議論の場 | RG21

China Takes A Leading Role in Renewable Energy

by David Parmer/Tokyo

“Greenpeace estimates that China installed an average of more than one wind turbine every hour of every day in 2015, and covered the equivalent of one soccer field every hour with solar panels.” (NY Times, 5 Jan 2017)

As the US moves backward on environmental protection and withdraws from the Paris Agreement on climate change, China steps forward and takes world leadership. China understands that renewable energy is not the wave of the future, but the wave of now.

The numbers around this topic are not only telling, they are stunning. For example, Deutsche Welle reported on its website that not only was there a steady 3-year decline in the use of coal in China, there was also an 81% increase in solar electricity generation capacity and a 13.2 % increase in wind generation. The government has pledged to spend $360 billion on solar and wind development going forward.

China has promised to hit a number of ambitious environmental goals by 2030, however, the Shanghai Daily reported on 24 April 2017 that these goals might be met as early as 2025.

As renewables becomes cheaper than fossil fuel China will continue to enhance its energy security and reduce its dependence on fossil fuels. Chinese companies will not only become world players, but also come to dominate the global renewable energy industry.

After the June 1 announcement that the US would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, China began to look at partnering with local US governments. The first discussions were held in Beijing with California governor Jerry Brown.

While overall the situation internationally and domestically is positive, the transition to renewables for China comes with a few glitches. One such issue is solar curtailment; energy being generated but not being taken up by the grid. The oversupply of renewably-generated electricity must vie with traditional coal-generated electricity, and sometimes it loses out. Also, this coal-generated energy is not easy to phase out, and probably never will be. Many plants will use a higher grade, cleaner burning coal in the future.

From now on when there is any discussion at all about the production, sale and use of renewable energy, the mention of China and Chinese companies will be a matter of course.

What do you think? Log in and give us your thoughts about this.

Photo: Windmills in Xinjiang by Chris Lim via flickr

By the Light of the Moon — Which way will South Korea turn?

By Bill Lee

How can countries persuade other countries to do what they want? The recent election in South Korea of Moon Jae-in as president will provide an interesting case study to answer that question. An activist-lawyer, Moon follows in the line of South Korea’s two past progressive presidents, Kim Tae-chung and Roh Moo-hyun. Although a liberal, Moon will likely find it difficult to reverse many of the policies of the last decade of South Korea’s conservative governance and promote progressive-like social welfare programs because of various constraints on him. For one, Moon won only a little over 42 percent of the vote, hardly an overwhelming vote of bedrock support. Moreover, according to South Korean law, he cannot even be certain of his Cabinet nominations since they must be approved by the national legislature.

First, Japan is keenly interested in which way Moon will turn in Japan-ROK relations. The previous progressive presidents, Kim Tae-chung and Roh Moo-hyun, took different stances towards Tokyo. Kim was conciliatory, willing to partially shelve the history problem; indeed, he proposed the joint study by both countries into the reading of their past history. Roh was more hardline, particularly regarding the sex-slave problem. The question is which tack Moon will take. Moon has called for a renegotiation of the sex-slave agreement between Seoul and Tokyo, but will he stick to that line? His position, now that he is president, is fluid, and it will be interesting to see how Tokyo can persuade him to keep the agreement and defuse the situation.

China will naturally also have its sights set on the Moon administration. The big issue is the land-based missile defense THAAD system, whose deployment in South Korea has enraged Beijing. China sees THAAD not as a deterrence against North Korea but as a threat to its own missile launch capability since its X-band radars could peer 2,000 kilometers into China. Beijing reacted by laying unofficial sanctions on South Korean goods and companies, calling for boycotts of South Korean products and tours to South Korea by Chinese citizens. Thus China has levied sanctions on both North and South Korea. Xi Jinping clearly dislikes Kim Jong Un. Could Pyongyang end up believing that it needs its nuclear arsenal not for defense against the United States but against China? Is that too farfetched? Moreover, with China’s sanctions and anger over the THAAD deployment, could Seoul actually begin to see THAAD as a deterrence not against North Korea but against China? In other words, could this be a trigger for Korean unification?

