Israel At War Watch: Israel Destroys At Least One Long Range Iranian Missile

john Carey

July 17, 2006 at 1:08 pm

Testing Allied Fault Lines: North Korea Divides U.S. from China, Russia
By John E. Carey
The Washington Times
Monday, July 17, 2006

Reactions following North Korea’s missile launches on the Fourth of July ranged from indignation to consternation and even wonder from the usual newspaper pundits and talking heads. Some have called North Korea’s mercurial leader Kim Jong-il a lunatic or worse. But it occurs to some of us, at least, that perhaps the “Dear Leader” had a coldly calculated objective in mind: the intentional division of the allies facing his representatives at the six-party talks.

The allies facing Mr. Kim’s emissaries (normally called “diplomats,” the North Korea representatives are often known for their less than nuanced or tactful approach) include the United States, Japan, South Korea, China and Russia. Each nation has its own self-interest as the paramount factor influencing negotiations with North Korea. The allies are held together by the questionable supposition that the group’s aims are universal: But what Americans believe is important to the U.S. might not be totally agreed upon by the others, especially China and Russia.

Almost as soon as the rocket motor smoke cleared over North Korea, the United States began its effort to lobby China to intervene with North Korea. The U.S. diplomat in Asia managing the situation, Christopher Hill, said: “China clearly has a close relationship with the DPRK and the most influence, and we certainly would like to see what kind of leverage China has.”

The U.S. wants North Korea to return to the six-party talks, to give up its missile testing program and to cease its nuclear weapon development ambitions. The Chinese and Russian, it seemed, balked. Japan floated the notion of a pre-emptive strike on North Korea, only to be rebuffed by China, Russia and South Korea.

President Bush called the leaders of China and Russia, seeking a unified response against the test firings. But China and Russia, each a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council with a veto over its actions, said they opposed punitive measures against North Korea. Japanese diplomats offered a resolution at the Security Council threatening sanctions if the North does not dismantle its nuclear program. China and Russia demurred.

In short, the nations have struggled to find a consensus on how to handle the situation with North Korea. The discord and division has likely delighted the reclusive communist nation, which often tries to drive a wedge between the nations seeking to pacify Pyongyang.

Almost as soon as it became apparent that Japan could not emerge with a positive outcome from Russia and China on its proposal for sanctions, Japanese officials called for an internal national debate on whether their country’s pacifist constitution would allow Japan to pursue military capabilities to pre-emptively strike at North Korean missile bases.

Since World War II, Japan’s constitution allows only self defensive forces and action in the name of the Japanese. The nation, for example, has no Navy: It has a “Maritime Self Defense Force.” Hawks in Japan would like to see more international involvement of Japanese forces.

But when Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi sent Japanese forces to Iraq to support the U.S. and other allies, the troops were permitted to engage only in humanitarian construction and nation building and were not even allowed to patrol the streets as U.S. and British forces do routinely.

Still, regional allies, like South Korea, greatly fear any hint of a re-emergence of the warlike Japan of yesteryear. South Korea and others are circumspect and fear Japan will use North Korea’s provocation as grounds to change Japan’s constitution, remove the restrictions on offensive action and even pursue nuclear weapons.

“You know, diplomacy takes a while, particularly when you’re dealing with a variety of partners, and so we’re spending time diplomatically, making sure that voice is unified,” the president said. “Let’s send a common message: ‘You won’t be rewarded for ignoring the rest of the world.’ ”

But by midweek the week after North Korea launched its missiles, the allies seemed divided and unable to forge a unified response. “China’s really trying. We’re trying. Everyone is trying except, unfortunately, the DPRK,” Mr. Hill told reporters, referring to the North by the initials of its formal name. “So far the DPRK seems to want to choose a road of deeper isolation.”

But that statement belied the facts. In truth, the allies can’t agree to the proper and unified response to North Korea. And we must also now face the fact that this may have been the objective of the “Dear Leader.”

