Guo Jia was right!

I blogged a month ago about how Guo Jia, a brilliant strategist 1800 years before us, predicted how Taiwan's political situation could play out in the next few months

• "Yuan Xi and Yuan Shang are going to Liaodong. Illustrious Sir, you are on no account to attack, for Gongsun Kang has long lived in fear lest the Yuans should absorb his country. When they arrive, Gongsun Kang will hesitate. If you attack, he will save the Yuans to help him; if you wait, they will work against each other. This is evident. 今闻袁熙、袁尚往投辽东，明公切不可加兵。公孙康久畏袁氏吞并，二袁 往投必疑。若以兵击之，必并力迎敌，急不可下；若缓之，公孙康、袁氏必自相图： 其势然也。"

Guo Jia's prophecy was observed twice in a month.

1. (pre-recall) Yuans and Gongsun are analogous to CSB and DPP. The recall motion from pan-Blue tied them together
2. After the recall vote, CSB and DPP were tied to the same boats like the 2 Yuans, Gongsun is now analogous to TSU(LTH), Taipei Times and independent pan-Green scholars/ex-student activists (Taiwan Civil Society) (see this for English). Ma's refusal to corner DPP/CSB allowed the fissure within pan-Green camp to emerge

There will be more interesting development down the alley. Let's just wait and see.
(Former ROC president Lee Tenghui told reporters, "There are many 'son of Taiwan', if one cannot do his job well he should be replaced")
A natural question is what should Ma Ying-Jeou say. I think this would be appropriate responses

1. "We maintain our view on the issue of corruption in general, and our recall motion"
2. "The recent letter from pan-Green scholars reminds us that we (KMT) also need to work harder to keep ourselves clean. It should serve us as an good lesson and alarm, as we also have our own problems. We need to learn from the Green camp and deal with them proactively"
3. "We believe our desire for a clean government should be placed above partisan politics. We would welcome constructive criticism from pan-Green, and everyone else, to us in the future. But better still, we should try our best to locate problems and correct ourselves and we should not wait for other parties to step in"
4. "In order to show our respect to the scholars and activists, we pledge that we will not seek to profit from the current scandal. It would be a let-down to our people if we do so. Furthermore, as stated earlier, we will support the DPP vice-president if the president steps down. Doing the right thing is in the voters' interests. Voter's interests precede a party's own interests."
   

Good crisis management could reverse unfavorable event into advantages. This is what the pan-Green has done today. Expect Green support skyrocketing if this self-correction movement succeeds. Pan-Blue is now on the defense. It is the first real challenge to Ma since he became KMT chariman. Staying at selfless high moral ground is the way to deal with this new challenge.

Related: Huangpu's appeal for CCP to learn from Viet-cong
---
p.s.
1) DPP seems to continue to tie itself with Bian. Since now it is no longer a partisan spat, the longer DPP clings on to Bian, the deeper it will sink, the less likely pan-Green support can rebound. The worse nightmare for pan-Green is spinning out from DPP.
2) There may be more scandals/evidences that have yet to surface. Some conspiracy theorists believe Chiu Yi probably has his source of information from CCP spy and the series of scandal break out is well planned
3) DPP's final split from Bian may be triggered by new development following the Sogo gift voucher scandal. Or one can view it this way, Bian could find a face-saving good excuse to step down as he promised so already.

Categories:

• taiwan
• pol

Wake up Ma Ying-jeou!

I blogged about the irrationality of color politics in Taiwan, and that Ma Ying-jeou made serious mistake for his party and his people recently.

Today Lin Cho-shui (via View from Taiwan) echoed my view.

• The amendment is poles apart from the US' approach to providing retired presidents with preferential treatment, due to the nasty partisan politics behind it. The US' presidential retirement package is derived from an era in which presidents were expected to show self-restraint and be upstanding.

  Many retired presidents had to become lawyers or judges after their terms in order to avoid destitution -- an embarrassing phenomenon for the nation.

  For example, presiding over cases litigated by an attorney who was once the country's president was a sticky situation for judges. Former presidents becoming chairmen of companies also proved to be problematic.

  So, the US established a system that allowed former presidents to live out their remaining years in relative comfort and safety.

... and most importantly, to discourage corruption! I feel bad for Chen Shuibian, whose pension would end in 8 years. How can you blame his wife for planning for the future? But then the alleged crimes precede this amendment, so maybe I should take back my sympathetic tone.

Wake up Ma Ying-Jeou, the secret to success is by heeding the cirticism your opponent place on you. Let reason, not part politics, determine your action.

Categories:

• taiwan
• pol

China's (North) Korea Dilemma, and the unlikely partners across the (East) Sea (/of Japan)

The Brits (Economist, BBC, and even the Times and the Guardian) probably still excels over their wealthy American counterparts in reporting, perhaps the talent pool of Oxbridge graduates does make a difference, more likely it that their reporters take a more objective view.

