Nuclear Factor Complicates Korean Standoff Over Sunken Ship

Updated May 20, 2010 by FOXNews.com

A South Korean military officer shows torpedo parts salvaged from the Yellow Sea during a press conference in Seoul May 20. (AP Photo)

The delicate standoff on the Korean peninsula over charges that North Korea sank a South Korean ship -- killing 46 sailors -- stands as a compelling example of why rogue states want nuclear weapons. 

Nobody wants to mess with them. 

"No other state their size on Earth has that kind of military capability," said Bruce Bechtol, author of "Red Rogue: The Persistent Challenge of North Korea." 

South Korean and U.S. officials are now weighing their options for how to handle the findings of an investigative report that formally blamed a North Korean torpedo attack for sinking the frigate Cheonan on March 26. Defense Secretary Robert Gates stressed Thursday that the South Koreans are calling the shots and "we will be consulting very closely with them as we move ahead." The State Department said there would be "consequences."

But the early response is almost certain to come in the form of public condemnation and economic sanctions rather than military action, observers say. Administration officials would not go so far as to label the attack an act of war -- White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he would not get into "hypotheticals" when asked if the dispute could lead to war. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the United States is focused on supporting its "strong ally" while at the same time considering "stability in that region." 

But Bechtol, a professor at the U.S. Marine Corps Command and Staff College, said North Korea holds a major "deterrent" in its hands with its nuclear arsenal. While delivery methods are limited, he said the North is capable of using aircraft or ships to attack the South with a nuclear weapon and could also use a medium-range missile to hit countries as far away as Japan. The nuclear arsenal isn't necessarily the biggest worry, since the regime is incapable of delivering those weapons on a long-range missile that could hit, say, the United States. The country's sizable military and arsenal of conventional weapons -- which are well in range of Seoul -- make the prospect of all-out war on the peninsula terrifying. That's what North Korea is threatening as it accuses South Korea of fabricating evidence. 

All this inevitably factors in as South Korea and its allies consider a response. And it demonstrates why the Obama administration is so keen on halting the development of nuclear weapons. 

The administration has been on a high-profile campaign over the past several months to reduce nuclear arsenals around the world and keep nations like North Korea and Iran from developing them. The United Nations this week reviewed a proposal for new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, which the country's government insists is for peaceful purposes. 

Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, said it's unlikely Kim Jong Il would try to deploy a nuclear weapon, but the danger of the country's weapons getting loose should the regime fall apart in the throes of a military conflict is what worries officials. 

In the near-term, he said North Korea's ability to inflict major damage on South Korea with conventional weapons is what will lead nations like the United States to urge restraint. 

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a written statement Wednesday that the United States "strongly condemns the act of aggression," but left open the door to what options the United States is considering. 

"This attack constitutes a challenge to international peace and security," he said. "It reinforces the resolve of its neighbors to intensify their cooperation to safeguard peace and stability in the region against all provocations." 

But Bandow said that if the South Korean's investigative findings are correct, "This suggests the North committed an act of war." 

He said the challenge is to punish North Korea without triggering a military conflict. 

"To sink a South Korean ship is a major provocation," he said. "There are no good answers here." 

A U.S. official told FoxNews.com that the United States is waiting until South Korean President Lee Myung-bak meets with his government on Monday and will take its cues from there. 

"South Koreans have the lead on this issue. Obviously we support them," the official said. 

Bechtol said that while South Korea has probably not taken military action off the table, such a response is unlikely. 

He added: "If North Korea conducts another provocation then all bets are off."

South Korea: North responsible for torpedo attack on warship

By John Pomfret and Blaine Harden

Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 18, 2010; 2:47 PM

South Korea will formally blame North Korea on Thursday for launching a torpedo at one of its warships in March, causing an explosion that killed 46 sailors and heightened tensions in one of the world's most perilous regions, U.S. and East Asian officials said.

