New emperor's new cloths re security order in Asia

Comments on H. D. P. Envall from ANU "Strategy under the surface of the Australia–Japan sub deal", 18/04/2016

I sense the undertone of this post is to strengthen the so called 'trilateral alliance' of the US, Australia and Japan to encircle or tackle China.

The author may benefit from reading the following by a respected Australian journalist or media commentator, Michael Pascoe: "Australia shouldn't pay price for 'pivot', available on the Canberra Times website, April 18 2016 - 12:50PM, http://www.canberratimes.com.au/business/world-business/australia-shouldnt-pay-price-for-pivot-20160418-go8rat.html.

It presents facts as opposed to the often argued and hyped what is 'right' under existing security order in Asia.

Those hypocrites have been exposed as another version of Emperor's new cloths story.

Michael Pascoe's article should be republished on the Eastasiaforum, as a well respected and independent Australian journalist and current affairs commentator.

The Eastasiaforum has, regretablly and unfortunately, published many distorting articles, not based on facts but reflecting biased views serving the purposes of some circles.

It is unclear whether the editors have thoughtfully and dutifully sought factual based responses to those articles.

Yes it's FBI director's false dilema

Comments on David Glance "FBI Director Comey’s false dilemma: “ban encryption or accept terrorism”"

It may also reasonably be assumed that Comey only wants, in private, the ban to be applied to other state governments as opposed to its own, as the information contained in what Snowden has showed, such as the taping of other countries' leaders and allies' included.

It utterly hypocritical of some of the world's most power country's apparatus and officials. The US has lost totally its credibility in its advocate of the security approach and probably few others will believe it anymore.

Power shifts in the world

Comments on David Huang "Building security and integration in the Asia Pacific", 13/06/2015

While the US is undoubtedly still the most powerful country both economically and particularly militarily in the world, it will not be long for that situation to change.

Economically, there are already some people who argue that China has already overtaken the US as the world largest economy.

Militarily, the power is largely though not exclusively dependent on economic power. Arguably, there may be some lags between the rise of a country’s economic power and it’s military power, though the lag may not necessarily follow only one direction.

With the increasingly more rapid speed in catching up economically, how long a country can sustain the number one status does not depend on the existing one alone but the new comers.

South China Sea: a legal way forward?

Comments on John Hemmings “The South China Sea dispute: a legal solution needed”, 7/12/2011, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/12/07/the-south-china-sea-dispute-a-legal-solution-needed/

It is not a bad idea to seek a legal framework to resolve the South China Sea dispute, although some may fear that whether the existing international legal system or parts of it is biased or influenced by some unfairly.
If the States involved agree it is the best way to move forward, perhaps they should set themselves a sunset clause or deadline, by that time they will move to an agreed international legal framework should the disputes still not resolved through the current precesses.

PS: there are maybe a need for a new international legal frame work to balance the existing ones and legitimate issues of fairness, should any of such issues exist.

Food security - not that simple in real world

Comments on Shenggen Fan “Urgent actions needed to prevent recurring food crises”, 1/05/2011, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/01/urgent-actions-needed-to-prevent-recurring-food-crises/

While many of the points in Fan's article may sound good in theory, or in a hypothetical world, the reality of the world suggest there may be many problems that may render good purely economic argument in the absence of world reality ineffective or unusable.

For example, when a country starts experiencing some sorts of problems, whether it is inflation, food, energy and so on, there are diverging international political interests regarding to the situation of that particular country.

It would be suffice to look no further than the reactions and actions of different international communities in the recent and ongoing unrests in the Middle East and North Africa.

One could imagine that even the mother nature does not produce causes for concerns to some and possibly many countries, some nations would create problems in some other countries to advance own interests.

That is unfortunately a sad reality in world politics.

Any talks of food security must not be too naïve and must take into account the complex international politics and its implications.

