Japan confirms Chinese, S. Korean withdrawals from multinational naval exercisesChina and South Korea have canceled participation in a multinational naval security exercise, the Japan Coast Guard said Sunday. The drills began Saturday with Japan and three other participants—the United States, Canada and Russia—a Coast Guard official said on condition of anonymity citing protocol.
Although Japanese officials refused to give specific reason for the cancellation, South Korea said it was because of concerns that part of the exercises may upset North Korea, whose nuclear ambitions are major regional concerns. One of the exercise scenarios is a mock chase of a suspicious ship from Shanghai to Vladivostok, Russia, over the East China Sea and Sea of Japan near North Korea.
The maneuvers aim to improve ship-chasing skills, the relay of information among participatory nations, as well as onsite inspections of suspected crime-linked vessels, he said.
Initially, the scenario of the first drill called the suspicious ship as that of “a country suspected of exporting weapons of mass destruction.” Japan later revised the ship’s description as “suspected of smuggling goods and people.” South Korea said it asked Japan to change the ship’s description. China had no immediate comment on the drill.
The official also denied that Japan’s ever-worsening relations with China and South Korea played a role in the cancellation. To which I can only say, hard to believe.

Comments to this entry
Catholicgauze
May 29, 2006
4:00 am
sun bin
May 29, 2006
5:19 am
they would not even have agreed to participate from the outset?
so maybe it is really about the NK sensitivity?
--anyway, this is only my speculation.
Dan tdaxp
May 29, 2006
5:25 am
But we shouldn't pretend that the ROK is an ally of ours, or that it can now be considered to fall fully within the democratic peace.
purpleslog
May 29, 2006
6:00 am
It does look by exiting the exercise, ROK is signalling to the North that they are distancing themselves from Japan and the USA.
They also might be saying "Key North Korea, aim those nuke/missles at Japan & the USA...they are your real future problem". They know the USA will have to settle the issue if nukes are used. They might hope to sit out any conflict until the North is hurt in a bad way.
Btw, does the ROK still have troops in Iraq?
Curzon
May 29, 2006
6:11 am
Very old news.
snow
May 29, 2006
7:32 am
Of course, the SK leadership is afraid of the US' more hardline (if mostly ignoring NK can be called hardline) approach and is leaning to a very very soft line (ie. appeasement) to keep the status quo and to keep war or any other sign of instability at bay.
Unfortunately, they are being extremely short-sighted (socialist anti-Americans as the present leadership is). In the short term, appeasement is keeping the Nork leadership at bay (and alive), but in the longer run, it seems to be severely damaging the alliance with the US. If they go too far and eventually get rid of the US umbrella (push or shove), they will soon find themselves being pushed around and ignored by China in far more grievous ways than ever happened with the US.
Dan tdaxp
May 29, 2006
8:35 am
Is the ROK government socialist? This is an honest question. To what extent are they left-wing economically, as opposed to strategically?
Darin
May 29, 2006
8:59 am
But for China... Sure it may have been about keeping good relations with N. Korea, but then why would they have joined in the first place? (Which can be said about S. Korea too -- I'm guessing that some one who actually isn't blind to the truth that N. Korea is the greatest enemy to S. Korea made the initial decition before others could get involved.) I'm sure I'll get some hate for this one, but, it's not too far fetched to think that China said they'd participate for the sole purpose of canceling last minitue to cause trouble. It's not like they haven't scheduled high level meatings before only to not show up and then tell Japan she was stupid for actually believeing they would meet.
Darin
May 29, 2006
9:02 am
This really wasn't a smart move on China or S. Korea's part I don't think. What's the lesson Japan learned from this? You can't trust China or S. Korea. For all the bad things China and Korea will say about the right-wing in Japan (which I say is wa~y to small to be even considered) they sure do a good job of making their arguments for need of a real military much more reasonable.
snow
May 29, 2006
10:09 am
Dan tdaxp, I think the ruling party has a good number of socialist-leaning members, but these have been balanced by a number of pragmatists in the party. The result has been mostly a series of lame tinkering with economic policies and few 'big' things. The party has seemed afraid to do too much, for fear that they will derail the economic train that has been sputtering for a few years. I think it has been more out of fear and incompetence that they haven't done too much damage economically, though there are a good number in the party who would love to implement a wide range of socialistic policies.
