North Korea threatens Japan over sanctions. This is the predictable result of the U.S. appearing weak. We say something cannot happen, and when it does happen, we begin to discuss doing something about it. We decide to bring along the PRC for the ride, who has no interest in a stable Korean peninsula, so we may as well not even be talking about doing anything.

We need to start ignoring the PRC as a force for peace in the region. The PRC has no interest in either peace or stability. The PRC sees the KFR as a useful distraction should the PRC decide to move on Taiwan. The ongoing humanitarian crisis in the KFR also provides cover for the ongoing humanitarian crisis in mainland China. The PRC exacerbates the crisis in the KFR by propping up the Kim regime and by co-operating with the Kim regime, as regards refugees.

Communist China is a savage dictatorship co-operating with the Kim regime, providing cover for the Islamic Republic of Iran, oppressing its own people, and eying the region with an imperial eye. We continue to provide legitimacy to a brutal autocracy by granting them special privileges, turning a blind eye to their brutality, welcoming them to the table of international diplomacy, and marginalizing Taiwan.

This cannot continue to occur without potentially disastrous results. The PRC continues to build its economy, develop ties to dictatorships the world over (the Sudan, Venezuela, and Iran), and prop up the neighborhood rabid dog to provide a convenient diversion.

Japan is our ally. Japan is a stable democracy. Japan has provided substantial aid to the U.S. in the current war (as much, and more, as the pacifist Japanese Constitution permits). Japan is a stable, democratic bulwark in a region of the world with precious few of them. Japan is joined by Taiwan and the Republic of Korea, in the immediate area. These countries should be able to count on U.S. support, not merely for shared values and ideals, but also because they have proved willing to assist the U.S.

Nobel Peace Prize candidates include the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Amb. John Bolton. Sweden’s former Deputy Prime Minister, Per Ahlmark, nominated Amb. Bolton for his work on exposing Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Amb. Bolton was nominated with Iran investigator Kenneth Timmerman.

I am rather shocked: there seem to be some actual candidates this year. Amb. Bolton does not have a snowball’s chance in Hades. According to the article, this is because of Amb. Bolton’s support for the U.S. war in Iraq.

Looking at some of the other candidates, I don’t retch for all of them. I am shocked. There is an Indian Hindu leader who is working for peace in Sri Lanka; a Vietnamese Buddhist leader; a Russian human rights leader; and a former Chinese political prisoner, who is working on behalf of the Uighurs. There are four others, of varying degrees of respectability, but I don’t feel like completing the list.

Handicapping the “race”, I’d say my money is on Sergei Kovalyev, the Russian human rights leader. He won’t win, but with the murder of a Russian journalist, just days ago, he should win, as a slap in the face to Putin. The Uighur leader would be good also, but she won’t win because we mustn’t treat the PRC badly (even if they are a brutal dictatorship, deserving of no international respect).

China resisting sanctions against North Korea. It’s the same article I linked to for a previous post, but there is so much there to dissect.

Kofi Annan is again displaying the obliviousness that makes one wonder if he’s got any contact with reality: "I've always argued that we should talk to parties whose behaviour we want to change, whose behaviour we want to influence."

At what point does it become clear that Mr. Kim has no intention of submitting to talk? It’s been 12 years. Mr. Kim starting violating the Agreed Framework while he was “negotiating” it with America’s worst ever ex-President (as well as arguably America’s worst sitting President). Mr. Kim considers sanctions to be an act of war. Just what does Mr. Annan propose talking about? Is there something that hasn’t been said, that will change Mr. Kim’s mind?

No, Mr. Annan wants the West to subsidize this dictatorship. It’s failing, you see, and we cannot have that. After all, all political systems are equal, even backwards Stalinist tyrannies.

The KFR foreign ministry has said they are ready for both negotiation and confrontation. They are only ready for the “negotiation” of the last 12 years: heads Mr. Kim wins, tails the West loses. It is time to put some steel into our policies. We’ve declared the KFR’s actions to be unacceptable. It is past time to demonstrate that they are unacceptable. A naval blockade, to start. The deployment of missile defense ships to Japan. The arming of Japan, with whatever Japan deems necessary. Isolating the PRC.

Frankly, the Republic of Korea can sleep in the bed they’ve made with their idiotic “Sunshine” policy.

China resisting sanctions against North Korea. I’m pretty sure everybody saw this one coming. China has no interest in checking the mad dog KFR (Kim Family Regime). The more irresponsibly KFR behaves, the more responsible China appears.