South Korea reached its conclusion that North Korea was responsible for the attack after investigators from Australia, Britain, Sweden and the United States pieced together portions of the ship at the port of Pyongtaek, 40 miles southwest of Seoul. The Cheonan sank on March 26, following an explosion that rocked the vessel as it sailed in the Yellow Sea off South Korea's west coast.
The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because South Korea has yet to disclose the findings of the investigation, said that subsequent analysis determined that the torpedo was identical to a North Korean torpedo that had previously been obtained by South Korea.
South Korea's conclusion underscores the continuing threat posed by North Korea and the intractable nature of the dispute between the two Koreas. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak must respond forcefully to the attack, analysts said, but not in a way that would risk further violence from North Korea, whose artillery could -- within minutes -- devastate greater Seoul, which has a population of 20.5 million.
South Korea's report will also present a challenge toChina and other nations. China waited almost a month to express its condolences to South Korea for the loss of life, and, analysts and officials said, has seemed at pains to protect North Korea from criticism.
South Korea will request that the U.N. Security Council take up the issue and is looking to tighten sanctions on North Korea, the officials said. The United States has indicated it would support such an action, U.S. officials said. Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada told his South Korean counterpart on Monday that Japan would do the same, the Japanese news media reported Tuesday.
Another consequence of the report, experts predicted, is that Lee will request that the United States delay for several years a plan to pass operational control of all forces in South Korea from the United States to the South Korean military. Approximately 28,500 U.S. forces are stationed in South Korea.
South Korea's conclusion that North Korea was responsible for the sinking of the Cheonan also means it is unlikely that talks will resume anytime soon over North Korea's nuclear weapons program. North Korea has twice tested what is believed to be a nuclear weapon. China has pushed for an early resumption of those talks, but South Korean officials said they will return to the table only after there is a full accounting for the attack against the Cheonan and a policy response.
The sinking -- and the reluctance of the South to respond with an in-kind attack -- is the latest example of the raw military intimidation that North Korea has practiced for decades. With 1.19 million troops on active duty, the Korean People's Army has positioned about 70 percent of its fighting forces and firepower within 60 miles of the border with the South.
David Straub, a former director of the State Department's Korea desk who is now at Stanford University, said that while the Cheonan's sinking was horrendous, it marked more of a return to "normal" behavior for North Korea than a new direction.
"We tend to look at this as shocking because things have been relatively quiet for a decade or two," he said. But North Korea killed 30 sailors aboard a South Korean warship in the 1970s; in 1983, its agents are believed to have been behind a fatal bombing in Rangoon that narrowly missed then-South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan.
What has changed, Straub said, is the Western view of North Korea. In the past, North Korean misbehavior was often rewarded with Western attention and aid from Japan and South Korea. But after North Korea conducted its second nuclear test in May 2009, "opinion changed in a fundamental way," he said.
"Before there was a tendency of government officials to say, 'Well, maybe if we try hard enough to persuade the North Koreans to give up the bomb, they will,' " he said. "Now the conclusion of most people, including in the Obama administration, is that they can't see the North Koreans giving up their nuclear weapons on terms that would be acceptable to anyone."
Harden reported from Tokyo.

US Sends Iran Sanctions Draft to UN

US Sends Iran Sanctions Draft to UN

David Gollust18 May 2010

Photo: AP

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, 18 May 2010, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the new START Treaty

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the United States and other major world powers have agreed on a draft resolution that could impose a fourth round of United Nations sanctions on Iran. 

Clinton made the announcement in testimony to a Senate committee Tuesday, a day after Iran announced a plan to send some of its enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for nuclear fuel.

The Security Council is set to hold consultations on the sanctions draft Tuesday. 

Clinton said the plan followed talks among the five permanent Security Council members - the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia, as well as Germany.   

She noted the agreement had been reached in cooperation with China and Russia - two nations that have previously resisted imposing more sanctions on Tehran.

On Monday, Iran signed an agreement with Turkey and Brazil to send 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for higher-enriched nuclear reactor fuel to be used in a medical research reactor in Tehran.

Both Turkey and Brazil are non-permanent members of the Security Council.

