Hu, Bush discuss N. Korean nuclear moves by phone (China's warning)

[TexasLawyer]

Hu, Bush discuss N. Korean nuclear moves by phone+
Oct 09 12:14 PM US/Eastern

(Kyodo) _ Chinese President Hu Jintao and U.S. President George W. Bush talked about their reactions to North Korea's reported nuclear test by telephone Monday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said.
Hu told Bush that China has issued a statement condemning the North's nuclear test but warned against taking action which could further aggravate the situation, the ministry said.

Bush said North Korea's nuclear moves are dangerous but the United States still believes a negotiated settlement of the issue is possible, the ministry said.


http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/09/D8KL7AOO1.html

[htuttle]

1. So I'm guessing that when he puts his options re: NK "on the table",

China plops Taiwan down on the table right next to it.

At the very least.

[endarkenment]

4. No the Chinese would never want a quid pro quo.

They will give everything away for free because they love us so much.

[Justyce]

2. I cringe everytime he's allowed to open

his mouth to world leaders... you never know what idiot crap is going to spill out.

[katinmn]

15. and then there's the (special-recess-appt. ) Bolton factor

just in case the world isn't jittery enough.

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2...

[Amonester]

28. That sociopath needs a haircut. - eom

[calimary]

20. No kidding. I'd expect the worst, just out of habit.

Here's my take on it, fwiw...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[speedingbullet]

26. Secret to Satisfaction

The key to satisfaction is low expectations. There is a problem with this administration in trying to figure out just how low you can set the bar.

[endarkenment]

3. "United States still believes a negotiated settlement "

Oh? Then perhaps we might want to actually negotiate with the North Koreans. What happened to 'go nuke and die', which I believe was last months official policy?

[Vulture]

8. That is a muddled view of the geopolitcs

North Korea is a Chinese client state, and not much threat to the US (beyond the economic mess they can make in the region). It would be the height of futility and stupidity to engage in unilateral negotiations without the Chinese and South Koreans involved in every step at a minimum. They have a stake, we do not. Not that the administration is not prone to futile and stupid acts, but in this particular case the US should largely butt out. And to a significant extent, we have beyond acting as a proxy for Japan.

The primary reason the US is involved at all is to discourage the militarization of Japan in order to make China happy. Between having the US military in the region and the Japanese military in the region, China will take the US military any day.

[endarkenment]

9. There is no reason at all that we cannot do both.

We should in fact disengage in the bilateral talks, gradually, and should concurrently normalize relations with North Korea and establish diplomatic relations, and obviously that needs to be done unilaterally.

Japan is going to remilitarize regardless of whatever foolishness we undertake. Bush and his PNAC friends broke (finally, it wasn't really completely functional after the crackup of the soviet union) the system of the world established after WWII, thinking that in doing so they would become masters of the universe. What has actually happened is quite different from their expectations.

[pampango]

25. We do need to engage (that's what you meant, right) in bilateral talks.

I don't think that NK will make in fundamental changes in their nuclear weapons program or in opening their society until China puts pressure on them. Kim may negotiate prior to that given the right incentives (oil, reactors, promises of aid) and may even reach agreements on paper, but I doubt that there will be any change in their strategy, just in their tactics.

Kim needs to be very careful, however, not to antagonize the Chinese. They have preferred a controllable Kim and NK to a united, prosperous Korean peninsula, but that may change if they begin to believe that his unpredictability is leading to too much instability in the region. NK's oil and much of its food comes from China, so they won't last long if they lose China's patronage.

[anotherdrew]

10. technicly we are STILL AT WAR with N. Korea today n/t

[PsN2Wind]

21. Technically, we were never AT war with North Korea

We were engaged in a United Nations police action.
Of course, technicalities won't bring my brother back to life. He was killed February 7, 1951 by our good friends the Chinese.

[BootinUp]

11. The goal is to shutdown the nuke program

You start by saying who are the players necessary to make it happen, not who are the most threatened and least threatened.