According to Kenneth Quinones, professor of Korean Studies at Akita International University in Japan and former U.S. State Department director of North Korea affairs, Kim Jong-il “is not crazy or irrational. He’s calculating.”

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who also views Kim Jong-il as a calculating strategist, said China, while “definitely concerned about a nuclear North Korea,’ is “equally concerned about a Korea that disintegrates,’ causing an exodus of refugees into China. South Korea, naturally, has some of the same fear. Chinese officials therefore, might be reluctant to pressure North Korea as the U.S. suggests.

South Koreans have another fear Japan, Russia and China can’t always relate to: an enraged North Korea could gravely damage the South. Thousands of North Korean artillery pieces and tactical missiles are zeroed in on Seoul. If war ensues, South Korea’s capital could be severely damaged before an effective U.S. intervention.

So maybe Mr. Kim is not deranged at all. He created a difficult diplomatic situation for the United States on the Fourth of July, America’s Independence Day. This new challenge to the Bush White House — already grappling with Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the greater war on terror and other crises — is requiring all its toughness and skill.

This weekend in St. Petersburg, President Bush will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Their relationship has never been under so much strain. But Mr. Bush has shown his “personal diplomacy” on occasion can be highly effective.

Only nuanced diplomacy by the president, his secretary of state and the entire U.S. team can effect an agreement by the allies on what to do about North Korea.

http://www.washtimes.com/
***********************************

Let’s Be Honest About Missile Defense, China and Russia

By John E. Carey
The Examiner
July 17, 2006

WASHINGTON – We have to be completely honest with ourselves on the subjects of missile defense, North Korea, China and Russia.

When North Korea elected to launch several medium- and long-range ballistic missiles on Americaâ€™s Independence Day, that Communist nation defied the international community and sent a shock wave through other nations, especially South Korea and Japan.

The situation posed by North Korea, our limited missile defense capabilities, and the recalcitrance of China and Russia, makes diplomacy and delay the only measured response for the United States at this critical juncture for several reasons.

First, the U.S. missile defense system is tenuous at best. Largely untested, there are only 11 silo-housed strategic interceptors spread in California and Alaska. The U.S. Navy compliments this basic, initial capability with handfuls of missiles at sea â€” but those interceptors were built to handle shorter range threats than the Taepodong-2 that North Korea is trying to bring from puberty to adult fruition.

Completing the U.S. layered, multiservice, multisensor and multi-interceptor-type system will still be a monumental task both in terms of time and money.

A total reliance on missile defense isnâ€™t practical because we donâ€™t know how good our defense system is and â€œa miss really is as good as a mile.â€ A miss in missile defense could mean a nuclear weapon lands somewhere near its target.

So the stakes are high. Not just for the United States but also for Japan and South Korea, with their populations living under the shadow of potentially thousands of shorter-range ballistic missiles (and for South Korea, thousands of artillery pieces zeroed in on Seoul, if war ensues) that would come with almost no warning time; and these nations have very limited missile defenses on land.

Secondly, North Korea poses unique challenges to our understanding, our intelligence capabilities and our ability to predict behavior. Nothing can logically be said about the conduct of Kim Jong-il, the head of state (the post of president has been assigned â€œeternallyâ€ to his late father). His July 4 missile shots were discounted as an irrational act by some; but we see it as an intentional, calculated attempt to divide the allies arrayed against him. To some extent, certainly, he has already succeeded in the short term.

The discord and division among the allies has likely delighted the reclusive communist leader and his henchmen, a group who delight in the prospect of driving a wedge between the nations seeking to control Pyongyang.

Fortunately, the Taepodong-2 failed. This time.

North Korea is still developing technology and likely is developing or has nuclear weapons; weapons that could easily disappear into terrorist hands. So, we have to watch North Korea, continue to engage them diplomatically, monitor Kimâ€™s relationships and trade and continue to develop our own missile defenses.