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast accused Western nations Tuesday of  "seeking excuses" to avoid resolving the nuclear dispute with his country.

Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said talk of sanctions could "spoil the atmosphere" and lead to an "escalation" of statements that might "provoke" Iranian public opinion.

The United States and its Western allies accuse Iran of working to make a nuclear weapon.  Iran says its atomic program is for peaceful purposes.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with top Cabinet members Tuesday to consider a response to the Iranian plan. 

Israel views a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to its existence because of repeated calls by Iranian leaders for the demise of the Jewish state.  

Some information for this report was provided by AP, AFP and Reuters.

Dealing with Iran...

Iran's nuclear programme

The Tehran tango

The Turkish-Brazilian deal leaves Iran enriching uranium and is unlikely to satisfy the West

May 17th 2010 | From The Economist online

TWO leaders from two big regional powers, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil and Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, took a risk in travelling to Iran and negotiating over the country's contentious nuclear programme. Many said they would fail. Instead the two announced triumph on Monday 17th May, clutching hands with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president. But will Western leaders, pressing for new sanctions on Iran, see it as enough?

Under the new deal, Iran says it would send 1,200 kg of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium to Turkey. In exchange it wants 120 kg of uranium enriched to a higher level (around 20%) for a research reactor which produces isotopes that can be used in medicine (typically for the treatment of cancer), within a year.

If this sounds familiar, it is because the outlines of the deal are close to those struck last October between France, Russia, Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), with American support. Under that plan, 1,200kg of uranium would have been sent to Russia for enrichment to 20%. The material would then have been sent on to France to be turned into fuel rods.

Iran backed out of this deal, demanding higher-enriched uranium immediately, and insisting the swap take place in Iran. Details of the new deal have yet to be hammered out, but Messrs Lula and Erdogan seem to have convinced Iran to give some ground on where and how quickly the enrichment would be done. With Iran’s apparent concessions in hand, the two mediating presidents now say there is no need for further sanctions from the UN Security Council (where both countries currently sit among the 15 members).

Leaders in other Western capitals are unlikely to see things that way. Until Turkey and Brazil got involved, Iran’s negotiations had primarily been with the five permanent members of the Security Council—America, Britain, France, Russia and China—as well as Germany and the IAEA. The Turkish-Brazilian deal must now go to them for their approval.

France's foreign ministry and the European Commission both faintly praised the deal, while noting that it did nothing to solve the underlying impasse between an Iran that has carried on enriching and the countries that want it to desist. The British government said it would continue to work towards a resolution on sanctions in the Security Council.

The thinking behind the failed October deal was to take most of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium out of play, in order to create time for negotiations. But because Iran has carried on enriching uranium since it turned down the October deal, it has quite a lot more of the low-enriched stuff sitting around than it would send to Turkey under the new deal (some 1,100 kg according to Jacqueline Shire of the Institute for Science and International Security). Getting uranium from 20% enriched to the 90% or so needed for a bomb takes a lot less effort than getting to the original 3.5% in the first place. So even if the new deal with Brazil and Turkey sticks it is unlikely to buy Iran much time to avoid a vote on sanctions.

Word at the UN had it that a sanctions deal (a full arms embargo, financial and shipping sanctions and restrictions on the Revolutionary Guard) was near. Russia has recently joined America in sending a stronger signal that Iran must stop enrichment, as the UN Security Council has demanded, and answer the IAEA's increasingly pointed questions about activities that appear to indicate an interest in weapons development. This would have left only China in a position to veto sanctions, and China has traditionally not liked to veto alone.

The case against sanctions, in other words, seemed to be crumbling. But Turkey and Brazil might just succeed in swinging other temporary members of the Security Council against sanctions. Lebanon is already publicly sceptical, and Gabon has called for a negotiated solution. Mexico may feel caught between its important American relationship and its regional partner and rival, Brazil. Even if none of the veto-wielders bolts, the Western coalition could have to scrape for the nine votes needed, sending a weak signal.

