Rising Tempers in East Asia

It feels like all eyes are focused on Iraq these days - the 70 dead there recently have caused us to question whether or not we're actually winning the insurgency. We are. But in the meantime, I think we've been distracted from a more growing concern. In East Asia, storm clouds are gathering.

These are not the fluffy clouds of hot air created by appartchniks in Beijing and Tokyo, but rather deep rumblings from the Chinese street. We're heard all about the Arab street - Friedman references it regularly - but I believe it's the Asian street we must now listen to. Beneath the orderliness, nationalist feelings and ambitions, long supressed, are bubbling up. As we all know, the real catalyst for these protests was on the far side of the world, where Kofi Annan announced his plan to restructure the United Nations - including a permanent seat on the Security Council for Japan. In China, the government appears caught in a Catch 22. It can either play along with the hordes of protestors (which, incidentally, probably suits its policy goals), or it can repress them. Yet doing so likely incurs further dangers which they are unable to risk - the Communist government made much of its anti-Japanese credentials in the 40s and 50s, it likely fears a popular backlash, and (perhaps most importantly) they must seek to create a new "Chinese" identity for their nation based on something more than party membership.

Japan, on the other hand, has been remarkably silent. What I can see in their media (this without reading Japanese) is often defensive, though I doubt they'll back down on the Security Council issue. Right now, I don't see them overly concerned - after all, the Chinese government will not let popular sentiments interfere with economic profits. Or so we hope.

It's time for Americans to begin paying much more attention to East Asia. We seem to have convinced ourselves, in most circles at least, that the end of the Soviet Union meant the end of the superpower threat. Perhaps. Perhaps there is only a slim chance of a Sino-American war directly. But due to our long-term relationships with Taiwan and Japan, Chinese aggression could embroil us in such a war. So could a concerted Chinese expansion into the Middle East - it seems implausible, but China imports 40% of its total oil. Russia, too, may some day be confronted by an expansionist China. And of course, there is always the possibility of a clash between China and India, a conflict for Asian dominance. None of this is alarmist - it's all in the realm of possibility however. With globalization, a war in the Far East will be dangerously close to home. Let's keep our ears to the ground and an eye to the horizon.

Back to the Basics on Judicial Nominees

The acrimonious debate on the Hill about Judicial nominees has gotten worse and worse, exacerbated by the refusal of the Democrats to admit the obvious, not to mention the fact they've allied themselves firmly with the MoveOn wing of the party. The Republicans, for their own part, are equally committed to this debate. Tom DeLay is of course ravening at the mouth about all of this, perhaps to distract from his own troubles with that little ethics stink. Bill Frist, in what may be little more than an attempt to court the religious right for his WH bid in 08, has spoken out against the fillibusters in a video for the Family Research Council. And here is to me the crux of the problem.

Frist's newfound allies, the Family Research Council, has described the whole mess as a "fillibuster against people of faith" (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LH05D02). What exactly does faith have to do with it? It doesn't seem that the Democrats are opposed to these judges on the basis of faith alone, but rather on their positions; the Republicans also seem more interested in issues than where their judges are on Sunday mornings. But unless I'm missing something in American history, neither faith nor positions should play any role in the nomination or confirmation of judges. Rather, we should look for people who will fairly interpret the laws of this country and seek to do justice, a justice that is universal, not based on politics or faith.

What should the pols do? Not go nuclear! The way the media is spinning this whole thing, the GOP is coming across pretty badly to the American public. The New York Times is already predicting a political shift like the one we saw in 1994, based partially on "Republican arrogance," as partially evidenced by their high-handedness on the judiciary. Yet Democrats aren't immune either. In a poll released last month, 67% of people surveyed agreed that "we should take politics out of the courts and out of the confirmation process" (interestingly, 69% of Republicans agreed while only 61% of Democrats agreed).

What Bush and the Republicans should do is back down. Let's not further divide this Congress or this nation on judicial issues, and in doing so endanger vulnerable Senators like Arlen Specter. What do the Republicans stand to gain from such a retreat? I'd argue a lot. Many commentators, left and right, are indicating that the religious right is starting to think and see green. Not money this time, trees. And animals. I'm not saying that Greenpeace will be taken over by born-agains. But it's not impossible. This also overlaps with commentary that the area that will be most affected by Bush's nominees is the environment. Family Research Council, Bill Frist, and Tom DeLay all want these nominees. But if your Joe Evangelical voter, so crucial to the Republican success last fall, is coming to love his trees and his fuzzy neighbors (viewed by him as God's green earth and all of God's creations), then he may not be pleased. The GOP will say they have a lot to lose by backing down. They may have even more to lose if they stay where they are.