China is a country that imprisons journalists, non-state sanctioned religious leaders and practitioners. According to some, China has taken to harvesting organs of political prisoners. An act horrid enough, until one considers that some of these political prisoners are still alive when their organs are harvested.  The violence and oppression of the communist regime is virtually boundless.

Why do we rely on China? It is a barbarian regime founded and maintained in blood. From Mao’s “Long March” to Mao’s Great Cultural Revolution (killing up to 45 million Chinese), to Tiananmen Square, to forced infanticide and forced abortions, to the modern gulags of China, the communist regime of China was formed in blood, and subsists on blood. The deaths caused by Mao far outweigh the worst atrocities of Imperial Japan, and yet, democratic Japan is the bogeyman to the people of China. Their own “government” is their true enemy.

China, so long as it is ruled by the murderous communist regime, cannot be trusted. China will continue to prop up the KFR in order to have a diversion to continue their murderous ways and achieve their imperial objectives.

Perception is reality. People act in what they perceive to be reality, regardless of whether they perceive rightly, or not. At any given point in time, each of us contends with virtually limitless realities: our own, and those of those around us and those influencing us. There is also “reality”: Plato’s “form”. We contend with all of these and hope to observe that “form”* as accurately as possible.

I am behind the curve on the situation in the DPRK.  I was going to hit on it last night, when I first learned of it, but saw that there were already two posts on the subject, one of which was at the excellent youngconservative blog.  I decided the best way to go would be to hold back and attempt an analysis after time has passed for consideration.

It did not work and this is now the "edited for tone" version.

We could just say, and many will say, that the DPRK can be deterred. The USSR was deterred for 40 years, so will the DPRK.

That is not the point.  Even if Mr. Kim (diplomacy is not bribery) were a responsible actor and not a brutal Stalinist dictator who has shown no concern for his people, it would not be the point.  The point is that President Bush, the UN, the EU, and everybody else said that DPRK nukes would be unacceptable.

It has been accepted.

Finger wagging and scolding may work for eight-year-old children, but it does not work in the world of nation-States and dictatorships.  We have bluffed and lost.

Now it has happened.  What now?

The U.S., if it does not want to play with the big boys, ought to stay home.  By showing the weakness, like we have, we invite attack and further provocations.  We have demonstrated that we will do nothing.

None of this would be a problem if we had not drawn a line in the sand and said, “This far and no farther”.  We have permitted Mr. Kim, Abbas, and Ahmadinejad to scratch out the line.  We would be better to have not drawn the line in the first place.

We are behaving as bullies who hope to impose their will by making empty threats and empty gestures.  If we have no intention of following through on tough talk, then we ought not talk tough.  We cannot fail to follow through without inviting attack.

We are hoping to bow to a fraudulent deal between HAMAS and Fatah.  We continue to set new deadlines for Iran.  We permit the DPRK to test ballistic missiles.  We permit the DPRK to conduct nuclear tests.

If we are to be toothless and harmless, we would be better to be voiceless as well. American diplomacy now consists of talking loudly and carrying no stick.  We are a one-legged man in an a**-kicking contest (thank you Rodney Dangerfield for that artful analogy).

In the end, the U.S. can be a super-power, or it can not be a super-power.  The U.S. cannot be both, no matter how hard the U.S. tries.  If we attempt to enforce our will, we must be willing to do more than make mere threats.  If we are unwilling to use force to enforce our will, then we are not a super-power.  If this is the case, the world loses a great force for good.  If, however, the U.S. wants to be a super-power, then the time for action was yesterday.

By being a "pretend" super-power (one who only shows up to make empty threats and empty gestures) we become a laughingstock, and more than that we invite attack.  If we were to do nothing without our empty threats, we might at least be following the example of the French (not that it has worked for them), but by making declarative statements about something's unacceptability, we have removed the last remaining obstacle for many brutal dictators.  There was a brief time, when could be argued that the U.S. was willing to enforce it's will, but that time has apparently passed.

No dictator can be constrained by the threat of U.S. force any longer because no such threat is real.  We are not the only ones who suffer under such a set of circumstances.  Our allies--Japan, India, Israel--are fair game because there is no one who has their backs.

I am behind the curve on the situation in the DPRK. I was going to hit on it last night, when I first learned of it, but saw that there were already two posts on the subject, one of which was at the excellent youngconservative blog. I decided the best way to go would be to hold back and attempt an analysis after time has passed for consideration.

We could just say, and many will say, that the DPRK can be deterred. The USSR was deterred for 40 years, so will the DPRK.