Kan Kimura, a professor at Kobe University and an expert on Korean Peninsular affairs, has pointed out in various articles that before activists of Moon Jae-in’s generation were “leftists,” they were “ethno-nationalists” who wanted to unify the two Koreas. Moon is reportedly keen to restart dialogue with Pyongyang. Kim Tae-chung of course launched the conciliatory Sunshine Policy towards North Korea. Two envoys that Moon sent to Japan and China are both former Kim Tae-chung associates. Will Moon’s “ethno-nationalist” blood heat up or at least soak in more sunshine?

How will China try to persuade South Korea to drop THAAD, by heavy-handed pressure and sanctions, or more diplomatic means? The future direction of the Korean Peninsula could depend on it.

“High Crimes and Misdemeanors”

David Parmer/Tokyo

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

(Constitution of the United States, Article Two, Section Four. )

Donald Trump has been president for just over 120 days, and already the “I” word is being bandied about. Impeachment–the removal of elected and appointed officials for a variety of infringements including the very poetic “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The process of impeachment is straightforward: the House of Representatives issues an indictment called Articles of Impeachment. An investigation is held, and upon the completion a vote is taken as to whether the matter is to be forwarded to the Senate. Senators must vote by a 2/3 majority to impeach and remove the official from office. Only two sitting presidents (Andrew Johnson 1868, Bill Clinton 1998) have been impeached, but neither was removed from office.

Could Donald Trump be impeached at this time? It seems unlikely. Not “very” unlikely, but unlikely. However, the case is building against him. Now there are three major issues that would be considered as grounds to start impeachment proceedings. These include:

Trump’s conflict of interest by not divesting or disclosing his overseas business connections
The sharing of classified information with Russia’s ambassador and foreign minister
The request to former FBI director James Comey to halt the investigation into the Trump campaign’s connection to Russia
The firing of Director Comey to terminate his investigation into the Trump campaign

While the above items may not be enough to get Mr. Trump impeached now, they are serious allegations that may eventually induce Republicans in the House and Senate to vote for Trump’s impeachment. The tipping point has not been reached. No, not yet. But Mr. Trump has proved time and time again that he is his own worst enemy, so we might yet see the US congress voting on Trump’s removal.

Photo: Ian Koski via flickr

Getting smart

By Bill Lee

Tensions have been ratcheted up to a near fever pitch in East Asia, to the point where Tokyo’s biggest subway company temporarily stopped its trains as a panicked precaution when North Korea launched another missile. But China has proposed a reasonable — though familiar — proposal for ending the crisis, and even President Donald Trump has done his part to move the situation in the right direction.

China has put forth its “suspension-for-suspension” proposal and “dual-track” approach. The “suspension-for-suspension” idea calls for North Korea to halt its nuclear and missile programs in exchange for the suspension of US-ROK joint military exercises, or vice-versa. Then the United States and North Korea work toward the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and a peace treaty in parallel. The plan seems to be the only real way to proceed. North Korea of course hates the joint military exercises right on the other side of their border. It is not difficult to see why. With memories of B-52s flattening all of its cities in the Korean War, Koreans are naturally loathe to see demonstrations of short-range attack capabilities aimed at them and still-flying B-52s, B-1 Lancer bombers, B-2 stealth strategic bombers, and F-35 attack fighters tearing around in nearby skies, not to mention hearing that the Navy Seal Team 6, which took out Osama bin Laden, and a Delta Force squadron are also participating in the military exercises, presumably as a precursor to a “decapitation” operation on Pyongyang. Nothing could possibly make North Korea want to develop its nuclear arsenal more to defend itself as these warm-ups on its border for an invasion.

What North Korea has repeatedly said is that it wants assurances of its security through a peace treaty with the United States ending the Korean War. And that is where Donald Trump has blundered in. Following up on his campaign willingness to share a “hamburger” with Kim Jong Un, Trump said at the end of April that he would be “honored” to meet the young North Korean leader. Liberals suffering from the Trump Derangement Syndrome see everything that Trump does or says is horrible and reject anything coming from the White House. But meeting directly with Kim Jong Un with the lure of a peace treaty in the offing is the one action that would give the young dictator the prestige and assurances to convince him to stand down his nuclear program.