Yoichi Funabashi's interesting but confusing argument of water security

Comments on Yoichi Funabashi “Global water security: Japan should play key role”, 15/09/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/09/15/global-water-security-japan-should-play-key-role/
I am not sure some of the alarmist views on climate change and implications for water are not exaggerating beyond imagination!

While there would be an impact on some rivers if the Himalayan glaciers melt. But what would be waterfalls in the Himalayan region and the implications for those rivers?

If rainfalls remain the same, then those rivers might be more irregular in flows, but the total water may not be too different from the case where the glacier is feeding them.

It is a big natural circulation and recycling.

Further, while water is important, the argument for potential conflicts over water by nations is likely to be false.

The use of Israel and Palestine case is of little relevance, because they have been fighting with each other mainly over land but not water.

It seems the author has an interesting but winded excuse to argue for Japan’s role in global water security.

The mention and description of China may provide a clue.

Frankel's proposal on "Gulfs in America’s energy security"

Comments on Jeffrey Frankel “Gulfs in America’s energy security, and the Louisiana oil blowout”, 26/05/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/05/26/gulfs-in-americas-energy-security-and-the-louisiana-oil-blowout/

An interesting proposal and point.

For the proposal to be more valuable and relevant, it would be useful to also calculate the costs of that proposal under reasonable and plausible assumptions and probabilities for different scenarios.

Alternatively, instead of preparing for the emergent scenarios, it would be better to develop strategies that promote cooperation, peace and stability in the world to prevent them from occurring.

Imagine all the world major and large countries are to do the same as Professor Frankel proposes, what a world will that be?

A collective security mechanism and system is better than the situation of prison’s dilemma and everyone considering only his own interest.

So, it is an issue and question of cost and benefit analysis, and choices, after all.

PS: I made the following second comments:
The point I was making is:

Jeffrey Frankel raises and attempts to answer the following question "what larger implications should we draw for domestic oil drilling?"
To me, the implications he draws do not appear to be large enough.
From a more strategic or higher level, a different set of implications can be drawn.

Power from a larger population too marginal for Australia

Comments on Arthur Sinodinos “The more of us the merrier”, 24/09/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26116017-5013479,00.html

Arthur, it does not sound like a particularly attractive idea and unlikely to be a good one.

No matter it is 7 million more in population or more than that, it does not make Australia a bit different as compared to so many huge sized countries in our neighbourhood.

That has only a very small marginal effect to the most, if anything at all!

So better forget it as a strategy.

But it does not mean there are no other benefits to Australia from a larger population.

Achieving permanent peace in the Korea peninsular

Comments on Hitoshi Tanaka “The North Korea nuclear crisis: Five guiding principles”, 14/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/14/the-north-korea-nuclear-crisis-five-guiding-principles/

The essence of Tanaka’s five guiding principles seems good. They need to be applied very carefully, though. For example, while Tanaka says that “the joint statement released during the recent summit in Washington between President Obama and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak is a fine example of what is necessary” for the first principle, that is, North Korea must never be recognized as a nuclear state. However, some people say that the North sees the part on Korea unification with hostility, because it implies the vanish of the North with the style of German unification.

Secondly, it is important to have a clear consensus among all parties on how to achieve “the establishment of a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula,” under the fourth principle of “a comprehensive, negotiated settlement is the only practical way forward”. What would be such a peace regime? How would peace in the peninsular be safeguarded? Would US troops still remain in the South?

Thirdly, would the fifth principle, “the Six-Party process must continue with informal negotiations before the talks resume”, be workable and potential bilateral talks not undermine the six party approach and be used by the North to play the other members against each other? The party members need to make sure the two processes are consistent with each other.

Japan's insecurity and its relations with China

Comments on the comments by Aurelia George Mulgan on “Australia, and managing Japan’s insecurity”, 13/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/13/australia-and-managing-japans-insecurity/

Obviously, there have been some untrust between China and Japan, from time to time.

I understand that Japan provided aid to China, although I don't know how much over the years.