That is not the point. Even if Mr. Kim (diplomacy is not bribery) were a responsible actor and not a brutal Stalinist dictator who has shown no concern for his people, it would not be the point. The point is that President Bush, the UN, the EU, and everybody else said that DPRK nukes would be unacceptable.

It has been accepted.

Finger wagging and scolding may work for eight-year-old children, but it does not work in the world of nation-States and dictatorships. We have bluffed and lost.  Not only that, but we have bluffed and lost repeatedly.  We are an idiot gambler.  Maybe we are hoping that dictators will feel sorry for taking advantage of people so obviously spineless and stupid.

We have not a spine. We are weak and ineffectual. We say that something must not happen; and when it does happen, we scold.

The day to think about it did not help. I am flippin’ mad. This is sick. This is unacceptable, and not in the sense meant by “world” “leaders”. When I say "unacceptable", I mean it must not happen.

Now it has happened. What now?

We have Murtha and Congress and the Pentagon saying we are overstretched as it is. How do we deal with this now? A minor point that apparently no one is willing to broach: a declaration of war permits the mobilization and deployment of reserve and National Guard troops for the duration, plus six months. Is this the answer? Are we unwilling to face it?

If we refuse a draft (and there are many good reasons to do so), we are left with two options: fight the bleedin’ war as though it were a war; or isolationism. If DPRK nukes are unacceptable (and Mullah nukes are likewise) we must do something. For once, Mr. Kim and I are in agreement: sanctions will do nothing (I’m not going to congratulate him on his “accomplishment” though; I may be willing to grant him some grudging respect for brilliantly playing the effete, worthless diplomats of the world as though they were bongos, whatever that’s worth).

The U.S., if it does not want to play with the big boys, ought to stay home. By showing the weakness, like we have, we invite attack and further provocations. We have demonstrated that we will do nothing.

We are hoping to bow to a fraudulent deal between HAMAS and Fatah. We continue to set new deadlines for Iran. We permit the DPRK to test ballistic missiles. We permit the DPRK to conduct nuclear tests.

None of this would be a problem if we had not drawn a line in the sand and said, “This far and no farther”. We have permitted Mr. Kim, Abbas, and Ahmadinejad to scratch out the line. We would be better to have not drawn the line in the first place.

The whole mess of “leaders” in the Capitols of the West is a collection of utterly spineless, ineffectual tools. They are bullies who hope to impose their will by making empty threats and empty gestures. If you have no intention of following through, then do not make the threat. You cannot fail to follow through without inviting attack.

If we are to be toothless and harmless, we would be better to be voiceless as well. American diplomacy now consists of talking loudly and carrying no stick. We are a one-legged man in an a**-kicking contest (thank you Rodney Dangerfield for that artful analogy).

I am sick.

Italy does okay with the same dynamic.

Foreign Minister Artis Pabriks stated that the coalition (whose member parties are not named in the story) were able to win because they did not promise more than they could deliver.

Sounds like a winning formula to me.

Russian diplomats expelled from Lithuania for espionage. This comes on the heels of Georgia arresting Russian soldiers for spying and later turning them over to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Interestingly, Lithuania is supporting Georgia, in Georgia's dispute with Russia.

Russia continues to try to influence and control the former Soviet Republics.

Putin critic murdered in her apartment. Anna Politkovskaya was a tireless critic of President Putin and of the corruption racking her country. Politkovskaya was also critical of Russia’s behavior in Chechnya.

Former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev has severely denounced the crime. Gorbachev is also critical of Russia’s increasing lack of political plurality.

Politkovskaya was “gunned down in her apartment”. Euskal Irrati Telebista has a list of prominent assasinations in Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. This murder is, sadly, just another chapter in Russia’s chaotic emergence from the brutality of communism.

Putin seems to be taking Russia back in time: from co-operating with Iran with nuclear technology, to interfering in the elections of former Soviet Republics (i.e. Georgia or the Ukraine), to nationalizing the most profitable Russian industries, Russia is returning to its darkest days, under Putin.

UN asks North Korea to forgo its nuclear test

The money quote from the article being, “The Security Council warned that any test would … provoke worldwide denunciation.”

The “world” has not seemed to be too terribly concerned with DPRK’s ballistic missile tests. The “world” has not seemed to be too impressed with Iran’s unbridled pursuit of nuclear weapons. The “world” has not appeared too distraught over the Sudan’s support of the janjaweed militias perpetrating genocide in the western Sudan.

Secondly, does anyone think that “world opinion” is much of a concern for Mr. Kim?