Of course, there are numerous counterarguments against the Chinese dual-track approach and suspension-for-suspension proposal. The American military says that the military exercises are necessary to prepare for a contingency on the Korean Peninsula, but that is nonsense. Naturally, it would be better for the military forces to practice together as close as possible to North Korea, but it is not essential. With the computerization of flight and ground combat operations now, they could practice literally anywhere with good effect. And the objection to meeting directly with Kim Jong Un because it would reward him for “bad behavior” can be countered by looking at America’s own behavior towards North Korea over the years. And the argument that Kim could not be trusted to live up to an agreement assumes that no deal could ever be struck with North Korea. Imagine this: a state dinner for Kim Jong Un at the White House. Peace.

Is Trump a political genius?

By Bill Lee

“The only time I’ve ever seen China worried is when they’re not sure what the US is going to do,” Victor Cha, a former advisor on Asian affairs in the G.W. Bush administration, was quoted as saying in a recent New York Times article. President Trump’s “unpredictability” is causing consternation in capitals around the world. Some view Trump’s impulsiveness as a clever tactic to keep adversaries (and friends) off guard and give him leverage. Perhaps. But based on his performance so far, some simple rules have emerged for not being fooled by Trump and for dealing with him.

First, as has been repeatedly pointed out, Trump is a master of distraction, a political genius at it. Just look at the recent missile strike on the Shayrat Airfield in Syria. With a simple order, Trump managed to:

demonstrate that the US is not reluctant to use military force,
show he is a person who cares about babies,
distract attention from a tough US-China summit,
give Xi Jinping a dramatic, firsthand look at the apparatus of American power and send him a message that the US could bypass China and attack North Korea,
turn attention away from the US Congressional investigations into Trump-Russia ties.

Should we assume that Trump’s sleight-of-hand distractions are the result of conscious calculations or random, bull-in-the-china-shop impulsiveness? I believe the former. Trump’s absurd claim that Barack Obama had him wiretapped at least shifted attention away from the Russia investigations.

Then here are some simple rules for dealing with Trump:

Don’t fall for distractions; look for the problem he is trying to evade.
Never believe his hyperbolic descriptions. Trump is fond of describing things as “disastrous,” “the worst ever,” “unbelievable,” etc. When Trump said he had developed an “outstanding” relationship with Xi Jinping, it means the two can be in the same room together without coming to blows.
Don’t believe that Trump worries about contradictions (“I support nuclear non-proliferation and it’s OK for Japan and South Korea to have nukes”), reversals of policies (viz. Syria), or hypocrisy (professions of horror about killed Syrian children but banning refugees from Syria); in other words, don’t believe he will be guided by usual constraints of rationality.
Don’t be afraid to believe Trump will back down (to wit, his quick acceptance of the one-China policy).

If we follow these rules, I believe we will be less likely to be surprised by President Trump and more able to make sense of his words and actions.

Tsai’s Taiwan One Year Later

David Parmer/Tokyo

May 20, 2017 will mark the first anniversary of Tsai Ing-wen’s presidency. It seems that many people’s high hopes for her presidency have not been fulfilled in these first 12 months. Two reasons given for her approval rating in the 30s are the economic stagnation that has not lifted, and disappointment among her more radical DPP supporters who would like to see a tougher stance towards Beijing.

Tsai’s first year was not a complete non-starter. She dealt with Beijing’s pressure on travel and tourism by initiating a New Southern Policy that was aimed at bringing Asian travelers and investors to Taiwan and welcoming new immigrants with revised visa requirements. Tsai also made a bold move by calling President-elect Donald Trump to wish him well. This was the first contact between presidents of both countries since 1979.