[BootinUp]

12. Note: This is the policy that got the plutonium reactors going again.

Thanks vulture for offering that suggestion, are you sure you are in the right forum?

[Vulture]

17. Okay...

Yes, I am at the right place. Presuming, of course, that pointing out facts that should be obvious to even the most partisan of us is allowed.

I was making an observation about geopolitics that should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of expertise. These facts cannot be ignored for the sake political expediency, and it is frankly American arrogance that makes us think we are in the middle of this particular conflict. North Korea is not about the US, and never has been. We did the same thing in Viet Nam, acting like the war revolved around us when it really had nothing to do with us. As I said, our primary role is to be a proxy for the Japanese military so that Japan does not militarize itself. Beyond that, there is little we can do except convince China and South Korea to rein North Korea in.

The US has little business in North Korea, and I would assume that most Democrats would welcome the US finally butting out of things it has no business involving itself in for a change. It would certainly be a consistent position, and one I agree with for both pragmatic *and* ideological reasons, even if some nitwit in the whitehouse is responsible for it. Even a stopped clock...

[BootinUp]

22. You are making some grievous errors

I believe you misread what Americans expect their government to do when it comes to rogue nations attempting to aquire/build nuclear weapons.

And you keep claiming the threat is only or mostly to the neighboring countries. That is preposterous. Nuclear weapons and technology can be sold to other rogue actors, (terrorists funded by rich extremists for example), it can be delivered in weaponized form to a target by boat or plane or other vehicles, it can be fit on advanced missiles that we know NK is developing. The threat is to whomever they feel threatened by or whomever has what they want.

[54anickel]

19. Last I remember, we were encouraging rather than discouraging the

militarization of Japan.

US questions Japan's pacifism

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3561378.stm

US Secretary of State Colin Powell says Japan must consider revising its pacifist constitution if it wants a permanent UN Security Council seat.
Article Nine of the constitution, drawn up under US post-war occupation, renounces the use of force in disputes.

Japan plays a role in international peacekeeping, and currently has troops in Iraq, but its constitution limits its military's powers.

However, revising Article Nine would be highly controversial in Japan.

Mr Powell told Japan's Kyodo news agency that the US supported Tokyo's quest for a permanent seat at the Security Council.

But he added that: "If Japan is going to play a full role on the world stage and become a full active participating member of the Security Council, and have the kind of obligations that it would pick up as a member of the Security Council, Article Nine would have to be examined in that light."

more...



http://www.howardwfrench.com/archives/2005/09/11/japans... /

snip>

This cold-war view of China emerged recently in Japan, but Japan’s embrace of it is one of the reasons behind the worsening relations between the countries.

During the cold war, the United States was willing to let Japan remain militarily passive as long as it remained a loyal ally, continued to buy American arms and allowed tens of thousands of American troops to be stationed on Japanese soil.

The Bush administration, more suspicious of China than its predecessor, has pushed Japan to take a more assertive stance. It has called for closer ties between the countries’ militaries and defense industries and has encouraged conservative Japanese politicians who have long wanted to change the Self-Defense Forces into a full-fledged military and revise the Constitution.

In short order, the Japanese government reinterpreted the Constitution to allow it to dispatch troops to Iraq and effectively abandoned the decades-old ban against arms exports by joining the American missile defense shield.

Then Japan assumed its familiar role of junior ally to the United States in containment. In a major readjustment of its defense policy late last year, Japan redeployed its forces away from northern Japan where they were involved in the cold-war containment of Russia and reinforced Okinawa, considered crucial in the containment of China in the East China Sea. Saying that “China, which has significant influence on the region’s security, is pushing forward its nuclear and missile capabilities and modernization of its navy and air force,” Japan’s Defense Agency labeled China a “concern.”

In recent months, Japan has joined the United States in aggressively lobbying the European Union not to lift its arms embargo on China. But the strongest signal yet was Japan’s tougher public stance on defending Taiwan against China.

