Left Flank

Kevin Drum argues that his first reaction to the Baker-Christopher war powers reform plan was «...that no one in either party would want to touch it with a ten foot pole.» I had a similar reaction, but because all that talk about professional staff for each branch would require a small yet notable shift of power from elected officials to civil servants. I suspect the the canard about limited government by elected officials will undue this reform, not the whiff of bipartisanship.

Matt Eckel also has a thoughtful, more philosophical essay critical of the war powers proposal, and concludes that the problem will be «the nature of war and republican government.»

Congress, in the end, will be no better a judge of the wisdom of going to war than the people who elect it. The body that will be the best check against an overreaching executive will never be Congress, whatever legislative reforms it may pass. Ultimately, the responsibility for judging the prudence of major military action lies with the media, and with American civil society at large. It is our job as citizens to pick apart the case made for war, deconstructing its logic, prodding its flaws, and ensuring that no wiser course of action exists. If we continue to abdicate that responsibility to our Congress and our president - whoever may fill those roles - then we will no doubt continue to suffer for our indolence.

My opinion about the war powers reform plan is summed up in one name: Diocletian. Is there an American around by that name?

I guess I should just get used to reading the progressive perspective, on China, but on all aspects of foreign policy, since Senator Clinton is one of them.

Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that China will, decades from now, have both the capability and intent to confront us directly, and we must stay well prepared for that possibility. But we need China's help today to confront forces of destruction. We rely on China to stomp out outbreaks of avian flu and other nasty diseases before they spread here. U.S. inspectors are in three Chinese ports to help screen shipping containers for smuggled radioactive devices headed for our shores. Without Beijing's deep engagement, North Korea will not give up its nuclear weapons. And we are never going to avoid a catastrophic climate crisis without China on board.

Rather than preparing for a military confrontation with a big state — something we know how to do — America has to do something unfamiliar and even more difficult — leverage China and the other «pivotal powers» of the world, India, Russia, the EU and Japan, into working hard to solve common threats we all face: terrorism, pandemic disease, failed states, nuclear proliferation and climate change. Terrorists want to kill us today and could. The Chinese do not want to and can't.

But for America to thrive in a world with more big powers, we also have to reinvest in American strength at home. If we don't want US companies to outsource to China and India, we need to develop a healthcare system that delivers excellent care but also controls costs. And if we want our workers to cope with transition instead of rooting for protectionism, we need to provide them not just with retraining, but with a cushion to help them bounce back, in initiatives like wage insurance and universal 401(k)s. And if we want to keep innovation happening here even as more discovery happens overseas, we need to do a better job of growing scientists. Finally, if we want China and India to respond to the specter of the climate crisis, we need to move ourselves to a low carbon economy.

PRC's deep engagement in DPRK is exactly the sort of diplomacy I fear. Joseph Nye is also perceptive enough to recognize how Taiwan fits into the relationship between the PRC and US. Are progressives still fooled by the aura of a communist government, or is it just the sheer girth of its shadow across the Pacific Ocean?

Arthur Waldron has some concerns about a future Democratic administration's foreign policy. Well, to be precise, it's his Japanese friends, who are quite happy Hillary Clinton lost in Iowa.

These geographical, economic, and political facts mean that in Asia the most important relationship for Washington must be with Japan. Lip service is regularly paid to this concept. In reality, however, as Mrs. Clinton's essay demonstrates, Washington gives relatively low priority to consultation with Japan and attention to Japanese issues, particularly when compared to China.

Hillary mentions Japan only once, near the end of her piece, observing: «We must find additional ways for Australia, India, Japan, and the United States to cooperate on issues of mutual concern, including combating terrorism, cooperating on global climate control, protecting global energy supplies, and deepening global economic development.» That is all.

So my Japanese friends may be forgiven if they feel some relief at the primary defeat of a candidate who so conspicuously ignored their country. But they will continue to worry (as I will too) for Hillary's views are sadly typical of elite American foreign policy thinking today.

Will someone else be better? That's far from clear. A quick Google search of keywords «Barack Obama» and «Japan» suggested that, on this issue, Iowa's winner has spoken out so far only about the superior gas mileages of Japanese made automobiles.

I would ask readers to help allay my fears about a Democratic administration's Asia foreign policy.

While in its dealings with North Korea the government is sticking firmly to the basic diplomatic stance of «dialogue and pressure» that was crafted by former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and maintained by the Abe administration, the fact that Komura mentioned a possible definition of «progress,» and suggested that North Korea might receive «rewards» even if not all of the abductees are returned, are signs of a foreign policy shift.

(...)

As North Korea is expected to soon declare its nuclear weapons programs, Japanese government officials have stepped up their calls for warmer ties with North Korea, pointing out that when Pyongyang completes its declaration of its nuclear programs, Washington likely will remove North Korea from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, and that under such a scenario, Japan would be isolated in the six-party talks on North Korea's denuclearization.

It seems on the DPRK, the Fukuda administration can take care of itself, and doesn't need the American ambassador's help.