A year ago Tsai gave a lukewarm and ambiguous nod to the 1992 Consensus and “one China” policy. While this was not satisfactory in Beijing’s eyes, there was no mention of the “I” word (Independence) in her speech then, or since. In the year that followed her inauguration Tsai visited Central America and tried to shore up support among the ROC’s few diplomatic allies. China, meanwhile, continued to put pressure on international organizations to ban Taiwan participation.

President Tsai’s inauguration speech last May was filled with hope and vision. Her first year has come and gone. While there has been no major crisis, particularly in cross-strait relations, there has been no improvement either. It seems it is easy to envision a new order when one is campaigning, but much more difficult to execute once one is sitting at the presidential desk. (See Donald Trump on this.)

What will President Tsai’s second year bring? Please let us know what you think.

Photo: DPP FaceBook

Person of Interest : U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson

David Parmer/Tokyo

There is an old American saying, “What you see is what you get.” The saying has two meanings: firstly, perception colors belief, and secondly, there is no mystery or hidden meaning to the topic in question. As far as Mr. Rex Wayne Tillerson, 69th Secretary of State of The United States, there seems to be no real mystery. A Republican president has appointed a no-nonsense businessman to head the State Department. Not since George P. Schultz, the Reagan-era secretary of state, has such a powerful CEO and business leader been appointed to the office.

Tillerson is the former Chairman and CEO of the energy conglomerate ExxonMobil. Sixty-five-year-old Tillerson had been with them from the start of his career in 1975. While lifetime employment seems to be a thing of the past in many industries, Tillerson was a one-company man, rising steadily to the top job.

Of particular interest these days is the Secretary’s ties with Russia. Along the way he curated the company’s Russia operations and got to know Vladimir Putin well.

It was reported that in 2014 Tillerson came out against the Russia sanctions over the annexation of Crimea for being an ineffective policy. His personal connection to Putin might have been a deciding factor in Trump’s choice of Tillerson for State, but now with all the heat on the Trump administration for real and alleged ties to the Kremlin, this connection may not shine as brightly.

What you see with Tillerson is what you get: a hard working, successful business executive (whose take-home pays was $40million) from Texas, an engineer and a pragmatist. He embraces the Christian faith, was president of the Boy Scouts of America and keeps his Texas home.

The only question really seems to be how long he will continue to function in the chaotic Trump administration. Critics have noted his absence from key meetings with foreign leaders. Some critics hold that his real loyalties are still with the corporation that he has given his life to.

Will Mr. Tillerson be able to ride out the storm that is the first 100 days of the Trump administration? Will he be able to get his department functioning like a well-oiled machine, or will he wait a decent interval to retire to Texas and plan his next move?

Please let us know what you think about this.

Photo: U.S. Department of State via flickr

“All Options” Mean “None”

By Bill Lee

On his recent trip to Asia, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (apparently known in the State Department as the extinct T. Rex for his phantom existence there) indicated that Trump et al. have run out of patience with the Obama administration’s policy of “strategic patience,” which avoided dialogue with Pyongyang to pressure it to abandon its nuclear arsenal, and that “all options” are now on the table, which presumably includes a preemptive strike against North Korea. The apparent shift in US policy reveals the sheer paucity of the Trump administration’s thinking on North Korea.

It should be noted that the US military formulated a new operations plan, OPLAN 5015, for dealing with North Korea in 2015, during the Obama administration. As far as can be gleaned, the secret plan calls for more aggressive military action against missile and nuclear facilities and the decapitating of the Kim Jong Un regime, including, of course, the Supreme Commander himself. It also plans for a preemptive strike against North Korea. But as has been repeatedly pointed out, North Korea’s missile and nuclear facilities are virtually impossible to locate because they are underground and, in the case of missile launchers, mobile. Even assassinating Kim Jong Un would be very difficult because of his uncertain whereabouts and use of doppelgangers, which had been verifiably used by Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il in volume. Moreover, a preemptive attack would certainly invite a massive artillery barrage on Seoul in retaliation, resulting in immense loss of life.