Unless details of the new deal (a letter is to be sent to the IAEA this week) contain pleasant surprises, it appears Iran may have successfully repeated its old trick of widening divisions between the countries preparing to tighten the sanctions net around it. Israel has already said that Brazil, inexperienced in Middle East diplomacy, may have been manipulated, and more scepticism is certain in the days to come. Messrs Erdogan and Lula may not have long to savour their achievements.

The China Model for Economic Development

The China model

The Beijing consensus is to keep quiet

In the West people worry that developing countries want to copy “the China model”. Such talk makes people in China uncomfortable

May 6th 2010 | BEIJING | From The Economist print edition

CHINESE officials said the opening of the World Expo in Shanghai on April 30th would be simple and frugal. It wasn’t. The display of fireworks, laser beams, fountains and dancers rivalled the extravagance of Beijing’s Olympic ceremonies in 2008. The government’s urge to show off Chinese dynamism proved irresistible. For many, the razzmatazz lit up the China model for all the world to admire.

The multi-billion-dollar expo embodies this supposed model, which has won China many admirers in developing countries and beyond. A survey by the Pew Research Centre, an American polling organisation, found that 85% of Nigerians viewed China favourably last year (compared with 79% in 2008), as did 50% of Americans (up from 39% in 2008) and 26% of Japanese (up from 14%, see chart). China’s ability to organise the largest ever World Expo, including a massive upgrade to Shanghai’s infrastructure, with an apparent minimum of the bickering that plagues democracies, is part of what dazzles.

Scholars and officials in China itself, however, are divided over whether there is a China model (or “Beijing consensus” as it was dubbed in 2004 by Joshua Cooper Ramo, an American consultant, playing on the idea of a declining “Washington consensus”), and if so what the model is and whether it is wise to talk about it. The Communist Party is diffident about laying claim to any development model that other countries might copy. Official websites widely noted a report by a pro-Party newspaper in Hong Kong, Ta Kung Pao, calling the expo “a display platform for the China model”. But Chinese leaders avoid using the term and in public describe the expo in less China-centred language.

Not so China’s publishing industry, which in recent months has been cashing in on an upsurge of debate in China about the notion of a China model (one-party rule, an eclectic approach to free markets and a big role for state enterprise being among its commonly identified ingredients). In November a prominent Party-run publisher produced a 630-page tome titled “China Model: A New Development Model from the Sixty Years of the People’s Republic”. In January came the more modest “China Model: Experiences and Difficulties”. Another China-model book was launched in April and debated at an expo-related forum in Shanghai. Its enthusiastic authors include Zhao Qizheng, a former top Party propaganda official, and John Naisbitt, an American futurologist.

Western publishers have been no less enthused by China’s continued rapid growth. The most recent entry in the field is “The Beijing Consensus, How China’s Authoritarian Model Will Dominate the Twenty-First Century” by Stefan Halper, an American academic. Mr Halper, who has served as an official in various Republican administrations, argues that “just as globalisation is shrinking the world, China is shrinking the West” by quietly limiting the projection of its values.

But despite China’s status as “the world’s largest billboard advertisement for the new alternative” of going capitalist and staying autocratic, Party leaders are, as Mr Halper describes it, gripped by a fear of losing control and of China descending into chaos. It is this fear, he says, that is a driving force behind China’s worrying external behaviour. Party rule, the argument runs, depends on economic growth, which in turn depends on resources supplied by unsavoury countries. Politicians in Africa in fact rarely talk about following a “Beijing consensus”. But they love the flow of aid from China that comes without Western lectures about governance and human rights.

The same fear makes Chinese leaders reluctant to wax lyrical about a China model. They are acutely aware of American sensitivity to any talk suggesting the emergence of a rival power and ideology—and conflict with America could wreck China’s economic growth.

In 2003 Chinese officials began talking of the country’s “peaceful rise”, only to drop the term a few months later amid worries that even the word “rise” would upset the flighty Americans. Zhao Qizheng, the former propaganda official, writes that he prefers “China case” to “China model”. Li Junru, a senior Party theorist, said in December that talk of a China model was “very dangerous” because complacency might set in that would sap enthusiasm for further reforms.