Thirdly, China and Russia make policy decisions based upon their own self-interests. To China and Russia, troubling (to the U.S.) â€œrogue nationsâ€ like North Korea, and before that Saddam Husseinâ€™s Iraq, can prove to be a delightfully nettlesome thorn in the side of the only super power: the United States.

There is also this: we spoke to Professor Nayan Chanda, a noted Asia expert at Yale University, this week. He says, â€œGiven Chinaâ€™s huge stake in security along its eastern border and the unpredictability of a nuclear-armed North Korea, the Beijing-Pyongyang relationship appears to be one in which the tail is wagging the dog.â€

China is mesmerized by the terrifying notion of a North Korea in collapse, with millions of refugees streaming into China and Korea becoming a unified democratic nation. So China will not support military action and perhaps not even sanctions against North Korea.

The difficult diplomatic situation created by North Koreaâ€™s July 4 missile launches is another challenge to the Bush White House, already grappling with Iraq, Iran and the greater war on terrorism. Any misstep now is just what North Korea hoped to achieve. And some leaders in China and Russia, we expect, in the deepest recesses of their government enclaves, may be secretly smirking at the pickle created for the United States by this bold challenge to Americaâ€™s super power status.

Now is the time for leadership and diplomatic greatness; not military might.

http://www.examiner.com/

5 Comments

john Carey

July 17, 2006 at 12:14 pm

Doc: President Bush will have to more aggresively solicit the support and cooperation of other nations: especially Russia and China. The U.S. needs the help of others to manage the war on terror, the situation in Israel and the crisis in North Korea.

John E. Carey
http://peace-and-freedom.blogspot.com/
Flap

July 17, 2006 at 12:20 pm

John,

Russia is bankrupt and a third world country except their missiles and nukes and China is an enemy who attempts to and steals our economic/technological/military secrets.

I don’t think the USA would want or could count on much support from them.

Eastern Europe, Turkey, India and Japan are the countries to cultivate for increased support.

Flank Russia, China and the Middle East with allies.

Flap
john Carey

July 17, 2006 at 1:04 pm

Flap: Russia is the root supplier of many terrorists, Syria, Iran, Lebanon and others…I think this is the reason that President Bush rejected Putin’s WTO bid…..

A keen obsswercer like you would agree with this analysis of course…..

John E. Carey
http://peace-and-freedom.blogspot.com/
john Carey

July 17, 2006 at 1:08 pm

Testing Allied Fault Lines: North Korea Divides U.S. from China, Russia
By John E. Carey
The Washington Times
Monday, July 17, 2006

Reactions following North Korea’s missile launches on the Fourth of July ranged from indignation to consternation and even wonder from the usual newspaper pundits and talking heads. Some have called North Korea’s mercurial leader Kim Jong-il a lunatic or worse. But it occurs to some of us, at least, that perhaps the “Dear Leader” had a coldly calculated objective in mind: the intentional division of the allies facing his representatives at the six-party talks.

The allies facing Mr. Kim’s emissaries (normally called “diplomats,” the North Korea representatives are often known for their less than nuanced or tactful approach) include the United States, Japan, South Korea, China and Russia. Each nation has its own self-interest as the paramount factor influencing negotiations with North Korea. The allies are held together by the questionable supposition that the group’s aims are universal: But what Americans believe is important to the U.S. might not be totally agreed upon by the others, especially China and Russia.

Almost as soon as the rocket motor smoke cleared over North Korea, the United States began its effort to lobby China to intervene with North Korea. The U.S. diplomat in Asia managing the situation, Christopher Hill, said: “China clearly has a close relationship with the DPRK and the most influence, and we certainly would like to see what kind of leverage China has.”

The U.S. wants North Korea to return to the six-party talks, to give up its missile testing program and to cease its nuclear weapon development ambitions. The Chinese and Russian, it seemed, balked. Japan floated the notion of a pre-emptive strike on North Korea, only to be rebuffed by China, Russia and South Korea.