I also don't know the normal international practices regarding war compensations, although I understand that China did not ask for war compensations from Japan. I also know that many Chinese are or were unhappy with that.

While Japan may feel that China is ungrateful to its aid, there have been impressions among many Chinese that Japan was half-hearted in providing assistance to China and did not like to see China to develop or become strong and rich, although it wanted to benefit from some opportunities. Was that because of its insecurity?

In terms of security, it is understandable that China did/does not like to be contained internationally, with Japan as part of the containment and as the deputy of a superpower in doing it.

So both sides may have their own stories and reasons to feel unhappy.

But past is past and few can change the history. What is important is today and tomorrow. Both sides need to look to the future relations.

Countries should respect with each other, no matter rich or poor, large or small, strong or weak. The relations between China and Japan should be based on mutual respect and trust.

There have been periods when the relations between the two countries were good. Both should reflect on how they can have long-last good relations.

China needs to remain a peaceful nation forever and an important international force for peace and stability of the region and the world, even when it becomes very strong in the future.

Japan needs to realise that sooner or later China will become a very powerful country and few individual countries will be able to match its power, even probably the US.

So the important issue is not to try to use the US to contain China, rather it is important to establish a peaceful, secure and stable international order where countries don't threat each other with force, as it has been so often in the past.

UN and some other regional forums as opposed to military alliance should be promoted as the mechanism to resolve any issues between countries. Will the alliance, even with the current most powerful country be always effective into the future?

So what is important for security? Every country needs to have a rational, strategic and realistic view.

I hope both China and Japan will choose the correct one and always have a good relation. They are two most important countries in the region. It is in the interest of each country.

All members of the six party need to be reasonable and work together

Comments on Richard Broinowski”s comments on “Obama’s North Korea policy and the June 15 South-North Joint Declaration”, 8/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/05/obamas-north-korea-policy-and-the-june-15-south-north-joint-declaration/#comments

If Richard Broinowski says is true and I don't have any reasons not to assume so, then it is disturbing to see three of the six party members (presumably in addition to whatever the North has done) to have contributed to the failures of the international efforts.

While the US, Japan and the South have tended to say that China has been too soft to the North, they perhaps need to reflect on their own strategies and their effects. The six party members all need to work together realistically and effectively, with well defined and clear objectives. No members should "violate" reached agreements.

It seems there are lessons for all members.

Parties act together to achieve common goals

Comments on Peter Van Ness “Stick to the Six Party Talks on North Korea”, 23/06/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/06/23/stick-to-the-six-party-talks-on-north-korea/

Peter Van Ness's article is excellent. The six party approach, supported by the UNSC, is the only practical way to deal with the challenges posed by the North Korea reckless regime.

The five party members must act together as a united front with a common aim: the denuclearisation of the Korea peninsular, peace, security and stability of the Northeast Asia region.

There are no other more effective and practical ways than the six party approach. It is in every member's interest to work to achieve the common objectives.

Collective security should be the future

Comments on Hugh White “Australia’s strategic future after the white paper”, 19/06/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/06/19/australias-strategic-future-after-the-white-paper/

There seem two important issues raised in Hugh White’s article for Australia to consider. One is how Australia should position itself strategically for the future and the other is how Australian government and the defence department can improve the effectiveness and efficiency in defence expenditures.

Strategically, and ideally, the best outcome for every country including Australia would be a well designed and implemented collective world and international security system. The current power politics and superpower balance and deterrence have their historical roles. But looking at the long term future, the original idealism of the UN and UN Security Council system should be revived. This is especially important given the end of the cold war, the lessons learnt from the Iraq war and the changing international economic dynamics and the consequential international power structure.

In that light, the UNSC system should be strengthened and reformed to make it an important and effective world collective security institution. As the UNSC system strengthens and become more effective in international security, cold war military systems, organisations and structures should be gradually dismantled. The Australia – US alliance should be viewed in that strategic context.

