DJT’s Muddled Foreign Policy


April 23, 2017

DJT’s Muddled Foreign Policy: Holding the Free World hostage to Trump’s Oversized Ego

by Dr. Munir Majid

http://www.thestar.com.my

Image result for Trump the egoistic alpha male

DJT: Exploding from the starting blocks only to realise that as President he is in a long distance race to make America Great Again

PRESIDENT Donald J. Trump exploded from the blocks after his inauguration on January 20, but soon found out he was not in a sprint but in a long-distance race.

 

His rapid fire of orders to fulfill promises he made for his first 100 days were not as easy to shoot as he thought. Most notable, of course, were the executive orders on entry into the United States, immigrants and refugees. The way these orders were shot down was one of the most heartening evidences that the liberal system in America was alive and well – not just the laws, but the people willing to fight for others – and that the Trump avalanche could not crush it.

Trump has promised to come roaring back, but not yet. Meanwhile he has moved to the H-1B visa, signing just this week the “Buy American, Hire American” executive order in Wisconsin (where his stunning victory was part of the Rust Belt sweep that propelled him to the White House).

This order could curb the hiring of foreign technical workers and will get government agencies to buy more domestically produced products – all part of his promise to protect American jobs and wages. So there still is this anti-foreign binge, if not quite fulfilled on the alleged security front at least on the economic front, misplaced though it may be to most rational people.

For friends and foes alike, their main concern with the Trump Presidency is his threat to attack the open global trading system, which he claims has been unfair to the United States. His performance on this within these 100 days is mixed and uncertain.

The big overhang was a possible trade war between the United States and China. Though not quite averted, it does not look as if China is going to be slapped with a tariff of 45% or declared a currency manipulator in Trump’s first 100 days, or perhaps even the next.

This was a lightning campaign promise, over which wiser counsel has prevailed. The former was hyperbole of the highest order, and the latter plainly not true. This does not mean, however, that there is no prospect of trade conflict with China or that the Trump Administration has embraced free trade. It is just that some strategy or policy is forming.

Image result for Trump and Xi at Mar A Lago

China’s first lady Peng Liyuan with senior Trump adviser Jared Kushner at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate

Trump’s summit meeting with Xi Jinping was just a first touch. There may even be trade-offs in the offing: Trump’s much vaunted “art of the deal”, normally called linkage politics.

This mixed and uncertain future is evident in a number of instances. The US Trade Representative office, in its report to Congress in March (while still without its head confirmed), left the part on China unfilled and referred the reader to a previous report under the Obama administration in 2016 which was just a factual rendition of China’s track record that year against its World Trade Organisation (WTO) obligations.

The other parts of the March report – the first on trade policy under the Trump administration – were clear but not trenchant on “America First” and on an emphasis on bilateral rather than multilateral trade arrangements. There were ominous references, however, to the United States not being bound by WTO rulings.

At the G-20 finance ministers meeting in Hamburg, US Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin insisted there should be no reference in the joint communique to “avoid all forms of protectionism”, which had been an allusion after all G-20 meetings. It would be interesting to see what line Trump would take at the G-20 summit in July, also to be held in Hamburg.

And there is now this notorious list of 16 countries – Malaysia included – with whom the United States has a chronic trade deficit problem, as if the Sword of Damocles hangs over their heads.

Yet Vice-President Mike Spence was this week in Indonesia to reassure Asia on US commitment to its friends and allies in the region. Damage to trade-dependent economies cannot be good commitment, which even a Trump administration must realise.

Just to mix it up even more, the vice-president announced that Trump would be attending the APEC and ASEAN summits in November, something countries in the region were hopeful for but absolutely not sure about.

To boot, this message was conveyed after Mike Spence visited the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta, when he further stated the Trump administration would work with Asean on security and freedom of trade in the South China Sea. While there is uncertainty, there are also surprises, not always unpleasant.

The Mike Spence Asia trip was primarily intended to reassure South Korea and Japan, and to warn North Korea which was making everyone excitable with its nuclear weapon adventurism. There is, however, a correlation between economic capacity and defence capability of its allies, which the Trump Administration perhaps is beginning to realise. Enfeebling with trade sanctions is not the best way to boost their confidence or capability in defence.

The assurance, it would seem, would come from the Trump Administration’s willingness to shoot its way out of the troubles it may face, such as those threatened by North Korea.

This is quite dubious foreign policy strategy, as there are a limited number of bush fires that can be fought, especially as some can become overwhelming conflagrations.

