Like Father Like Grandson

Here in America, when we think of Kim Il-Sung, we probably think of this:

The reality is that this sick son of bitch, now mercifully dead (for the people of North Korea), was the author of famine in his country and an oppressor of his people -- to serve his own pleasures:

From 1995 to 1997, famine raged in North Korea. According to a report by North Korea’s Public Security Ministry, up to 3 million lost their lives (source). As this isn’t the most neutral observer, real numbers are probably much higher. (See an older post here about not trusting governments with the job of human rights measurement). Still today, the country is in such a state that it won’t take much for famine to return.

It was Kim Il Sung who used to say, “Communism is rice,” meaning the system would succeed by giving the people enough to eat. The famine was caused by mismanagement and the inability to adapt to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the economic transformation of China.

All that said, Kim Jong Il acted with callous disregard to the suffering of his people. Rather than lose face, the North Koreans denied the food crisis for years and then kept humanitarian aid out of the places it was most needed. The regime executed people who tried to adapt by engaging in private business.

By the way, Kim Jong Il is famous for being one of the biggest foodies in Asia. Throughout the nineteen-eighties and well into the famine, he flew couriers around the world to procure delicacies for his own palate — fresh fish from Tokyo for his sushi, cheese from France, caviar from Uzbekistan and Iran, mangoes and papaya from Thailand.

Kim Jong-Il got the power by primogeniture from Kim Il-Sung and has passed it onto his 27-year old son, Kim Jong-Un, who is expected to be controlled by his uncle on his mother's side, Chang Sung-Taek.

Here's the three generations:

Grandfather

Father

Son

Grand Vizier (Chang Sang-Taek)

I'm sure they're expecting us to invade right now, and I'm sure Beijing is there to stop it, diplomatically at first.

This will be a very interesting week for President Obama. His Administration is saying it's taken out Al Quaeda, how about breaking down the walls into North Korea at this critical juncture. The top strategist in America against a regime that's been prepared to lose their dear leader for awhile, but probably hoped it would still not be so soon.

The question is, will someone from this crime family end up on a meathook and, if so, who will it be?

World Class President

He gets Ukraine to divest itself of highly enriched uranium, making the world a little safer from terrorists who might get hold of it.

His new START treaty is widely approved by the U.S. public -- 70%, to be exact.

He gets China to agree to push sanctions on Iran. He pisses off the Iranian leadership with his new policy.

Per Russian Premier Medvedev, who has his own worries about terrorists getting powerful bombs, he's great to work with:

MEDVEDEV: He's very comfortable partner, it's very interesting to be with him. The most important thing that distinguishes him from many other people – I won't name anyone by name – he's a thinker, he thinks when he speaks. Which is already pretty good.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You had somebody in your mind, I think. (LAUGHS)

MEDVEDEV: Obviously I do have someone on my mind. I don't want to offend anyone. He's eager to listen to his partner, which is a pretty good quality for a politician. Because any politician is to a certain degree a mentor. They preach something. And the ability to listen to their partner is very important for the politician. And he is pretty deeply emerged in the subject, so he has a good knowledge of what he's talking about. There was no instance in our meetings with Mr. Obama where he wasn't well prepared for the questions. This is very good. And after all, he's simply a very pleasant man with whom it's a pleasure to deal with.

President Barack Obama: Making America healthier and the world safer.

Do you really think there's going to be somebody more qualified and suited to the job than him in two years?

Obama's Free Speech in China

It appears to be the oddest town hall yet for President Barack Obama, in China, albeit the heavily Westernized city of Shanghai:



There's the extreme language difference, although one imagines a majority of these young people have studied English, but the air of Communist repression, if not traditional/cultural, hangs over the proceedings, and is mirrored in the censorship by the Chinese government of his call for an open Internet:

President Barack Obama prodded China about Internet censorship and free speech, but the message was not widely heard in China where his words were blocked online and shown on only one regional television channel.

China has more than 250 million Internet users and employs some of the world's tightest controls over what they see. The country is often criticized for its so-called "Great Firewall of China" — technology designed to prevent unwanted traffic from entering or leaving a network.

During his town hall meeting in Shanghai on Monday, Obama responded at length to a question about the firewall — remarks that were later played down in the Chinese media and scrubbed from some Chinese Web sites.

