THE COLDEST COLD WAR (1) A Case Study: North Korea

China is a key player in the international arena, and has been for some time. This is not only because it one of five permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and has the second biggest economy on the planet, but also because it is the un-proclaimed leader of the “human-rights depriving world”. Pariah countries like North Korea and Myanmar (Burma) as well as noxious nations like Iran are all closely linked with China and like China have abysmal human rights record. Moreover, Chinas relationship with its other minor partners, the Western nations, led by America, is asymmetrical because they need China. For the very same reasons that make China a world power –its economy, its vote on the UNSC, and its considerable influence in the “human-rights depriving world”. One could argue that China is already the most influential nation in the world.

Regardless it is Chinas paradoxical relationship with the West and parts of the East, that are at the heart of the coldest of cold war’s.

The cold war that we are all familiar with was termed “cold” because it was fought by proxy, i.e. it was never hot between America and the Soviet Union. Instead a form of political passive aggressiveness prevailed, where both sides smiled at each other but attempted to undermine each other at every turn. At the same time there was no ambiguity about who (and why) was behind a given global event. For example, America covertly took the Afghan “freedom fighters” side in their “just” struggle against Soviet expansionism , yet no one doubted who was supplying advance stinger missiles or how mountain fighters knew where the next Soviet convoy was traveling.

The coldest cold war is very different for one simple reason –the passive aggressiveness is rooted in the subconscious. In other words, the two sides in this coldest of cold wars are actively undermining each other but are unwilling to acknowledge that they are in direct opposition.


Why is the reality being ignored?

Because of the paradoxical relationship between the West and China. Unlike the Soviets and the West, the former are economically intertwined -the implications of which are evident here.

In part one we will look at one example, of the coldest cold war. This example with illustrate that their is a "coldest cold war" but the fact that it is a war is being ignored becasue of the nature of the China-West relationship.

A team of civilian and military experts from South Korea, the U.S., Australia, Britain and Sweden, concluded that North Korea was responsible for sinking a South Korean Warship in the Yellow sea near the border between the two Koreas. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during a visit to South Korea, declared that North Korea must pay for its offensive provocation. She also called for an international consensus to condemn and sanction North Korean in the UNSC. As expected, despite the overwhelming evidence, China shied away from openly condemning North Korea, its ally. Essentially shielding it from real international repercussions.

Yet without China's support for further sanctions of North Korea the international community’s efforts will not be enough to stop further provocations, which would likely lead to war. Thus without Chinas intervention war is more likely between the two Koreas.

I would be reticent not to ask why China refuses to act in a way that would prevent a war in its back yard?

To be fair, some China apologists explain that China does not want to back a volatile North Korea into a corner. Ok, but this answer also implies that China was unaware of North Koreas intentions prior to its decision to kill over 50 South Koreans in the worst Navel incident in the latter nations history. This conclusion may be a lot easier to digest then the alternative – China gave its tacit approval.

But are the apologists correct? Is Chinas support for North Korea going back to the Korean war of 1950, and its current economic (and military ?) aid with which North Korea could not survive, not mean that China has a say as to whether North Korea goes to war?! Alternatively, North Korea was sure that its blatant and unprovoked attack on South Korea would not force China to sanction and cut off its vital support for North Korea. How could North Korea have been so sure?

It is difficult to come to any other conclusion other than that China approved North Koreas actions. Which goes back to our original question, why did China not stop North Korea, and why does it not now at least condemn them, so as to do all it can to prevent a war?

In the Soviet era, it would be clear who was behind such ostensibly irresponsible but in reality calculated actions, and America would respond accordingly, pointing publicly to the hidden hand of the Soviets. In this coldest cold war the passive aggressiveness is so deeply imbedded that it is not even acknowledged that this is in fact a passive aggressive event, with roots in China and America.

So why did China do what it did, and why hasn't the West called it as it is?

Put otherwise the reason China supported/supports North Korea is to degrade Americas foot-hold in its neighborhood. Thus South Koreas will feel like its distant ally is unreliable and weak pushing them into the hands of China -as they see that only China can control North Korea. Of course the willfully blind mainstream media will interpret Clintons desperate effort as simply another wordy reassurance that Americas is still a staunch and reliable ally. What they won’t report is that every escalating North Korean provocation is a proxy attempt by China to battle American influence in Asia. At the same time the economic marriage between the West and China prevents both sides from delving into the nature of the their political interactions.