The language Mike Spence has been using, like his boss through Twitter rather than based on any strategic doctrine, has been: “Choice today the same as ages past. Security through strength or an uncertain future of weakness and faltering… (America) will always seek peace but under president Trump, the shield stands guard and the sword stands ready.”

No doubt the 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles that hit a Syrian airbase in response to the Assad regime’s callous chemical attack on innocents, is the pointed reference, but surely not the armada that did not appear around North Korea.

Deterrence needs to be credible, absolutely, but easier in some situations, like Syria, and complicated in North Korea where the China factor has to be weighed more carefully than the faraway Russian Syrian interest.

The point is there is a greater complexity in international relations than a one-size-fits-all approach. There is merit in the Trump argument that there has been, in US foreign policy, a perfectionist strategic paralysis. But there is also proof that threat of an all-out action is not sustainable in all situations.

What is observable in the past almost 100 days of the Trump administration is a retreat from quite a number of the US president’s outlandish assertions and policy threats – like blanking out Nato – which have come out more as movement sideways, compensated by direct action which even has some American public intellectuals cooing.

There is still uncertainty. There will be more surprises. But will the Trump new normal be more normal than new?

Tan Sri Munir Majid, chairman of Bank Muamalat and visiting senior fellow at LSE Ideas (Centre for International Affairs, Diplomacy and Strategy), is also chairman of CIMB Asean Research Institute.

Read more at http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/comment/2017/04/22/trumps-100-days-and-still-going-wrong/#Zq3eGeO5UEqd53Bp.99

Canada’s Foreign Policy: Middle Power Engagement with Asia-Pacific in Trade and Peace


April 23, 2017

Canada’s Foreign Policy: Middle Power Engagement with Asia-Pacific in Trade and Peace

by Adam P MacDonald

http://www.eastasiaforum.org

Image result for Justin Trudeau

Ever since Washington unveiled its ‘rebalance’ strategy for the Asia Pacific, debate has emerged in Canada over the need for a similar ‘mini-pivot’ towards the region. Despite its large Western coastline, Canada does not self-identify as a Pacific state due to enduring ties to Europe and the Atlantic.

Image result for Trudeau and China's Xi

But East Asia is increasingly the focus of Canada’s efforts to diversify trade partners and secure access to emerging markets. This is exemplified by the 2015 Canada–Korea Free Trade Agreement, China recently becoming Canada’s second largest trading partner, and Ottawa’s support for and participation in the now terminated Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations.

Still, growing economic relations in East Asia have not been accompanied by any sustained political or strategic engagement despite the abundance of security interests of direct relevance for Canada. These interests include promoting global and regional stability amid shifting power configurations, resolving outstanding regional maritime disputes and North Korea’s growing nuclear and missile capabilities (motivating renewed discussions about Ottawa joining Washington’s Ballistic Missile Defence program). East Asian states’ growing interest and involvement in the Arctic — particularly China — is also a source of speculation and debate within Canadian strategic circles.

Successive governments have spoken eloquently of Canada’s long and enduring interests and involvement in East Asia. But Canada’s presence has been sporadic and on a downward slope since its zenith in the mid-1990s. Canadian engagement with the region has been ‘fair-weather’, whereby the degree of participation is not determined by enduring interests but as a function of available resources and the absence of competing foreign policy demands.

But there may be glimpses of a more concerted and sustained Canadian effort to remain regularly engaged with East Asia. Prime Minister Trudeau’s high-profile visits to Japan and China within the first year of his tenure along with the ongoing six-month deployment of two Canadian naval warships to the region are positive signs. Defence officials, in particular, explain the recent deployment as signalling the strategic importance of the region to Canada and as reinforcing a commitment to regional peace and security. Despite the navy’s declining size and capability, major deployments to East Asia are planned for the next two years.

While it is premature to extrapolate any emerging trends from these plans, a number of scholars advocate regular naval deployments for Canada to pursue maritime diplomacy as an ambitious but attainable avenue to achieve staying power in the region. This would also provide in-theatre capability for Canada to conduct a wide spectrum of operations ranging from combat to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

But even with the recent comprehensive refit of Canada’s last remaining major class of surface ships and a large-scale shipbuilding strategy to recapitalise the Canadian Navy, Canada’s naval forces will remain highly limited both in numbers and capabilities for the next 10–15 years.