Best quote:

“I should be honest, as president of the United States, there are times where I wish information didn’t flow so freely because then I wouldn’t have to listen to people criticizing me all the time,” he said. But, he added, “because in the United States, information is free, and I have a lot of critics in the United States who can say all kinds of things about me, I actually think that that makes our democracy stronger and it makes me a better leader because it forces me to hear opinions that I don’t want to hear.”

Having had a run in with repression on the local government level during the mere three days I spent in China back in the late 1980's, I'm no fan of their gangsterish system. However, as with Iran, I firmly believe that spreading American influence in culture and the practice of free speech is the best way to make change happen.

What Obama said will leak out. Free speech is like that. Even when odious -- and the best response to odious speech is, of course, taking advantage of the very same right to respond.

Confusistan Pt. 2

I stand corrected, as comments in the past two posts directly address the Afghanistan question, even if answering with uncertainty. I find myself leaning towards Master Fu's argument for the Biden position which is essentially limited and surgical without totally giving up. One wonders if it eventually leads to escalation, maybe not with this President, but perhaps keeping it as Special Ops as possible will keep it off the public radar as well, for better or worse.

New news or new no news, the President met today with Congressional leaders for a frank discussion where he said he would not substantially reduce troop levels and assured them that, "that his decision won't make everybody in the room or the nation happy." Agreed, no matter what he decides. After all, even in his own Party, there's a bill being introduced from the left by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) to cut off any funding for a troop increase in Afghanistan, while Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is calling for massive troop increases.

Meanwhile, NATO says that while 8 U.S. soldiers may have been killed in that big eastern Afghanistan battle this past weekend, over 100 enemy fighters were killed as well. Suspicious number? Is this like Vietnam again -- what day of the month is it = # of Vietcong reported killed by U.S. forces?

Master Fu does question the value of Afghanistan. We can't deny the threat -- the man at the center of the recently foiled bomb plot in NYC was an Afghan immigrant, Najibullah Zazi, trained at an Al Qaeda camp in Pakistan. This is the threat that the Dems have run on, the threat they said Cheney/Bush took our eye off of in pursuit of the man who did not attack us. And then there's China's stake in the country, per Robert D. Kaplan:

In Afghanistan, American and Chinese interests converge. By exploiting Afghanistan’s metal and mineral reserves, China can provide thousands of Afghans with jobs, thus generating tax revenues to help stabilize a tottering Kabul government. Just as America has a vision of a modestly stable Afghanistan that will no longer be a haven for extremists, China has a vision of Afghanistan as a secure conduit for roads and energy pipelines that will bring natural resources from the Indian Ocean and elsewhere. So if America defeats Al Qaeda and the irreconcilable elements of the Taliban, China’s geopolitical position will be enhanced.

This is not a paradox, since China need not be our future adversary. Indeed, combining forces with China in Afghanistan might even improve the relationship between Washington and Beijing. The problem is that while America is sacrificing its blood and treasure, the Chinese will reap the benefits. The whole direction of America’s military and diplomatic effort is toward an exit strategy, whereas the Chinese hope to stay and profit.

Just when you think you're starting to make sense of it, things just get more Confusistaning.

Kudos

Congratulations to Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michael Steele, Karl Rove, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and most of all Richard Bruce Cheney:

The decline in Republican Party affiliation among Americans in recent years is well documented, but a Gallup analysis now shows that this movement away from the GOP has occurred among nearly every major demographic subgroup. Since the first year of George W. Bush's presidency in 2001, the Republican Party has maintained its support only among frequent churchgoers, with conservatives and senior citizens showing minimal decline...

...The losses are substantial among college graduates, which have shown a decline in GOP support of 10 points. (The losses are even greater -- 13 points -- among the subset of college graduates with postgraduate educations.) This may reflect in part Barack Obama's strong appeal to educated voters, a major component of his winning coalitions in both the Democratic primaries and the general election...

Stephen L. Taylor analyzes the problem hardcore Republicans are having with reality, as they claim the party is in trouble because it has somehow not stayed 100% pure and true to its base:

There are two rather major problems with his “analysis.”

First, the party isn’t losing its base, it is losing everything else.