To the extent that China is willing to allow a war? Yes, despite the frigid air, this is the coldest cold WAR. As long, as it the war is not labeled as a proxy battle.


In part two we will explore the question of which is the greater force in the China-West cold war, economy/stability or influence/change in world order?

Why the United States Should Buy ALL the Opium in Afghanistan

One of the great existential problems facing Western culture generally, and America specifically is our “happy drive” -we justify almost any means to feel happy. The implications are far reaching and sometimes indiscernible. Thus one means to achieve happiness in our smile-craving society is easily identifiable, drugs, opium. However the effects of our pursuit of smiles through opium are far less obvious. All this is directly tied to our boots-on-the-ground war in Afghanistan, and may actually offer us an unprecedented opportunity. Hear me out.

The history of opium use in the US goes back to the mid nineteenth century, and is connected to every day terms like snake-oil salesman and hippies ( those who lay on their sides in a opium induced stupor, and developed hip ailments). Opium has both a physical and more symbolic affect on our society. Despite the DEA’s efforts and our tax dollars, opium, in the guise of heroin, continues to afflict the US - both as a destructive drug and as a major cause behind the spread of HIV/AIDS. Its affects are also more subtle as the relationship between the materialistic/superficial tendencies of American culture and drug use (illicit and otherwise) is often used a propaganda tool of the anti-west coalitions. Islamists, are quick to point to the West/Americas decadence as reflected by its drug problem. Just as the Soviet Union was accused of facilitating drug use in America (true or false), as a way of undermining US society, and damming it.

Yet the opium problem has not gone away and unbeknownst to the general public, has actually grown exponentially in unforeseen ways. I am not talking so much about South America; that is primarily a cocaine and marijuana issue.Instead I refer to the international terrorist drug-cartel alliance. That terrorist groups like Hezbollah (Shiite) and Al Qaida (Sunni) use drug trade to finance their illicit activities is an old and well researched fact. Moreover the fact that our battle against drugs, one evil, is also a battle against terror, another evil, is not coincidental considering the unifying factor. Putting that aside.

Al Qaida and the Taliban should not be conflated –the former practices terror to destroy the West the latter for a disparate number of reasons. Regardless, both use Afghanistan’s number one cash-crop and export, opium, to fund their actions. Indeed according to some estimates 93 percent of global opium originates in Afghanistan, at a gross profit of over 64 billion. The ramifications of this are simple, if America destroys opium they also destroy the number one source of income for over 200,000 Afghan families. The Taliban and other associated terror groups buy the opium and the loyalty from the famers and export it for a exponential profit.
It is also true that Afghanistan experienced a decrease in opium use after the Taliban takeover in 1994, as its cultivation was seen as un-Islamic. At the same time the current reality stands; the anti-western factions in Afghanistan love their opium. Also true is the fact that the Petraeus/Obama approach has been to move away from targeting opium production, as it alienates the local tribesmen.Why don’t we go a step further.

Let us buy the opium at a higher price than the Taliban and “others” –all of it. Furthermore we should help develop and support an opium cartel in Afghanistan, thereby centralizing it and controlling it. What we do with the drugs is irrelevant to the producers. The bottom line is we have a unique opportunity here to cut off a major source of income to terror, and the global drug trade. Furthermore, it will be cheaper than our current strategy of dumping more troops into an impossible situation. As we have troops on the ground we can implement the strategy immediately, and ensure that it becomes a reality.

I wonder if the State Department considered this strategy and then rejected it because of the fear that we will perceived as facilitating the drug trade, or worse that our soldiers are actually the muscle protecting it.

Let us be realistic, we have a chance to take 93 percent of opium of the market, cripple terror funding, and even win in Afghanistan. Most importantly we should not forget that this opium strategy is central to our nation building approach. After all a coherent and functioning Afghan government means a government that can take control of a opium sector that we will have hopefully tamed. It is not as if the drug problem will disappear but that fact shouldn’t stop us from dealing the terrorists a resounding blow.