canceled because the crew said it wasn’t 'feeling ready' to fly. Otherwise, it was a perfectly normal day. As the Bangkok Post put it, “the strike fizzled.”

Wednesday was, in fact, Bangkok’s calmest day since the PAD stormed downtown government offices (buildings they still occupy) last week. A torrential downpour slowed the morning commute somewhat, but the city’s opulent shopping malls were full of the usual fashionistas, hawkers lined Sukhumvit Road to peddle food, flowers and pirated DVDs and the Sky Train zoomed along overhead. I even encountered a lunch line outside one well-known eatery. The only inconvenience heaped upon me was that the Financial Times was delivered late to my local magazine shop. Emergency indeed.

The very ordinariness of life under emergency rule speaks volumes about Thailand’s current political crisis. For starters, it could lift much sooner that many people expect – and end peacefully –once the PAD is exposed as a spent force. Yes, the group led demonstrations that contributed to former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s ouster in a military coup in Sept. 2006. But its ranks have thinned radically since then, and despite the grandiose threats (and some very real street violence over the weekend) the PAD simply doesn’t appear to have the necessary juice to topple the government. Their leader, Sondhi Limthongkul, insists that his is a sprawling grass-roots organization. If that's the case, the roots seem to have withered.

That might not be the story you’ve heard. Many dispatches paint a scarier picture. I've received calls from friends in the United States worried that my family and I are trapped in a war zone. They fret because CNN is running “Thailand under state of emergency” on its ticker under coverage of the Republican National Convention in Minnesota. During a Tuesday broadcast from Hong Kong, one of the network’s anchors interviewed Sondhi by telephone and gave him free rein to spin his tales of a government run amok that attacks peaceful protesters who dare yearn for true democracy. Such coverage casts Sondhi as a latter-day Corazón Aquino, which is incredulous for the simple reason that his PAD is campaigning to roll back – not establish – democracy in Thailand.

Worse, too many reports are suggesting, with weak factual foundation, that Sondhi calls the shots in Thai politics today. The same Bangkok Post that declared the PAD’s national strike a bust, for example, nonetheless printed Sondhi’s terms for ending the office occupations on its front page. He’ll support retreat, he told the paper, only if Prime Minister Samak steps down and he is called upon to select Thailand’s next leader. That’s unlikely. And it’s unclear what exactly makes Sondhi believe the government could ever accept such an offer. Can’t he see that Bangkok is largely unaffected by his demonstrations? If not, I have a few candles and batteries to sell him.

Japan's Wimp Factor

Christian Caryl — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:10:50 GMT

It's the sort of thing that almost makes you long for the days of the samurai. Those guys had swords, and strong beliefs, and, well, cojones. Certainly not like modern-day Japanese prime ministers. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe quit last year after less than a year on the job. And now his successor, Yasuo Fukuda, announced his resignation last night here in Tokyo, also after a little less than a year.

It wasn't just that Fukuda left so quickly. Japan has gone through periods before when there was plenty of turnover among senior politicians, such as the 1990s, when no one had any bright ideas for pulling Japan out of its seemingly endless recession. Fukuda's departure was different. It was ignominious. Pitiful. Wimpy.

The reason I say that is because of the way he complained. (I am tempted to say "whined," but Fukuda's public manner has always been strikingly unemotional, if not downright robotic.) "The Democratic Party has tried to stall every bill so it has taken a long time to implement any policies," he said. "For the sake of the Japanese people, this should not be repeated." He had no choice to resign, he said, and if he didn't, the result would a "political vacuum."

Wait a minute--did Fukuda actually say, referring to himself, that there would be a political vacuum if he stayed in office? And what is this horrible opposition party that's so inconsiderate as to pursue its own agenda? Well, it's the Democratic Party of Japan, which won a landslide victory in elections to the Upper House of parliament a few years back. In other words, people voted for it. And the DPJ's hold on the upper house allows them to block legislation proposed by Fukuda's ruling Liberal Democratic Party, which controls the somewhat more important lower house.

In France, back when there was a socialist president and a conservative prime minister, this sort of thing was called "cohabitation." It wasn't always pretty to watch, but they worked it out. In the United States, where the electorate preferred for a time to have long presidents from one party and congresses from another, it was simply called "governing." Fukuda-san, no offense, but that's just how it works. It's called "democracy." Get over it, dude.

The deeper point here is that present-day Japan, for a variety of reasons, has a more open political system than it did for a good part of the postwar period. Fukuda, at age 72, is a product of the old days when his LDP basically ran everything on its own. Things got done through what was politely called "inner-party consensus"--meaning that the various groups within the LDP solved problems by doing backroom deals out of sight of the pesky public. For half a century the LDP ran Japan without having to worry about pesky "oppositions" and similar nuisances. Throughout Fukuda's brief reign as prime minister his distaste for the antagonist give-and-take of political dealing has shone through at pretty much every step of the way. At one point he and the opposition leader were caught flirting about some sort of "grand coalition"--even though Fukuda himself had never faced the public in a general election. (He was appointed to the job of PM by his party after Abe resigned.) Why worry about the public when there's important business to be done?