The efficiency of Australian public expenditures, as those in many countries, is a big public policy issue. The efficiency of Australian defence expenditures is no exception, and perhaps more of an issue than other civilian expenditures, because of its less accountability due to the military nature. Ideally, there should be some parliamentary committee to oversee public spending, including military spending to make them more value for the money.

Government should be much more accountable for its decisions, especially when taxpayers’ money is concerned. Even for military spending where fewer people understand what should be and how they should be done, there should be an appropriate balance between secrecy and accountability.

Open regionalism and Asian and Asia Pacific communities

Comments on Gary Hawke “The Asia Pacific Community: objectives, not institutions”, 15/06/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/06/15/the-asia-pacific-community-objectives-not-institutions/

In light of Gary Hawke’s arguments in this article, I would like to make some comments. First, Hawke is correct in saying that some sort of Asia Pacific community has been developing and forming. Hawke mentioned a few and I would also add PECC to that long process. All those reflect the real needs and desire of the region, loosely defined. There is no question about that.

Second, Hawke is also correct that the focus of most of those organisations have been on economics as opposed to politics and security. Partly they have been a pragmatic approach to the diverse situations in the region, as Hawke pointed out.

Thirdly, I agree with Hawke completely on the following, to quote from the above:
“It has been convenient for Asia to try to tie the US into an ‘Asia Pacific’ vision, but the US will insist on a global perspective. The vision of ‘open regionalism’ can be a contribution to world affairs, but Asia Pacific integration has to be compatible with Asian integration just as it will proceed alongside regional arrangements elsewhere.”

What I would like to add is that it is very likely that there will eventually an Asian integration and some organisation or community to represent Asia. An Asia Pacific community is a trans-regional one.

Fourthly, while I agree with most of Hawke’s arguments, I do see the value and need for a regional and trans-regional organisations or communities to explicitly have a broad focus than economics. I think the concept of open regionalism with an enriched content will be able to serve that purpose.

Open regionalism should include:

open trade with the region and beyond
open capital flows and investment
broadly and in the long term, few restrictions on labour movement
common and non-discriminative security and open peace
collective governance and multilateral approach to regional affairs
aspirational community goals but respect diversity and autonomy.

I think with an open mind and a focus on long term prosperity and peace and security, such an Asian community and Asia Pacific community will see the day of light.

The US has other moral obligations beyond the elimination of nuclear arms

Comments on Tomohiko Satake “Obama, and Japan’s going nuclear”, 2/06/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/06/02/obama-and-japans-going-nuclear/

A world free of any nuclear weapons will be good for everyone, except some handful. Nuclear disarmament of the two nuclear superpowers should be welcomed by all countries.

Just as Japan's nuclear dilemma, if the Americans are serious of world including Asia peace and stability, they should cease to continue their cold war thinking and strategies and put an end to NATO's expansion, and begin to dismantle all cold war military structure, treaties and organisations.

The world needs a new security structure that is based on UN Security Council. For that to be effective and reliable, the Security Council needs to be reformed. Broader permanent representation of the world current reality is required. The veto power by each of the 5 permanent members should change to make it less extreme.

Americans not only have the moral obligation for eliminating all nuclear arms, they, as the sole superpower and the leader of the only cold war era legacy of NATO, also have the moral obligation to bury all cold war legacies and to establish a new collective world security.

Eventually, the world should be a place of humanity of permanent peace and every country, every nation, irrespective large or small, no matter of rich or poor will live with dignity, peace and harmony. They will compete (just like the market economy) as well as cooperate with each other for prosperity and better living standard.

In this light, the title of Tomohiko Satake' article does not appear to be well conceived. At least it does not sit well with Japanese foreign minister's 11 benchmarks for global nuclear disarmament, as mentioned in the article.

Don't be stupid - even for Japan's sake

Comments on Tobias Harris “A nuclear Japan is not an option”, 29/05/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/05/29/a-nuclear-japan-is-not-an-option/

I cannot agree more with Tobias Harris that “There is no problem that will be solved by a Japanese nuclear arsenal”. Further, a nuclear armed Japan will destabilise the Northeast Asia, East Asia, Asia and the world, due to the particular history in East Asia in the first half of the last century.