Maritime diplomacy enables and supports but does not in and of itself constitute a regional strategy. While Ottawa is in the midst of a defence policy review largely focused on constructing a fiscal framework for major procurement projects, there appears to be little appetite to conduct a foreign policy review to guide and inform the use of military power in Canada’s international affairs.

Some have voiced aversion to any increased strategic interaction in East Asia, arguing the presence of even a small Canadian naval force will unnecessarily antagonise China and hamper economic relations. It would also put warships at risk in an increasingly tense geopolitical environment, be seen as an unwelcome interference in regional issues, and ultimately as a disjointed venture given the now uncertain trajectory of US regional policy.

Despite some reasonable concerns, Canada should also not avoid the region due to fears of being dragged into a local conflict or that national interests do not warrant such an investment. Canada has direct economic and political ties to the region and has a larger interest as a middle power supportive of a rules-based international system. Canada has also been criticised for too little engagement with the region, not too much. But such a maritime diplomacy strategy also requires Ottawa to acknowledge the reciprocal freedoms of other states to access maritime regions sensitive to Canada, especially the Arctic.

Any augmentation of strategic interactions also presents the challenge of perceptions that Ottawa’s presence is an extension of US policy in the region, especially regarding how military power is employed. While a close ally with the United States and sharing common international interests, Canada is never going to be a major player in the region given its limited ability to project power and influence. Ottawa is ill-suited to adopt similar strategies to Washington in this respect.

Instead, Canada does have an ability to participate in the regional political discourse, especially regarding areas of tension. For example, as an Arctic state, Canada could positively contribute to advising on structures for joint management by competing claimants over disputed areas, such as in the South China Sea. But Ottawa should not confuse a regional strategy with a strategy specifically about this or other disputed areas. Canada must first build and strengthen relations with the region to promote the necessary political conditions to address outstanding territorial and maritime disputes.

Maritime diplomacy is not the only avenue towards increasing relations with East Asia. But it does allow Canadian leaders to signal a visible presence and commitment to the region and creates an impetus for Ottawa to construct a more comprehensive, clear and independent foreign engagement strategy. Whether the recent dispatching of warships is the start of a real determination to shed its fair-weather status is yet to be seen.

Adam P MacDonald is an independent researcher based in Halifax, Canada.

Najib Razak’s Baloney Economics


April 22, 2017

Najib  Razak’s Baloney  Economics

by TK Chua

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com

Since when is inflation not due to bad policies, poor macroeconomics management, inefficiency, massive corruption and loss of confidence? Sorry, are there new economic theories emerging?

Image result for Najib's Baloney Economics

A Political Baloney

Why single out some external factors igniting inflation when these factors are also applicable and affecting other economies?

Malaysia is a net oil exporting country, but global oil prices have now become a major factor accounting for our high inflation. Can we not see the baloney and the irony here? What about countries with no oil to begin with? Would they not be affected by high or low prices of oil as well?

The “Trump phenomenon” is a uniform factor likely to affect most countries. Why should Malaysia suffer more than others if indeed Trump has caused reverse capital flows and currency realignments globally?

The ringgit has depreciated not just against the US dollar, but also against the Singapore dollar, Chinese Renminbi and Thai baht, just to name a few.Malaysia’s inflation is unprecedented in recent months. When global oil prices were more than US$100 per barrel, did Malaysia’s inflation reach 8%?

I hope some of us have heard of this statement before, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” The primary cause is always too much money chasing after too few goods.

The Shrinking Ringgit

We can argue and debate whatever we want, but inflation is invariably caused by the following factors:

First, high taxes and unproductive use of tax money. I have lived in this country long enough to know that the GST is a major culprit of inflation, causing prices to escalate higher than the GST rate due to our half-baked implementation.

 Second, when there is too much fat or unproductivity in the economy. When there are sectors that get the bulk of the income/subsidies/wages for doing nothing, they cause inflation.

Third, when we have too many over-priced projects and contracts. When contractors and promoters get too much profit, the people must pay for it through higher prices. There are no free lunches in this world.

Fourth, when government borrows and spends too much. Fiscal deficit is a given in Malaysia, regardless of the state of the economy. Borrowing to finance deficit from inflationary sources could make the situation worse.

Fifth, when policies favour the cronies. When we have massive distortions and profiteering due to collusion and complicity, prices will escalate. Prices of homes are high because developers have always got what they wanted at the expense of the buyers.