A number of policies have been broached over the last few years, but almost all have failed to materialize. For example, there was talk of putting private schools under the control of the Ministry of Education, there have been real moves to control the housing market (ineffectual and somewhat damaging), talk of raising taxes, definite action on reducing the military, a number of anti-foreigner actions (an investigation of Lone Star for making 'too much' profit) and various other smaller, but socialistic policies.
Fortunately, incompetence and meekness and some pragmatism has kept them from doing too much damage, and to be fair, they have tried to bring in some measures that support economic activity, though again, these attempts were mostly fairly small and lame. Another smaller party, the Democratic Labor Party is a strongly socialistic, anti-American party that has leaked several 'secret' documents so as to hit the US. Basically, I think the ruling party, though most members hold socialist ideals, were too divided, too incompetent and too afraid of screwing up really badly, as socialists are wont to do, to have done anything big to damage the economy.
Kirk H. Sowell
May 29, 2006
12:36 pm
China is another matter. There seems to be a good China/bad China duality here (unless you are a protectionist, in which China is all bad). Economically what they are doing is good and of extreme importance to the global economy, not to mention hundreds of millions of poor Chinese. But they prop up the regime in Pyongyang and do things which make its neighbors rightly worried about a potential renewed imperial expansion in southeast Asia. Japan actually - unless they have stopped this recently - gives a lot of aid to China, and given the increases in their defense spending I think that should stop. Japan has enough uranium on hand, plus technological prowess, to go nuclear relatively quickly. This is all the more reason it is important for the United States to maintain its strong military presence in east Asia. Without it, the nuclear arms race would surely follow.
NeonCat
May 29, 2006
8:15 pm
In this theory, the SKs are merely subsidizing a realtively cheap defense for their nation, putting a massive, fanatical, entrenched army between them and their most (traditionally) aggressive neighbor.
The trouble with such a mercenary approach, of course, is that the NKs could get too hungry, and decide to head south themselves. Then, if the US is unable or unwilling to come to the aid of the South, China may "be forced" to come in to restore order.
Zorobabel
May 29, 2006
9:37 pm
snow
May 30, 2006
5:01 am
Zorobabel, you mean Japan's, right? SK's current government is fairly left-leaning.
sun bin
May 30, 2006
5:03 am
I agree.
"This is what I have been saying for a while. :)":http://sun-bin.blogspot.com/2005/09/two-birds-with-one-stone-how-to-solve.html#backlinks
it is safer for the world is US controls Japan's nukes.
snow
May 30, 2006
6:32 pm
Thanks Kirk for your suggestion. Unfortunately, I don't really know alot about the political situation, except in a general way, having picked things up over the years. In a nutshell, though, the current administration sqeaked in a 3 way split back in 2003, in which one of the leaders of a third party (?) threw his lot behind Roh, allowing him to get in with something like 51% of the vote.
Something happened later Roh and his cohorts transformed the party into the Uri Party to distance themselves from the old MDP of Kim Dae Jung's party (I can't quite remember exactly the rationale for this, but it might have been due to a thumping at the polls a year after getting in). Roh's party has many leftists, but at least has a decent number of relatively pragmatic members who have at least pushed for easing regulations on foreign direct investment, the FTA with the US, the stationing of troops in Iraq, and some measures aimed at opening Korea to the outside world.
The party would probably be more correctly identified as a center-left one, whereas the Democratic Labor Party is much further left and has been the source of several leaks of sensitive documents relating to the US military. Members of this party regularly join with activist groups to protest against the US. This party has about 10% support going into today's election. It appears that Roh's party is heading for a wipe-out (hopefully).