The DPRK has also attempted to test RoK defenses: “South Korean troops fired warning shots yesterday after five soldiers from the North briefly crossed into the southern side of the demilitarised zone. South Korea's joint chiefs of staff said the soldiers climbed over the military demarcation line despite several loudspeaker warnings, proceeded about 30 metres and returned after the shots were fired.”

The DPRK is becoming increasingly aggressive. This summer, it tested ballistic missiles, which were fired in line with Japan and Hawai’i. The DPRK is now going to conduct a nuclear test.

The “world” has already shown itself weak in the face of the DPRK and Iran. The “world” is reduced to shaking its collective finger at Mr. Kim and Ahmadinejad and attempting to bluff them into compliance. Unfortunately, the bluff has been called too many times, with no consequence. If the “world” does muster the spine to act, Mr. Kim and Ahmadinejad will be rightly surprised.

And, so will I.

The U.S. and U.K. warn of sanctions against Iran, as though anybody believes that is a possibility. China, Russia, and France all hold UNSC veto power. All three countries are very reliant on Iran as regards their economies.

Russia needs a buyer for their technology, and their arms. China needs a steady supply of oil in order to power their burgeoning economy. France trades quite heavily with Iran.

Russia and France also both hope to buy a “get out of dhimmitude free card” by subverting U.S. attempts to forestall Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

There is a zero chance of the UN imposing sanctions, which has been made clear to all involved by the countless ignored deadlines and previous threats of sanctions. We’ve reached the point of running to our “parents” only to find that we are a sovereign nation state and do not have parents to whom to run.

If we never had any intention of stopping Iran from getting the bomb we never should have made a big deal about it. By making a big deal about it, and then not doing anything about it, we have demonstrated that we do not have the will or ability to enforce responsible behavior. We hand Iran a great victory. We are no longer a super-power (which is likely a good thing in the eyes of some, who will remain unnamed). We are a second-rate power who tries to get our way by blustering and bluffing. It is pathetic, really.

It doesn’t have to be this way. All we have to do is do is our duty. That shouldn’t be so difficult; we’re a nation founded on principles, we ought to be willing to hark back to them at will. If we are not able to do so, we are a country that no longer respects the principles on which this country was founded. The country may have had, and still has, flaws, but we recognize them, rather than deny them. We acknowledge our flaws and seek to move beyond them. When we lose that desire to fulfill the principles on which this great nation was founded, we lose ourselves, and world loses a great force for good and justice.

A dirge is appropriate if we are not willing to stand. If I may mix quotes, “As for me (and my house), here I stand, I can do no other”. (Hoshea, called Joshua, son of Nun, and Reverend Dr. Martin Luther). It is not too much to ask to expect the country to do likewise.

A Far East arms race could be triggered by North Korea’s intention to conduct a nuclear test.

The article discusses the PRC as though it would be threatened by a nuclear armed DPRK. The PRC is the DPRK’s only sponsor. The PRC would apparently use a nuclear Korean peninsula as an excuse to increase its own nuclear capabilities.

The PRC is a frightening proposition even without nuclear weapons: a population of over 1 billion; a looming gender gap; a dictatorial regime; and visions of Empire. The PRC seeks to reunite all Chinas under its banner. Taiwan and Singapore are up on the agenda now that Macao and Hong Kong have returned to the fold. The PRC has seized Inner Mongolia, Tibet, and Nepal. The PRC is involved in a territorial dispute with India. The PRC has fought two wars with it communist brethren to the south: Viet Nam.

A nuclear test by the DPRK will be used as an excuse for the PRC to increase both its conventional and it non-conventional arms and forces. The PRC is hoping a distracted U.S. would be unable to interfere in its conquest of Taiwan, which would give the PRC virtual total control of the China Sea.

Update: From the CIA World Factbook (for what it's worth):

Military manpower - military age: 18 years of age

Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 363,050,980 (2000 est.)

Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 199,178,361 (2000 est.)

Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 10,839,039 (2000 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $12.608 billion (FY99); note - Western analysts believe that China's real defense spending is several times higher than the official figure because a number of significant items are funded elsewhere

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.2% (FY99)

Excellent. Now there’s only the Real IRA, the Provisional IRA, the Red Hand of Ulster, and on and on.

One group went legit. Good for them.

I didn’t, however, see anything about disarming, surrendering arms caches, or the like. Now, I’m a big of a supporter of the right to bear arms as the next guy, but when a group has engaged in terrorism for decades, I’m willing to draw a line. The IRA doesn’t need arms caches. Each former member may need a couple Kalashnikovs, for protection or vermin, but the group, if legit, doesn’t need to stockpile arms.