Image result for Bad News from Malaysia

Najib Razak’s Non-Bumiputra Crony

Sixth, when foreign monies are allowed to pour in indiscriminately. When we have too much foreign money going into our real estate and property sector, it is almost certain the locals, including the middle class, would not be able to compete. Probably, the purchasing power of 5% of rich Chinese is bigger than the whole middle class of this country.

Seventh, we have too much “bad news”. It is almost a daily affair for us, hearing of mega deals going wrong. I must say Malaysia is a strong young man but has subjected himself to constant drugging, drinking and smoking. Sooner than later, something must give.

Image result for 1mdb

International Rogues Gallery

This is the essence of lack of confidence being manifested in our country today. I believe the ringgit is suffering not just because foreigners are pulling out. I think many high net worth Malaysians too are hedging to protect themselves.

We owe ourselves the responsibility to look at issues confronting us honestly and objectively. Even if there are external factors affecting inflation, we must still avail ourselves macroeconomic tools to mitigate them.

Have we resolved issues that are likely to restore confidence? Have we reduced the distortions and inefficiency prevailing in the economy? Some have argued that Pakatan Harapan-controlled states, namely Penang and Selangor, are also suffering from high inflation and hence, it is something to be accepted.

I think this is a “political” argument devoid of economic logic and reality. Penang and Selangor are subjected to the same economic and political environment as the rest of the federation. They are not exempted from the effects of bad policies or the erosion of confidence arising from bad policies.

TK Chua is an FMT reader.

 

Trump’s militaristic Foreign Policy


April 22, 2017

Trump’s Militaristic Foreign Policy

by Carl Bilt

http://www.project-syndicate.org

Carl Bildt was Sweden’s foreign minister from 2006 to October 2014 and Prime Minister from 1991 to 1994, when he negotiated Sweden’s EU accession. A renowned international diplomat, he served as EU Special Envoy to the Former Yugoslavia, High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, UN Special Envoy to the Balkans, and Co-Chairman of the Dayton Peace Conference. He is Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance and a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Europe.

Image result for Trump's Militaristic Foreign Policy

After a series of foreign-policy U-turns, there is now talk of a “new” Donald Trump who is far more inclined to use military power than the Trump we saw during the 2016 US presidential campaign. That earlier Trump seemed to regard any use of US military force in Syria as pointless and dangerous, and called for the United States to ensconce itself behind new walls.

Now, suddenly, the Trump administration has launched a missile attack on one of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s air bases, hinted at taking military action against North Korea, and dropped the “mother of all bombs” on an Islamic State redoubt in Eastern Afghanistan. All of this was accompanied by tweets from the president himself, declaring that the US will pursue its own solutions to key issues if other countries do not offer to help.

The international community – including China – seemed to understand why the US would strike the Syrian air base from which a hideous chemical-weapons attack was launched. But the Trump administration is still following an “America first” agenda. Having awoken to global realities, the administration is now adjusting its policies, sometimes so abruptly that one might reasonably worry that diplomacy is taking a backseat to bombs and tweets.

That concern is reinforced by the dramatic cuts to the US State Department budget, and to US funding for the United Nations, that Trump has proposed. At the same time, many key positions in the US diplomatic apparatus remain unfilled. Even America’s friends recognize that this is a dangerous trajectory. Bombs can only destroy. To build lasting peace requires compromise and coalition building – in a word, diplomacy.

Image result for Trump's Militaristic Foreign Policy

Is Henry Kissinger doing deals with Donald Trump now that Hillary Clinton out  of the picture? The Butcher of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam is a much sought after Foreign Policy advisor. Trump is a danger to America and the rest of the world. –Din Merican

Another issue that demands diplomacy is North Korea, which is developing nuclear weapons and the intercontinental ballistic weapons needed to deliver them. So far, Trump has tried to pressure China to find a solution, by threatening to take dramatic unilateral action if the Chinese fail to rein in their client. But whether the Trump administration actually has any specific strategy with respect to North Korea, or the means to realize it, remains unclear.

Beyond North Korea, the UN recently warned that the ongoing conflict in Yemen, which rarely makes headlines, is “rapidly pushing the country toward social, economic, and institutional collapse.” The humanitarian situation is already dire for 60% of Yemen’s 30 million inhabitants: an estimated seven million people could be close to famine; and almost 500,000 children are at risk of severe malnutrition.