The leaders are the GNP, which is a party led by the daughter of former dictator Park Chung Hee, who was assassinated in 1979 (both her parents died in assassination attempts). She could very well end up as Pres in the next general election in 2007. Her party is tainted as being the party that supported all of the previous military governments. It has tried to recast itself as a party reborn as a party of freedom-loving conservatives, but few people are fooled by this. It is a party of conservatives, who generally seem to appreciate the US, but it is certainly not the same kind of party as the Republicans or the Conservatives in Canada. The party has a much more 'sinister' background and is rooted in Korea's strong Confucian tradition. These are definitely not social liberals, though Park Geun Hye is a relatively appealing person, IMHO (she's pretty good-looking for a woman in her 50's). But I can't say I know much about what her policies are. The party is quite solidly supportive of the chaebol, or family-run conglomerates, which still control the economy to a large degree, so it would be misleading to say that this party is a true free market capitalist party. I think it could be said that they are more a crony capitalist party, probably willing to engage in some protectionism to help their friends who run all the largest Korean corporations.
There is a fourth party, which I can't remember the name of. I beleive they are closest to what people in the west might see as being a new right/conservative/liberal party. They have only about 4% support and I don't think they have any members in government at this point. They formed in reaction to the incompetent leftist economic policies of Roh's government and out of a need to distance themselves from the corrupt image of the GNP. Personally, I think I would be most partial to this party, though they have little hope of doing much in today's election.
The GNP is expected to win quite handily, as Roh's bumbling ways have led to extremely low poll numbers. Although Roh has sent troops to Iraq and inititated steps towards an FTA with the US, these are out-of-step with the party's core constituency. His party has been mediocre at best when it comes to economics, and I'd give them a D on this one, because they've at least made some attempts (maybe only lip service) to the idea of opening Korea up more. But their actions speak louder than words to show off their true socialistic beliefs such as in their attempts to regulate and tax the real estate markets while attacking rich people in particular areas, attacks on foreign fund operators who have made hefty profits, attempts to control all schools big and small, measures to restrict the press, etc. All in all, incompetent in economics, pathetic in diplomacy (milked anti-Americanism, anti-Japanese sentiment, anti-Chinese sentiment) and I really can't think of anything that they have accomplished since 2002. They've attempted to do a few things, which failed miserably (such as move the capital out of Seoul to somewhere in the boonies). If they pass an FTA (I doubt it'll go through), it will be the only thing I can think of that this government actually accomplished (unless one agrees with the pathetic 'sunshine policy' which amounts to little more than appeasement of North Korea). For the life of me, I can't think of anything else they've done, besides send troops to Iraq, that I thought was worthwhile.
Sorry for the rambling. I am certainly no expert by any stretch. Others feel free to correct my mistakes and add to my limited knowledge.
Jing
May 30, 2006
10:48 pm
First thing's first, miniaturization. It is one thing to simply produce a nuclear bomb, it takes more effort to reduce it in size to a deliverable form. Since Japan has no strategic bombers that I am aware of, this will require that Japan use missiles (something that they also do not possess at present) which will have a greater payload limitation.
Second factor, a nuclear weapon is composed of many subassemblies, all of them critical, such as the fuse of the weapon. Japan has no experience designing or testing such a device and they must design, test, and refine this ability repeatedly in order to verify a reliable product. Not to mention other critical components such as guidance systems, counter-measures, etc.
Third factor and one that relates to the first, Japan has no ability to deliver such a weapon at present besides loading it up in a C-130 and doing a kamikaze attack. However, since a C-130 is unlikely to survive an intact air defense system, Japan needs a ballistic missile to delivery the weapon. It will take several years to design and develop a new delivery vehicle. Civilian launch vehicles are not a viable alternative, to the contrary of arm chair strategists. Japan has only 1 launch site and it takes weeks to prepare a civilian rocket for launch. Making it EXTREMELY vulnerable as a launch can be pre-opted by a mobile srbm or cruise missile within minutes.
Japan can detonate a nuclear explosive within a few month. Japan is also likely to be able to create a first generation gravity bomb akin to Fat Man or Little Boy within the space of a year. To create a robust and reliable nuclear deterrant system will require significantly more time, years if not a decade or more and considerable financial investment.
The established nuclear powers have spent trillions of dollars and detonated several hundred megatons worth of bombs over a span of 5 decades to arrive at where they are. Japan can't replicate that sort of first hand knowledge and experience overnight no matter how many fancy consumer electric gadgets they make, the technology involved is apples and oranges.