Some Chinese lament that this is already happening. Political reform, which the late architect of China’s developmental model, Deng Xiaoping, once argued was essential for economic liberalisation, has barely progressed since he crushed the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989. Liu Yawei of the Carter Centre, an American human-rights group wrote last month that efforts by Chinese scholars to promote the idea of a China model have become “so intense and effective” that political reform has been “swept aside”.

Chinese leaders’ fear of chaos suggests they themselves are not convinced that they have found the right path. Talk of a model is made all the harder by the stability-threatening problems that breakneck growth engenders, from environmental destruction to rampant corruption and a growing gap between rich and poor. One of China’s more outspoken media organisations, Caixin, this week published an article by Joseph Nye, an American academic. In it Mr Nye writes of the risks posed by China’s uncertain political trajectory. “Generations change, power often creates hubris and appetites sometimes grow with eating,” he says.

One Western diplomat, using the term made famous by Mr Nye, describes the expo as a “competition between soft powers”. But if China’s soft power is in the ascendant and America’s declining—as many Chinese commentators write—the event, which is due to end on October 31st, hardly shows it. True, China succeeded in persuading a record number of countries to take part. But visitor turnout has been far lower than organisers had anticipated. And queues outside America’s dour pavilion have been among the longest.

Arizona Deputy Wounded In Desert Shootout Found

by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

April 30, 2010

A sheriff's deputy was shot and wounded Friday after encountering a group of suspected illegal immigrants who apparently had been hauling bales of marijuana along a major smuggling corridor in the Arizona desert - a violent episode that comes amid a heated national debate over immigration.

State and federal law enforcement agencies deployed helicopters and scores of officers in pursuit of the suspects after the deputy was shot with an AK-47 on Friday afternoon. The officer had a chunk of skin torn from just above his left kidney, but the wound was not serious and he was doing fine.

The shooting was likely to add fuel to an already fiery national debate sparked last week by the signing of an Arizona law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration in the state.

The deputy was found in the desert Friday afternoon —after a frantic hourlong search - suffering from a gunshot wound from an AK-47, Pinal County sheriff's Lt. Tamatha Villar said. He was flown by helicopter to a hospital in Casa Grande, about 40 miles south of Phoenix.

Villar said the deputy had been performing smuggling interdiction work before finding the bales of marijuana and encountering the five suspected illegal immigrants, two armed with rifles.

"He was out on his routine daily patrol in the area when he encountered a load of marijuana out in the desert. He obviously confronted the individuals and took fire," Villar told The Associated Press. "I was speaking with him just a bit ago, and he's doing fantastic."

The deputy was alone about five miles from a rest stop along Interstate 8, about halfway between Phoenix and Tucson. The area is a well-known smuggling corridor for drugs and illegal immigrants headed from Mexico to Phoenix and the U.S. interior.

"Over the past 12 months we've seen an increase in the amount of drugs, and an increase in violence that has been going on in this particular corridor," Villar told KPNX.

"We've had increasing concerns in this area about being outmanned and outgunned, and unfortunately this evening, this is coming true," he said.

The shooting came as Arizona grapples with backlash over its enactment of a tough new law targeting illegal immigration. Civil rights activists, concerned the law will lead to racial profiling, have called for a boycott of the state.

The law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last week is supported by many in the state, which has become a major gateway for drug smuggling and human trafficking from Mexico.

Its passage came amid increasing anger in Arizona about violence, drug smugglers, drop houses and other problems caused by poor border security.

Villar said the search for the suspects involved numerous helicopters from state and federal law enforcement agencies and scores of officers near Interstate 8 and Arizona 84 about 50 miles south of Phoenix.

"The deputy is a search-and-rescue deputy, so it' not uncommon for them to work those areas a looking for drugs and b looking for people who need assistance out there," Villar said. "Obviously its a high-traffic area for drug- and human-smuggling."