President Bush called the leaders of China and Russia, seeking a unified response against the test firings. But China and Russia, each a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council with a veto over its actions, said they opposed punitive measures against North Korea. Japanese diplomats offered a resolution at the Security Council threatening sanctions if the North does not dismantle its nuclear program. China and Russia demurred.

In short, the nations have struggled to find a consensus on how to handle the situation with North Korea. The discord and division has likely delighted the reclusive communist nation, which often tries to drive a wedge between the nations seeking to pacify Pyongyang.

Almost as soon as it became apparent that Japan could not emerge with a positive outcome from Russia and China on its proposal for sanctions, Japanese officials called for an internal national debate on whether their country’s pacifist constitution would allow Japan to pursue military capabilities to pre-emptively strike at North Korean missile bases.

Since World War II, Japan’s constitution allows only self defensive forces and action in the name of the Japanese. The nation, for example, has no Navy: It has a “Maritime Self Defense Force.” Hawks in Japan would like to see more international involvement of Japanese forces.

But when Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi sent Japanese forces to Iraq to support the U.S. and other allies, the troops were permitted to engage only in humanitarian construction and nation building and were not even allowed to patrol the streets as U.S. and British forces do routinely.

Still, regional allies, like South Korea, greatly fear any hint of a re-emergence of the warlike Japan of yesteryear. South Korea and others are circumspect and fear Japan will use North Korea’s provocation as grounds to change Japan’s constitution, remove the restrictions on offensive action and even pursue nuclear weapons.

“You know, diplomacy takes a while, particularly when you’re dealing with a variety of partners, and so we’re spending time diplomatically, making sure that voice is unified,” the president said. “Let’s send a common message: ‘You won’t be rewarded for ignoring the rest of the world.’ ”

But by midweek the week after North Korea launched its missiles, the allies seemed divided and unable to forge a unified response. “China’s really trying. We’re trying. Everyone is trying except, unfortunately, the DPRK,” Mr. Hill told reporters, referring to the North by the initials of its formal name. “So far the DPRK seems to want to choose a road of deeper isolation.”

But that statement belied the facts. In truth, the allies can’t agree to the proper and unified response to North Korea. And we must also now face the fact that this may have been the objective of the “Dear Leader.”

According to Kenneth Quinones, professor of Korean Studies at Akita International University in Japan and former U.S. State Department director of North Korea affairs, Kim Jong-il “is not crazy or irrational. He’s calculating.”

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who also views Kim Jong-il as a calculating strategist, said China, while “definitely concerned about a nuclear North Korea,’ is “equally concerned about a Korea that disintegrates,’ causing an exodus of refugees into China. South Korea, naturally, has some of the same fear. Chinese officials therefore, might be reluctant to pressure North Korea as the U.S. suggests.

South Koreans have another fear Japan, Russia and China can’t always relate to: an enraged North Korea could gravely damage the South. Thousands of North Korean artillery pieces and tactical missiles are zeroed in on Seoul. If war ensues, South Korea’s capital could be severely damaged before an effective U.S. intervention.

So maybe Mr. Kim is not deranged at all. He created a difficult diplomatic situation for the United States on the Fourth of July, America’s Independence Day. This new challenge to the Bush White House — already grappling with Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the greater war on terror and other crises — is requiring all its toughness and skill.

This weekend in St. Petersburg, President Bush will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Their relationship has never been under so much strain. But Mr. Bush has shown his “personal diplomacy” on occasion can be highly effective.

Only nuanced diplomacy by the president, his secretary of state and the entire U.S. team can effect an agreement by the allies on what to do about North Korea.

http://www.washtimes.com/
***********************************

Let’s Be Honest About Missile Defense, China and Russia

By John E. Carey
The Examiner
July 17, 2006

WASHINGTON – We have to be completely honest with ourselves on the subjects of missile defense, North Korea, China and Russia.

When North Korea elected to launch several medium- and long-range ballistic missiles on Americaâ€™s Independence Day, that Communist nation defied the international community and sent a shock wave through other nations, especially South Korea and Japan.