1) BBC on China's "tough decision"

• The fact that it is now threatening to [use its UN Security Council veto power] shows just how much Beijing believes its own vital national interest is at stake. (China never exercised its veto power)
• China's over-riding national interest is stability. The current situation on the Korean peninsula may not be a happy one, but from China's point of view, it is reasonably stable, and it could be a lot worse.
• The two things China fears the most are a North Korean collapse and another war on the Korean peninsula.
• There is a very basic problem with the six-party talks structure - North Korea does not like them. The six-party talks force Pyongyang to negotiate with five other countries, including South Korea and the much hated Japan. The North Korean leadership, however, is interested in negotiating with only one country, the US.
• China has repeatedly appealed to the US government to open direct talks with Pyongyang . .. But direct negotiations with Pyongyang are something the Bush administration has repeatedly refused to consider.

2) (Carnegie Endowment) Pei Minxin's analysis on its Korea Dilemma, unfortunately I couldn't locate the English version -- on BBC's Chinese site

• 为了惩罚平壤，美国和日本企图通过联合 国安理会来对朝鲜实施经济制裁。但是中国和俄罗斯担心这一措施可能导致金正日进一步铤而走险，造成危机升级。因此中俄反对美日的建议。这样，朝鲜的导弹事 件又一次使中国战到了美日的对立面。中国对北朝鲜的影响力又是北京和华盛顿打交道时的一个重要的外交筹码。所以中国的最佳处境是一个相对顺从北京的北朝鲜 政权继续生存。
• ... The best situation for China is a relatively obeying North Korean regime which would continue to survive
  
• 但是目前金正日企图通过试射导弹和制造核武器来逼美国让步；同时平壤又不顾北京的公开告诫而进行导弹试验，这就迫使中国政府采取措施来迅速 控制局面，既不让美日制裁平壤的决议在联合国安理会通过（因为这可能加速金正日政权的垮台），又得使金正日尝到一点"苦头"，从而不再做有害中国战略利益 的坏事。但为了对平壤施加压力，中国应该支持安理会谴责北朝鲜的决议并同时适度减少对北朝鲜的经济援助。只有这种相对平衡的反应才能使华盛顿感到北京是一 个真心诚意合作的伙伴。可是目前中国政府的反应让美国十分失望。北京既不支持联合国安理会通过的决议来谴责北朝鲜又没有采取任何教训金正日的措施。
• ... Pyongyang ignored the public appeal from Beijing and went on with its missile tests, thus forcing the Chinese governement to take measure to quickly control the situation. China needs to stop the sanction proposal by Japan and US in UNSC (because this would speed up the collapse of the Kim JI regime) [the subsequent refugee and instability would hurt China economically], and in the mean time show Kim Jong-il a bite of the bitter consequence, so that it won't do things harmful to China's strategic interests. However, to exert pressure on Pyongyang, China should support UNSC in condemning NK and reduce its economic aid to NK by an appropriate amount. Only such relatively balanced reaction would provide Washington with the impression of a sincerely cooperating partner. But what Chinese government has done now let US down. China did not support the UNSC proposal, and it did not take ANY measure to teach the Kim J-I regime
• 在某种 程度上来说，美日犯了一个严重的错误。在中日关系极度低迷的情况下，东京应保持低调，但令人困惑的是，日本在安理会采取了最强硬的立场并提出了制裁北朝鲜 的决议。东京积极努力的效果则[适得]其反。因为中国决不会让日本在处理朝鲜导弹事件上大出外交"风头"。因此东京越是强硬，北京就越会"反强硬"，最终是安 理会中出现大国对立，形成外交僵局。如果北京不希望成为北朝鲜无赖行为的战略牺牲品，它现在应马上采取对金正日政权更强硬的措施。中国的国家利益不允许北 朝鲜吧北京拖入一场和华盛顿与东京的战略对抗
• To a certain extent, US and Japan made a serious mistake.... Tokyo should keep a low profile, but for reasons hard to understand, Japan took the most hard-line position in UN SC. Tokyo's effort achieved exactly the opposite of what it pushed for......it would result in the stand-off in UNSC, and diplomatic paralysis. If Beijing does not want to become the strategic sacrifice of North Korea's rouge behavior, it should take immediate stern measure now against the Kim Jong-il regime. The national interests of China does not allow North Korea to drag it into a strategic rivalry with Washington and Tokyo
  

3) The Economist suggested that the launch was used to prove to other countires, potential buyers of the missile (ie Iran), that the technology works.

-----
Facts:

• North Korea (and many other countries) has every right to test its missiles. The missile issue is technically unrelated to NK's nuke issue (six party talk). Although one could argue that a nuke is useless without a missile, IMO the nuke issue is a lot more serious because it could be used to make dirty bombs carried in suitcases
• As a matter of fact, many countries tested long range missiles all the time, including India just this week
• The technology for intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) is essentially a sub-set of the technology in launching a satellite . Because if you can send a satellite to space and retrieve it at a reasonably precise location, you could send a missile basically everywhere in the world, with similar precision. The only difference being, missiles should take thhe shortest path to minimize the probability of being intercepted.
• Japan already has the satellite capability, launched this February
• The Taepodong-2 is now understood as “almost certainly it was a satellite launch at an inclination of 41 degrees or perhaps a three stage booster dummy warhead launch to impact down range in the south Pacific relative to South America”

-----

Corollaries

• China has demonstated genuine interests in dealing with the NK Problem. Otherwise, it would not have pushed for the one-one date meeting between Kim J-I and Bush W, which leaves itself out
• If the Economist is correct, that NK's is making money on the missile tests. China has even better reason to reduce its aid, telling NK that it does not need so much aid since it is selling more Rodongs.
  