The only answer is dialogue with Pyongyang; indeed, Donald Trump himself said he would be willing to sit down for a “hamburger” with KJU. It is often (mistakenly) alleged that dialogue never works with North Korea because the regime always reneges on its promises. But that is not always true. Remember the 1994 Agreed Framework. North Korea agreed to freeze its nuclear development in exchange for proliferation-resistant nuclear reactors and 500,000 tons of heavy-fuel oil annually. But it was the US side that almost immediately reneged on the deal — initially the non-supply of the fuel oil — because of the Republican takeover of the US Congress in 1994. Dialogue appears to be the only answer. Who knows? The untethered Trump and the megalomaniacal Kim Jong Un may become soul partners in dialogue.

Photo by Bruce Thomas via Flickr

Please leave a comment.

Sergey Kislyak–Your Favorite Uncle, or Russia’s Real-life Karla?

by David Parmer/Tokyo

Is Russia’s ambassador to the United States a hard-working diplomat serving his country, and whose conduct is beyond reproach, or is he a real-life version of Russia’s top spy and George Smiley’s nemesis, Karla, in the John Le Carre novels? Well, it depends on to whom you listen.

A bit of background. Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak is a career diplomat who has held a variety of postings within Russia’s Foreign Ministry in his 40 year diplomatic career. Besides working in various jobs related to scientific cooperation, he has been ambassador to Belgium, representative to NATO and First Secretary at the Russian Embassy in Washington. Since 2008 he has been the ambassador.

What has brought Kislyak’s name to the fore is his contact with members of the Trump team before and after the election of 2016. His repeated phone conversations with Trump’s short-lived National Security Advisor Michael Flynn cost Flynn his job. Now there is a furor over contacts between not only Attorney General Jeff Sessions, but also other members of the team. Trump’s favorable remarks about Russian President Vladimir Putin have also opened him to charges of being soft on Russia.

Jumping into the fray, CNN has quoted intelligence officials as labeling Kislyak as Russia’s top spy in the US.

The Russians have reacted with anger and distain at these charges. On March 3, CNN reported that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, speaking at a press conference in Moscow said regarding Kislyak and his contacts:

“The ambassadors are appointed in order to maintain relationships,”

“They are maintained by holding meetings, talks and establishing contacts with officials from both executive and legislative branches of power. I can only quote what the media said today – this all looks like a witch hunt.”

Two days later, on March 5, Nicholas Burns, Harvard Professor and former ambassador to NATO who had worked opposite Kislyak, appeared on CNN where he had some hard words about Kislyak and the Russians.

“He is no friend of the United States.”

He described the ambassador as intelligent and professional, but added:

“The Russians are trying to defeat the United State.”

“They don’t wish us well.”

Burns ended by saying the whole problem was caused by Trump’s soft policy on Russia and added that the US does not need Russia to defeat ISIS (Daesh).

So, which hat does Mr. Kislyak wear–diplomat, spy, or both? Please let us know your thoughts on this.

Photo: creative commons via wikipedia

China MOD: No Boots on the Ground in Afghanistan!

China’s Ministry of Defense has categorically denied reports that the Chinese military is patrolling on the Afghanistan side of their border.

Stories in foreign media about Chinese troops and military vehicles cross-border were said to be untrue. The explanation given for the alleged military activity was that joint anti-terrorism drills were taking place.

At a regular press conference on February 23, the MOD spokesperson, Colonel Ren Guoqiang declared:

Question: There have been reports about China’s military forces patrolling inside eastern Afghanistan. Could you please confirm and brief us on relevant details?

Answer18: My colleague has already responded to this question before. According to the information provided by relevant departments, the law-enforcement departments of China and Afghanistan, in accordance with the agreement of strengthening border law enforcement cooperation between the two sides, have been conducting joint law enforcement operations in areas bordering both countries in recent years, in order to jointly prevent and fight against terrorism activities and organized transnational crimes.

I’d like to point out that the report of some foreign media that the Chinese military vehicles entered Afghanistan for patrol is untrue.

Does the MOD explanation makes sense, or could there be another explanation? Please let us know you opinion.

Photo: mod.gov.cn/Li Aiming

Mystery Deepens over Chinese Forces in Afghanistan (Financial Times)