Firstly China is unlikely to take that kindly and would probably do whatever it can to counter Japan’s nuclear arsenals. Secondly, other East Asian countries, including possibly South Korea, are likely to respond accordingly and a new arms race would start to counter balance Japan. Thirdly, Russia is also unlikely to take it kindly and would develop a new strategy to counter that. As a result, complete new, unpredictable and dangerous military and security games would emerge.

The proposal of using a nuclear armed Japan to force China to be more forceful with North Korea to solve the nuclear problems of the North is nonsense and nonsensical. The idea would lead to a chaotic East Asia, diverting its limited resources for economic development to a wasteful arms race. It is likely to turn many East Asian countries that suffered from Japan’s invasion or occupations before and during the Second World War against their former chief enemy. It is not in Japan’s interest either.

Would a nuclear armed Japan really force China to change its tactics towards North Korea? Yes and no. No first. If China perceives a nuclear armed Japan as a threat to its security as it is very likely, instead of a willingness to stop North Korea’s nuclear programs, China might tolerate them and take advantage of the likely nuclear rivalry between Japan and North Korea. Therefore the proponents of such stupid ideas, even assuming they are well wished, are unlikely to see that China is forced to take a harsher and hardline attitude towards North Korea. They are badly mistaken.

Now yes. As mentioned, China might change its attitude towards North Korea, but not to the like of those proponents’. If you have a potential nuclear threat from Japan, why don’t you use a nuclear North Korea as a friend to counter that?

As I said in my comment on Tobias Harris’ article of “The North Korean test: a study in powerlessness” the other day, North Korea’s violation of international laws does not give anyone the right to violate them. We need to find effective ways to enforce international laws and using legal means to bring North Korea to the road of denuclearisation.

Anyone who has a strong interest in seeing a peaceful, stable and prosperous Korea peninsular, Northeast Asia and East Asia as well as the world needs to be vigilant against those who wish to see a different world, and those who may be well wished but nevertheless so irrational in their thinking to make nonsensical proposals.

Mr Sheridan, reflect on the issue please

Comments on Greg Sheridan’s “Unstable trio endangers world”, the Australian, 9/05/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25449729-7583,00.html

Mr Sheridan, your article has raised new challenges amid the ongoing world financial and economic crisis not seen since the great depression more than seventy years ago. Let’s leave your least threatening one North Korea aside for the moment and let’s talk about the more threatening first two – Iran and Pakistan.

I would argue that the situations in both countries in the context of posing a threat to the international community have been made worse by the Iraq war, for which Australia has been a member of the coalitions of willing.

The Iraq war has been a strategic failure not only for the US and the coalitions of willing, but for a greater international community. Firstly, it shifted the regional balance in that region in favour of Iran, not only in the sense that it does not have Iraq as a strong regional opponent, but also that the present Iraq government is closely related to Iran in many areas.

Secondly, t unnecessarily distracted the fight against Al Qaeda and the residual extreme Taliban in Afghanistan. This allowed them to regroup and now to destabilise Pakistan, not to mention the worsening situations in Afghanistan and rising military tolls for the international forces.

Thirdly, the Iraq war was done under the name of pre-empty actions based on false intelligence at the best and possibly manufactured and highly manipulated information. A war against another country has been proven to have based on false premise. It divided the international community and discredited the US in its leadership and undermined the strong support for the war against terror following 9/11. This damage may be more lasting.

Had not there been the Iraq war to distract the efforts of war in Afghanistan, the situations in both Iran and Pakistan would be much different and less threatening to the international security. It is a very fresh and useful lesson to learn, isn’t it?

I may be mistaken, but it appeared that you were a strong supporter of the Iraq war and Australia’s participation in it. It is an interesting irony that you might wish to reflect on this issue of the worsening international security situation due to the unstable trio?