Americans Distrust Congress? That's No Surprise

by ANDREA SEABROOK of National Public Radio

Lauren Victoria Burke/AP

Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC), pictured here with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke (right) at the Capitol in 2008, says people have to come around to valuing rational solutions over hot rhetoric.

April 21, 2010

The lofty space under the Rotunda in the Capitol Dome smells like history: wood oil and old stone. Clumps of tourists stand with their faces turned up toward inscriptions and classical frescoes adorning the inside of the dome. Among the visitors is Alice Carroll from Boston.

"It's awesome. It's unbelievable. It represents America as I like to think of it, when I was growing up, how I thought of it," Carroll says. "Makes me sad to see what's happening in Congress now."

The problem, Carroll says, is the hostility.

"I think healthy discourse is good," she says. "But I'm not sure the discourse we've been having through the last few months is healthy, and I'm concerned it's destructive."

The Pew Research Center's recent survey shows that 25 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Congress -- the lowest rating the legislative branch has gotten in the history of the survey.

Sandy and Yair Lotan, who brought their kids to the Capitol from Dallas, also say they're disappointed with members of Congress.

"Unfortunately, I think that a lot of their motivation is still on getting re-elected and having to sort of look out for their own legacies," Sandy Lotan says.

"[There is] a lot of bickering and partisanship, and if you're an average American, you're really worried about what's going to happen in five, 10, 15 years," Yair Lotan says.

Even under the Capitol Dome, Americans' view of Congress is decidedly dim.

'The Permanent Campaign'

Congressional scholar Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute says the low numbers are "no great surprise."

If there were one phrase that you'd want to use to describe the pathology of our time, it would be 'the permanent campaign.'

- Norm Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute

He says there is a reason why the level of trust in Congress is bumping the bottom.

"If there were one phrase that you'd want to use to describe the pathology of our time, it would be 'the permanent campaign,' " Ornstein says.

He says there used to be a season of campaigning, and then a season of governing. Now, it seems the two parties are as focused on gaining or maintaining the majority as they are on legislating. And that, Ornstein says, requires strict party discipline, constant fundraising and no sleeping with the enemy -- or what a normal person might call compromise.

"All of this cascades together into a public anger at politics-as-usual and a sense that everything in Washington is broken," he says.

Valuing Rational Solutions Over Hot Rhetoric

Someone who has seen this happen from inside and out is Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC), who served in Congress in the 1990s when the GOP held the House Majority. Inglis left for the private sector for six years and then came back, mostly serving in the current Republican minority.

Explore The Results: Americans' Distrust Of Government

The problem, Inglis says, is that "the political process rewards people who shout from their partisan walls."

When the focus is on campaigning rather than legislating, it benefits candidates to say outrageous things.

For example, Inglis says, a pro-immigrant Democrat might raise money by promising legal residency to all illegal immigrants. But a Republican against immigration might raise money by saying "shoot to kill, and drop those bodies over the fence," Inglis says.

Neither of those will happen, Inglis says, "but it works great for politicians because you can raise money and enthusiasm that way. And you will never have a primary opponent."

Some way, somehow, people have to come around to valuing rational solutions over hot rhetoric, Inglis says.

A Polarized Electorate

But there's a conundrum buried in this and other recent surveys, says Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center. Although a huge majority of respondents say they are fed up with partisanship -- 78 percent say lawmakers are unwilling to compromise -- Americans themselves are extremely divided, Keeter says.

"If a very polarized electorate is making nonnegotiable demands on their members as to how they're going to have to behave when making legislation, then it's going to be very difficult for the members if they want to get re-elected to have the latitude to compromise," he says.

In other words, you get what you vote for. Ornstein also sees the broader divisions in society.

"We're moving into communities with like-minded people," he says. "We're watching and listening to the media that reinforce the messages we already believe."

And, Ornstein says, people are supporting more strident political figures on both the left and the right -- figures who ultimately drive politics further apart.

The one thing that still unites Republicans, Democrats and independents, according to the survey, is their epic distrust of Congress, suggesting that Americans don't like this new polarized world. Perhaps that's the beginning of a new search for middle ground.