Abe, originally reputed to be a hardbitten Japanese neo-con, shocked everyone by suddenly announcing, with a tear in his eye, that he just felt like he ought to resign because nobody seemed to like him any more (though his aides suggested that health reasons played a part as well). These poor Japanese politicians just can't get a break.

For the record, a lot of the toughest Japanese politicians these days seem to be women--no wonder, considering the barriers a career woman faces in this country. Maybe the next Margaret Thatcher will crop up in Tokyo. Wouldn't surprise me, the way things are going with the males around here.

Piracy on the Rise in Sub -Saharan Africa

Newsweek — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:00:31 GMT

By Zachary Kussin

As Jason McClure writes in this week's magazine, piracy off the coast of Somalia has become a major maritime headache. Just last week, on Aug 20, another three vessels -- a Malaysian palm oil transport, a Japanese tanker, and a German cargo ship -- were hijacked. The machine gun-carrying pirates threatened uncooperative crewmembers with death, locked them up and steered the vessels to pirate bases on the northern Somali coast. Shortly thereafter, they began ransom negotiations with the ships' owners. The Gulf of Aden, which lies off Somalia and leads to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, is now considered to be the world's riskiest area for international shipping, according to the International Maritime Bureau, a non-profit organization dedicated to fighting marine crime. So far in 2008, 15 vessels have been hijacked off Somalia alone.

Lawlessness and heavy traffic -- 7.5 percent of world shipping passes through the Gulf each year -- makes the area a fat target for pirates. They can operate in Somalia's territorial waters with impunity. The Somali government, unable to patrol the Gulf on its own, asked the United Nations for help back in June, and the result was Resolution 1816, which allows the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Pakistan and Canada to help patrol the dangerous waters. The measure will help cargo containers and other commercial ships, of course, but its intended beneficiaries are the ships delivering humanitarian assistance to Somalia, which depends on food aid to feed close to three million of its desperately poor inhabitants.

The multilateral initiative hasn't lived up to expectations, however. In its three months on the job, the Canadian security contingent, which will head up the patrol until December, has helped prevent just two hijackings. And as of now, no naval force has agreed to take over from Canada once its six-month rotation is up. Pottengal Mukundan, the IMB's director, attributes the lack of participation "to items in other nations' foreign policy agendas, such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which surpass piracy." For now, ship crews will have to keep rolling the dice, or avoid the Gulf of Aden altogether.

Somalia isn't the only high-risk area. The other coast of Africa sees its share of action too; 14 hijackings have taken place off Nigeria so far this year. Nigerian piracy, like Somalian, is fueled by large local militias, who turn to ocean marauding as a source of funding. The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), a militant group fighting to localize control of Nigeria's oil, is the largest offender. They send out armed gangs aboard small speedboats who violently force their way onto oil tankers and abduct crewmembers for ransom. Hijackings have been attributed to a decline in security throughout the Niger Delta region; the 14 hijackings so far this year is about on a par with 2007's 25 total attacks, and has already surpassed the 12 attacks in 2006.

What's needed, of course, are cops. The Strait of Malacca between Malaysia and Indonesia, once the riskiest stretch of water in Asia, now "sees less than a handful of attacks per year," says Mukundan. Hijackings have fallen steadily since the Indonesian navy began a concerted anti-piracy campaign five years ago. So far this year, only 11 on-board thefts have been reported. In Africa, weak regional governments aren't likely to be able to take such action to protect their waters anytime soon. Transport companies have turned to the United Nations and multilateral security operations to take their place, though results have fallen short of expectations.

The Arrest of Malaysia's Anwar Raises the Political Stakes

Newsweek — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:46:24 GMT

By Jonathan Kent

Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim is again under arrest on charges of sexual misconduct that appear to be politically motivated. Police detained him today in Kuala Lumpur before he was to appear voluntarily to face questioning over new charges that he violated Malaysia’s anti-sodomy law with a political aide. Days before his latest arrest, Anwar told Newsweek that the new charges against him were “disgusting” and said elements of the current government had framed him.