The war between Yemeni President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi’s Saudi-backed government and former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s rebel Houthi coalition has been raging for years, with no military breakthrough in sight. Former US President Barack Obama’s administration made repeated but futile efforts to broker a ceasefire; but it also reluctantly supported Saudi Arabia’s air campaign by supplying bombs. Trump appears set to provide such support far more eagerly.

One simplistic explanation for the Yemen conflict is that it was engineered by Iran. According to this view, US and Saudi intervention is meant to stymie the Islamic Republic’s geopolitical ambitions. And now that Trump has tacitly accepted the Iran nuclear deal, some of his advisers believe that it is necessary to apply pressure on Iran from elsewhere. As a result, US raids and sorties in Yemen have become more frequent in recent months.

But, in reality, Iran’s support for the Houthis is often exaggerated. And Iran, for its part, probably welcomes a scenario in which the US and Saudi Arabia are bogged down in the Yemen quagmire.

Image result for Trump's Militaristic Foreign Policy

After al-Qaeda in Yemen?

 Another possible justification for US engagement in Yemen is that al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has found a foothold there. But AQAP thrives in an environment of destruction and despair, so there is little that can be done about the group so long as Yemen is being ripped apart by war.

Even as the UN issues stark warnings about an impending catastrophe in Yemen, the Saudi-led coalition is preparing an offensive to capture the coastline around the port of Hodeida – a move that the International Crisis Group has warned would aggravate Yemen’s humanitarian crisis.

Rather than stepping up the fight, the US should be pursuing further diplomacy and humanitarian-aid efforts. Indeed, the latter go hand in hand with the former. And, after all, it was Hadi and the Saudis who rejected the UN’s last attempt to broker a ceasefire.

To resolve the conflict, the rebels and the government need to re-engage immediately with the UN Special Envoy for Yemen, who has furnished a roadmap for talks. In addition, the UN Security Council should do its part to support a political solution, by adopting a long-overdue resolution demanding that both sides agree to an immediate ceasefire, grant access to humanitarian aid, and return to the negotiating table.

Image result for Showdown in Yemen

A Yemeni Shite Rebel

Diplomacy will require that all parties compromise. No one – except, perhaps, Iran – has anything to gain from further escalation. If Yemen’s humanitarian catastrophe leads to a total collapse, millions of desperate people might flee the country, enabling AQAP and other extremist organizations to profit from disorder and despair.

America’s re-engagement with the world should be welcomed, but not if the Trump administration continues to view conflicts solely through a military lens. Yes, fighting is sometimes necessary; but diplomacy always is. Nowhere is this more obvious than in places like Yemen. The complete collapse of yet another country is the last thing the world – including Trump – needs.

Malaysia: Vision 2020 on Track? Nah, Bangsa Melayu, Not Bangsa Malaysia


April 21, 2017

Malaysia: Vision 2020 on Track? Nah, Bangsa Melayu, Not Bangsa Malaysia

by Wan Saiful Wan Jan

http://www.thestar.com.my

IT is sometimes disheartening to see the spat between Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Nevertheless, when a sitting Prime Minister is attacked, regardless by whom, of course he would react. What we see today is unavoidable.

 

There are some instances that require us to put aside our feelings about the spat. Vision 2020 is one of them. Despite the spat, Vision 2020 remains our national agenda.

Najib himself has not dismissed Vision 2020. Just a few months ago, Najib was quoted saying, “A lot of people asked about Vision 2020. The Government has put in place numerous programmes and the framework for us to achieve what we have aimed for. This includes the 11th Malaysia Plan and National Transformation Policy, aimed at ensuring that our country attains developed nation status in the year 2020. There is no issue about this and I want to stress that we are working according to schedule.”

Vision 2020 sets nine challenges. They are, in summary: establishing a united Bangsa Malaysia, creating a developed society, fostering a democratic society, establishing an ethical society, establishing a liberal society, establishing a scientific society, establishing a caring society, ensuring economic justice and establishing a competitive economy.

Image result for Tan Sri Nordin SophieMalaysia’s Late Strategic Thinker–One of a Kind

The drafting of the Vision is largely credited to the leadership of the late Tan Sri Noordin Sopiee. He made crucial contributions when he was Director-General of the Institute for Strategic and International Studies.

Today, quite a few people are questioning if we are still on track to achieve Vision 2020. I, too, have serious concerns.