Second, the Rove strategy, especially in 2004, was a base mobilization strategy, not a treat the base like doormats strategy. Indeed, the Bush/Rove years were not exactly exemplified by the GOP going out and forming a party based on what McCain would call RINOs–indeed, it was just the opposite.

As Daniel Larison rightly notes:

The Gallup findings are interesting, because they show that conservatives are among the least likely to have stopped identifying themselves as Republicans, yet they remain convinced that pursuing an agenda geared towards appealing to them (and only to them) is the means to win back all the other people who have drifted away since ‘01.

It is a odd bit of reasoning that Larison describes, but it does seem to be the dominant mode of thinking within certain Republican circles these day.

The least-touted story on Fox News has to be Obama naming Gov. Mike Huntsman, a loyal but non-ideological Republican, as Ambassador to China. Huntsman was seen by Dems as the only guy in the GOP farm system with real potential for Presidential stature, and he may one day move into the Oval Office, if his party calms down (or if he switches) just as George H.W. Bush was Ambassador to China before ascending to the Office. But in some ways it's a much bigger deal than Arlen Specter, a huge coup for Obama.

Huntsman's political strategist, John Weaver says:

"If it's 2012 and our party is defined by Palin and Limbaugh and Cheney, then we're headed for a blowout," says strategist John Weaver, who advised Huntsman and was for years a close adviser to Sen. John McCain. "That's just the truth."

So, kudos, I say, because I believe what ails the Republican party should not infect the rest of the country, especially as we try to recover from this last infection.

Stay pure, Republican Party. Keep hunting down those heretics, as the President converts another and another.

Keep up the good work.

Prepare Yourself

Having grown up in the late 20th Century, I've felt that American Exceptionalism myself, and the feeling that it was going to last forever. But now I hear that the 21st Century is all about BRIC -- Brazil, Russia, India, China. Steve Clemons has this:

A widespread view among elite Germans and the non-elite normal types I spoke to is that America is in fast decline -- sort of like Britain after World War II. I think that the impressions foreigners have of this decline is "overshooting reality" as there are many substantive realities about America's ability to deploy force and purpose in the world that remain formidable.

But conversation in some serious circles is turning to what Europe can do to help America stabilize in some position of "lesser global stature." There is also a sense that the nation that is filling much of America's previous geopolitical space is China and that Europe feels tension in its strong alliance with U.S. power in decline and its strategic distance from China clearly ascending.

Just fifteen years before I was born, America had gone over and saved Europe. Now in 2007 we have Europe pitying us?

While this site is nakedly partisan, one of the core reasons, if not the core reason itself, is that the Republican Party has potentially "ruined" America. At home it has undermined the notion of "the common good" and replaced it with "what good for the greedy is good for America"; militarily, for all our death-bringing technology it has laid bare our weaknesses to the world; and overseas it has proven to the world that the most atavistic, exploitative, unevolved American capitalist-imperialists actually do still exist, that they can get control of our most powerful political levers, and that they will kill or allow hundreds of thousands of innocents die to get their way.

Given that last one, why would Europe want to help America, except maybe to make sure we stay in our diminished corner from now on?

It's articles like Clemons' that makes me think the only person who can possibly reverse America's decline, among the current generation of senior U.S. political leadership, is Al Gore.

No one currently running for President comes prepacked with a comparable amount of international respect. No one currently running has shown remotely the amount of vision and translated it into real world action. No one currently running for President showed the level of courage over the decision to go into Iraq that Al Gore did back when the Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld/Rove war machine was setting the country up like so many country fair rubes.

America in decline. We got the 20th Century, maybe China gets the 21st. It didn't have to be that way.

Ultimately the fault is not only in our leaders. We've gotten morally soft, and I don't mean in the way religious conservatives might espouse. We need to recommit to a Franklin Delano Roosevelt type morality, where we know we're all in it together, we act rationally to help rebuild our nation as a whole, not just those with big capital gains income, we have to change our ways.

Al Gore says that the American political will is a renewable resource. He may just have to drum it up himself, and so far he doesn't look interested.

In any case, the Democratic electoral dominance last November wasn't an end, it was only the very start. The Augean Stables of our government and media still need a good, strong flushing. Before it's too late.