20 January 2009

THE JOONGANG ILBO JUDGES VITIT MUNTARBHORN’S LEGACY rather harshly in this article, I’d say. While I agree that the situation has gotten worse, I’ve always gotten the impression that Muntarbhorn did the best he could, given the limited backing he seems to have had from his boss, Ban Ki Moon, to confront the Chinese. But of course, it would be too much to ask of a South Korean newspaper to render an honest criticism of Ban’s repeated and woeful betrayal of the North Korean people.

SUCCESSION RUMOR CENTRAL: Open News attempts to sort out the conflicting reports about Kim Jong Eun’s recent birthday, and what it really meant. I’m going with “very little.”

WHO HOLDS POWER in North Korea is partially a function of who controls the personnel files, as Open News explains. This was also the key to Himmler’s power within the Nazi regime, although it wasn’t enough to secure absolute power.

AN EXCELLENT BACKGROUNDER HERE on what Bangkok taught us about North Korea’s global weapons trade.

IF YOU HAVEN’T SEEN the Washington Post’s report on the Chinese cyber-espionage that led to the Google controversy, it’s pretty shocking stuff.

THE WORD OF THE DECADE, at least for China, is “fanqiang.”

OFF-TOPIC: OK, I LIKE FELLOW ARMY JAG SCOTT BROWN and I like the idea that in America, the ruling party can’t take even the “safest” seat for granted. His win Massachusetts is a big defeat for Democrats, but I feel some unease by those who overinterpret this as a victory for Republicans — which it only really was by default. Republicans are ebullient about stealing Ted Kennedy’s seat (I know, I know) in the most famously liberal state in America, but I question any theory that Brown won because voters have turned conservative. Yes, voters nationwide may agree with Brown that in extreme cases, waterboarding terrorists may be justifiable and necessary to save innocent life, but it strains credibility to suggest that this issue played a significant role in Brown’s victory. This was a vote for rejectionism of excessive spending and a health care bill no one likes. More fundamentally, it was a vote for divided government, checks, and balances — a dialing back of 2008, when the voters accidentally gave the Democrats a supermajority. When American voters get the idea that one party is overreaching, overinterpreting, and running unchecked, they tend to impose checks. Scott Brown won by running against the arrogance of the Democratic establishment. Will he still have those votes three years from now? He seems very affable and competent, and that will go far, but it will help more if the Democrats are still in the majority and led by someone as unappealing as Harry Reid.