When our research team looked into the issue, those concerns were confirmed. We found that the Economic Planning Unit, under the Prime Minister’s Department, has said that the average income per person has fallen by as much as 15% from US$10,345 in 2013 to US$8,821 in 2016. To be a high-income nation by 2020, our gross national income per capita (GNI) must be US$15,000. This means we must double our GNI in just three years. This is almost impossible.

IDEAS issued a statement on this, in which our Research Director Ali Salman said, “When our GNI was US$10,345 in 2013, the goal was realistic but challenging. Now it will be extremely difficult and with 2020 being just three years away we simply cannot afford to drop further down.”

One of the main reasons behind the drop in GNI is the currency depreciation that we suffered. The main lesson here is that we must stop giving excuses about the depreciation, and fix the situation so that our ringgit does not fall further.

Various people have commented on this matter. There are junior commentators who become childishly emotional, failing to see that critical voices are valuable contributions to push the country forward.

I hesitate to entertain them because there are so many out there who try a bit too hard to seek attention from their paymasters. Hopefully, given time and opportunity, these beginners will mature into adults, and then we can take them more seriously.

Image result for prof jomo kwame sundaram

Malaysia’s Top Economist

It is the comments by more worthy experts that worry me. For example, I asked Professor Dr Jomo Kwame Sundaram what he thinks. Dr Jomo hardly needs an introduction. He has held various posts at the international level, and he is now the holder of the Tun Hussein Onn Chair at none other than ISIS.

I asked Dr Jomo if he thinks we are en route to creating a united Malaysia and a robust economy by 2020. Let me quote him directly here. On creating a united Malaysia, Dr Jomo said we are “off track because of the ethno-populist nature of the Barisan Nasional and its peninsular (and Sabahan) component parties”.

On creating a robust economy, he said we are “off track as we grossly understate the denominator. We pretend we have one or two million migrant workers although the minister says 6.7 million”.

He added that the recent depreciation of the ringgit by one third, which was not helped by the 1MDB scandal, has greatly diminished the numerator as well.

Image result for Malaysia's Vision 2020

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Impressive Infrastructure but at the expense of Quality Education and Human Resource.–Corruption at an all time high, thank you, Mr. Prime Minister Najib Razak

Image result for poverty in Kuala Lumpur

And this in Kuala Lumpur too: Crammed into a one-room flat at a people’s housing project in Sentul, Kuala Lumpur, Abdol Wahab Musa’s family of 16 offer a glimpse of how the urban poor in the capital city make ends meet.–http://egagah.blogspot.com

Image result for poverty in Kuala Lumpur

We do have some big challenges that need resolving. We should conduct open conversations about this. From my experience, there are many people in government who welcome critical comments positively. We should all ramp up efforts to stop the country from getting even more off track, and everyone should contribute ideas where they can.

For starters, I think it would be helpful if the Government ensures that we are consistent when introducing or implementing policies affecting businesses. The Government has said they want the private sector to be the engine of growth.

Thus, hurdles preventing them from becoming the engine of growth should be removed. Otherwise businesses will never be able to play their role to help us make the economic leap by 2020.

Wan Saiful Wan Jan is chief executive of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (www.ideas.org.my). The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.

Read more at http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/thinking-liberally/2017/04/11/are-we-achieving-vision-2020-with-three-years-to-go-there-are-some-major-challenges-ahead-if-we-are/#PFmBckJGaqXo3vgZ.99


April 21, 2017

 

Criticism of Beijing’s North Korea Policy ComesFrom Unlikely Place: China

by  Chris Buckley
Image result for North Korea and China

BEIJING — When China’s best-known historian of the Korean War, Shen Zhihua, recently laid out his views on North Korea, astonishment rippled through the audience. China, he said with a bluntness that is rare here, had fundamentally botched its policy on the divided Korean Peninsula.

China’s bond with North Korea’s Communist leaders formed even before Mao Zedong’s decision in 1950 to send People’s Liberation Army soldiers to fight alongside them in the Korean War. Mao famously said the two sides were “as close as lips and teeth.”

But China should abandon the stale myths of fraternity that have propped up its support for North Korea and turn to South Korea, Mr. Shen said at a university lecture last month in Dalian, a northeastern Chinese port city.

“Judging by the current situation, North Korea is China’s latent enemy and South Korea could be China’s friend,” Mr. Shen said, according to a transcript he published online. “We must see clearly that China and North Korea are no longer brothers in arms, and in the short term there’s no possibility of an improvement in Chinese-North Korean relations.” READ ON:

 

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/world/asia/china-north-korea-war.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com