Although officials deny it, his case indeed has the markings of low politics and appears to be linked to the charismatic Anwar’s unexpected staying power in Malaysia. In 1998, Anwar was arrested for sodomy and corruption, triggering widespread anti-government protests. He was convicted of both crimes and served six years in prison before Malaysia’s current leader, Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, ordered him to be released in 2004 (the sodomy conviction was later overturned). Anwar was freed, analysts said at the time, because Prime Minister Abdullah deemed him a spent force more dangerous inside than outside prison. But Anwar’s intelligence and dynamism – juxtaposed with the dearth of either quality in the ranks of the ruling coalition – have made him as popular today as he was in the mid-1990s when he served as strongman Mahathir Mohamad’s deputy and erstwhile successor. In March, the loose opposition coalition Anwar now leads chalked up a major election victory, winning control of five states and nearly tossing the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition from power.

There's reason to believe that the new charges of sexual misconduct won't derail Anwar's political career. Unlike 1998, no ruling party leader commands nearly the obedience or fear Mahathir did a decade ago. Abdullah’s government, having suffered the worst drubbing the ruling coalition has experienced since Malaysian independence in 1957, is also unpopular. And Malaysia’s long-fractious opposition has united its ethnic Malay, Chinese and Indian communities to great effect. Indeed, the March outcome showed disgruntled Malaysians that they have the power to oust the current government at the ballot box.

Anwar’s arrest rachets up the political risk to both sides. The opposition needs to tread carefully because the government could seize on any outbreak of violence as an excuse to declare emergency rule. It did so in 1969 after bloody race riots, setting Malaysia’s democratization back a generation. Nonetheless, peaceful “people power” demonstrations would put huge pressures on the government and potentially cause several disaffected minority partners to break away from the ruling coalition. Before his arrest, Anwar was aggressively wooing them to switch sides and help his opposition allies for a new government.

Prime Minister Abdullah’s government is also in a tough spot. Treating Anwar harshly would surely damage its relations with western powers. Uncertainty (a condition in no short supply) has already begun to scare foreign investors in Malaysia. Just as in finance, going back to the trumultuous 1990s is a worst case scenario for Malaysian politics.

Afghanistan’s Growing Refugee Crisis

Katie Paul — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:48:17 GMT

Refugees International researchers were surprised when they showed up in Taghi Naghi, an area in northwestern Afghanistan in June to assess one of the country’s 11 “land allocation schemes” for returning refugees. What they found differed sharply from the government’s plans for the hundreds of thousands of people returning from exile in Pakistan and Iran. Despite UN objections, the shelters had been built in the desert, an hour’s trip to the nearest city of Herat. A water pump was hooked up to a dry well, but an NGO trucking in water said their contract was going to run out soon after the visit. Only 12 families were occupying the more than 200 shelters that had been built, none of whom had any means of finding employment. According to one man living at Taghi Naghi, he might be forced to move his family to Herat despite being unable to pay its high city rents, since it was becoming increasingly difficult to feed his children.

The floundering Taghi Naghi project, one of 55 planned across Afghanistan, cost $2 million, and is just one example of how the refugee situation in Afghanistan is bad and growing worse, according to a Refugees International (RI) report published July 10. Since things started looking up for Afghanistan in 2002, the largest-ever refugee homecoming brought more than 5 million Afghan refugees back into the country, some of whom had been living in exile for three decades as their country weathered war with the Soviets, Taliban rule, and the NATO invasion. But over 3 million people are still stranded in exile, RI says, while many of those who have returned are ill-equipped to deal with Afghanistan’s harsh land and security crises. Deteriorating conditions in recent months due to a food crisis and an insurgency again on the rise have further complicated matters, while an impending Pakistani threat to bulldoze camps in their country by the end of 2009 has contributed an added time pressure to deal with the problems.

“The situation in Afghanistan is worsening, and we’re running the risk of losing the gains we’ve made in the past few years,” said RI advocate Patrick Duplat, who produced the report after traveling with a colleague for a month to meet with refugees in Pakistan and returnees in Afghanistan. “Of course, the situation in general in Afghanistan is quite dire. From 40 to 60 percent of the country is inaccessible, so all Afghans are vulnerable. But that being said, a large percentage of the population--5 million people--are particularly vulnerable.”

The report blames a lack of planning and coordination on the part of both Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government and its international backers, who provide over 90 percent of the country’s budget. While billions of dollars have been invested in reconstruction projects in Afghanistan since 2001, too few have made their way to real development projects, RI contends; large-scale infrastructure and counter-insurgency efforts have sapped most of the funds.

As a result, RI is calling on donors to coordinate and fund their efforts in Afghanistan at a joint UN and Afghan conference in Kabul in November. “What we’d like to see is the returnees being integrated into the mainstream national programs,” said Duplat, cautioning that a failure to act could lead refugees to either try their luck at returning to Pakistan or swell the ranks of Afghanistan’s urban poor. A lack of resources is not the problem, he says; the international community just needs to put its money where its mouth is to integrate refugees without forcibly displacing them, whether they want to come back to Afghanistan or stay in Pakistan permanently.