The situation posed by North Korea, our limited missile defense capabilities, and the recalcitrance of China and Russia, makes diplomacy and delay the only measured response for the United States at this critical juncture for several reasons.

First, the U.S. missile defense system is tenuous at best. Largely untested, there are only 11 silo-housed strategic interceptors spread in California and Alaska. The U.S. Navy compliments this basic, initial capability with handfuls of missiles at sea â€” but those interceptors were built to handle shorter range threats than the Taepodong-2 that North Korea is trying to bring from puberty to adult fruition.

Completing the U.S. layered, multiservice, multisensor and multi-interceptor-type system will still be a monumental task both in terms of time and money.

A total reliance on missile defense isnâ€™t practical because we donâ€™t know how good our defense system is and â€œa miss really is as good as a mile.â€ A miss in missile defense could mean a nuclear weapon lands somewhere near its target.

So the stakes are high. Not just for the United States but also for Japan and South Korea, with their populations living under the shadow of potentially thousands of shorter-range ballistic missiles (and for South Korea, thousands of artillery pieces zeroed in on Seoul, if war ensues) that would come with almost no warning time; and these nations have very limited missile defenses on land.

Secondly, North Korea poses unique challenges to our understanding, our intelligence capabilities and our ability to predict behavior. Nothing can logically be said about the conduct of Kim Jong-il, the head of state (the post of president has been assigned â€œeternallyâ€ to his late father). His July 4 missile shots were discounted as an irrational act by some; but we see it as an intentional, calculated attempt to divide the allies arrayed against him. To some extent, certainly, he has already succeeded in the short term.

The discord and division among the allies has likely delighted the reclusive communist leader and his henchmen, a group who delight in the prospect of driving a wedge between the nations seeking to control Pyongyang.

Fortunately, the Taepodong-2 failed. This time.

North Korea is still developing technology and likely is developing or has nuclear weapons; weapons that could easily disappear into terrorist hands. So, we have to watch North Korea, continue to engage them diplomatically, monitor Kimâ€™s relationships and trade and continue to develop our own missile defenses.

Thirdly, China and Russia make policy decisions based upon their own self-interests. To China and Russia, troubling (to the U.S.) â€œrogue nationsâ€ like North Korea, and before that Saddam Husseinâ€™s Iraq, can prove to be a delightfully nettlesome thorn in the side of the only super power: the United States.

There is also this: we spoke to Professor Nayan Chanda, a noted Asia expert at Yale University, this week. He says, â€œGiven Chinaâ€™s huge stake in security along its eastern border and the unpredictability of a nuclear-armed North Korea, the Beijing-Pyongyang relationship appears to be one in which the tail is wagging the dog.â€

China is mesmerized by the terrifying notion of a North Korea in collapse, with millions of refugees streaming into China and Korea becoming a unified democratic nation. So China will not support military action and perhaps not even sanctions against North Korea.

The difficult diplomatic situation created by North Koreaâ€™s July 4 missile launches is another challenge to the Bush White House, already grappling with Iraq, Iran and the greater war on terrorism. Any misstep now is just what North Korea hoped to achieve. And some leaders in China and Russia, we expect, in the deepest recesses of their government enclaves, may be secretly smirking at the pickle created for the United States by this bold challenge to Americaâ€™s super power status.

Now is the time for leadership and diplomatic greatness; not military might.

http://www.examiner.com/
Flap

July 17, 2006 at 1:10 pm

Russia needs cash and many factions inside and out of the government hate the USA (envy, etc.). They will sell their nukes, and nuclear technology with glee if they can poke the USA in the eye and raise some funds.

Russia’s economy does not warrant G-7 (8) membership and except for Clinton and Albright would not have been invited to join the group.

Russia does not deserve WTO membership and until Putin allows more democracy, Russia’s participation in the G-8 should be suspended.

Flap

5 Comments

john Carey

Flap

john Carey

john Carey

Flap