“The joint statement had less to do with Taiwan and more to do with the rise of China, and how Japan and the United States feel a threat from China,” said David Huang, Taiwan’s vice chairman of mainland affairs. He added, “The joint statement is a signal to China: ‘Don’t push too far.’ “

more...

[Vulture]

23. I don't disagree actually.

The US is encouraging the militarization of Japan, because it serves our interests if they do, but just having an "interest" in militarization is enough. It would ultimately allow the US military to reduce its footprint in the region, leaving a powerful ally. The flipside is that the Chinese really do not want a country with an advanced military capability on their doorstep, and certainly not Japan, so the US uses its close relationship with Japan as a bargaining chip with China because we do have a lot of sway with the Japanese. In essence, we kind of have to split the middle and play both sides in a fashion that suppresses the worst tendencies of all parties involved. If we completely removed the US military umbrella tomorrow, a rather ugly arms race would start overnight.

The way we have traditionally managed this was by upgrading Japan's defense weapon systems to a pretty high level of technology, which helps Japan feel safe and does not threaten China too much. If Japan feels as though it is being pushed into a corner by a region that is not fond of Japan, there is a distinct chance that they will opt to develop a serious counter-strike (read: offensive) capability. The North Korea situation is being played by all sides in support of their longer term goals. For the US, as an outside interest with a lot of ties, the region is a balancing act.

The short of it is that Japan will militarize, but the militarization will be structured in such a way as to extract as much leverage on China as possible. This means that the Chinese have to believe that the militarization of Japan is a credible threat. In the mean time, the US military acts as a proxy for Japan's militarization which the US can choose to withdraw at any time. That puts China between a rock and a hard place. If the US withdraws its military coverage of the regions, Japan *will* militarize. If the US stays, it seriously blunts some of China's other geopolitical plans. And the intermediate area between the two does not look any better either.

The whole thing is a complex geopolitical maneuver between many countries. The goal of the US is primarily to blunt the expansion of Chinese power in the region, and in that regard North Korea is a pawn. But North Korea is a pawn to most of the other players as well. Japan has goals that mostly align with those of the US, though for somewhat different reasons.

[truthisfreedom]

5. bush got us into this mess. bush can get us even deeper into it. that

seems to be his MO... make it bad, then make it worse, then utterly fail (and leave the mess for someone else, like he did with the company he tanked after doing insider trading and his never-completed guard duty).

[acmavm]

6. Wonder if the little coward has enough sense not to try to play

tough guy or if he's gonna let Unca Dick and Rummy goad his pathetic ass into something that other people's kids will die for.

[BootinUp]

7. Where's Dick and Henry? n/t

[goforit]

13. Negotiate isn't a four letter word that Bush would understand.

[MadMaddie]

14. China is America's Pimp....they own us lock stock and barral

I gotta feeling that Hu made a threat to call in all Markers if * attack North Korea....

[MaineDem]

16. "Bush said 'Who?'...No Mr President, it's Hu."

It's a "Hu's on the Phone" skit.

This administration has driven me to looking for humor in almost anything they do! It's so sad. Actually, infuriating is a better word.

[Doctor_J]

18. Imagine Il Dunce' talkin' geopolitics with an actual leader,

without a teleprompter.

Hu: Mr. President (snickers in background, then "Hey, shut up back there. He's all we've got".) Sorry, Mr. President. We think that Kim is unstable, but mostly just sabre-rattling. We should see if he will engage diplomatically before threatening him."

*: Huh? Yeah. Kim? Who? Hu? Uh, now listen. It's like this. Axis of evil. Caliphate. Nuke-u-ler. Why did you let my brother catch all those STD's in China?

[Bigmack]

24. Hu "negotiating" with Dumbya...

Like Col. Sanders "negotiating" with a chicken.

Hu clawed his way to the top with his wits and political savvy. Bush... well....

We are sooo fucked!

[bif]

27. "They need to cut that shit out," commented George Bush.

I'm sure it was a very enlightened conversation.