Comments

• China has no choice but to prevent a collapse of the NK regime, because the economic cost is just too large for China (and political implication for China's internal stability)
• In addition, there is no way China will agree to a binding sanction by UNSC, neither will russia or even S Korea. Because such sanction constrains these 3 countries but not others (who do not have contact with NK at all). In addition, it allows UN to inspect the goods at the Chinese border and provide excuse if there are minor mistake from low level Chinese staff. All 3 NK neighbors prefer a non-binding resolution and take the action by their own discretion. As a matter of fact, S Korea openly oppose sanction now.
  
• Had it been SK's turn to be represented in the UNSC rotation, China would not have to threaten with its veto power. Unfortunately it was Japan's turn at this moment. This event will strengthen China's (and SK's) objection to Japan's UNSC permanent membership.
  
• But this time, China has all the reasons (and excuses) to cut its aid to North Korea, as Pei correctly suggested. NK publicly ignored China's appeal, and there is sufficient international pressure on China to cut the aid, as least temporarily. Cuting the aid by 1/4 or even 1/2 would not neccessarily lead to the collapse of the NK regime, since they have enough fund to test the missile.
• In fact, one may argue it is stupid for China not to capitalize on this opportunity to show NK who the boss is, and bring Kim to submission once and for all -- by imposing sanction in its own way.
  
• If US has a genuine interest in dealing with the NK problem, it should try "one on one" negotiation with NK. The fact that US continue to refuse talking puzzles me. If US is really uncomfortable about this, it could ask China as an observer or have China host the negotiation, as a compromise. Bringing Japan in just side-track the negotiation into rather minor (and dated) issue of "1970 kidnapping". There is absolutely no role of Japan in the "six-apart" talk. The only value Japan could provide is perhaps economic aid in exchange of NK's giving up its nuke project, but South Korea alone can afford the cost.
• It is a reasonable suspicion that Japan has a secret intention to keep NK as a bogeyman, by insisting on marginal issues such as 'kidnapping', and now even provoking NK by the preemptive strike talk! (one could even suspect that Japan is sabotaging Chinese diplomatic envoy to NK, by providing NK with more chips on the table -- because the TMD should be more effective than a preemptive strike to shield Japan from missile attack). After all, Taepodongs do not know how to kidnap a Japanese citizen. OTOH, NK needs Japanese belligerence to justify its weapon development. It is a vicous circle, Pyongyang and Tokyo find themselves unlikely partners in fueling this vicious circle, each to fulfill its own military ambition.

Related links:
China, Russia offer rival UN draft on N. Korea (Reuter),
朝鲜射导弹，中国成了替罪羊？(Washington Observer),
朝鲜半岛前景 (weizhou)
凤凰卫视揭密：志愿军为什么撤出朝鲜(Pheonix TV interview)
'Hyperpuissance,' a Myth in N. Korea - ASIAN SECURITY MONITOR
The China-North Korea Relationship (Adam Segal answers FAQ) - Esther Pan, Council of Foreign Relations

Categories:

• korea
• china
• japan
• us
• pol

Teenage Mutant Kim Jong Il

Typo...



-----selected old typos......for more see source

• Lost in translation
• Only the two of us
  
• We are not that different
• Dick!
• How do you IM me if you don't have a computer
• The 38th parallel determines your latitude
  

Categories:

• ent
• korea
• us

Building a new China

破旧立新 -- Chinese city making room for new buildings

Note the demolished buildings are probably only 20 years old.

Categories:

• china

Yaks love the Qinghai Tibet Railway (ii) -- and geography

Part (i) here

The Railway under construction in 2005


First, the yaks love the new railway! (more yak on rail pictures here)

Weighing 1000kg a yak could derail a train. This offers a second explanation to why the rail needs to be guarded.

---
Geography



The highest point of the Railway is near Tanggula Pass. at 5072m (16,600ft) above sea level, i.e.,

• taller than Mont Blanc (4808m), Europe, the highest point in Europe is, technically Mt Elbrus (5642m) at Caucasus, Russia, about 10% higher than our Tangula Pass
  
• taller than Mt Massif (4897), highest of Antartica
• only 827m shorter than Mt Kilimanjaro (5895m), Africa
• Almost twice that of Mt Baitou/Changbai, between China and Korea (DPRK)
• 30% above Mt Fuji (3776m), 20% above Mt Jade (3952) of Taiwan Province, China (ROC), or Mt Kinabalu (4093m) at Sabah, Borner, Malaysia
• Higher than Mt Whitney (4421) at Sierra Nevada, or any point in the 48 US States, or the second highest point in Alaska Mt Sanford (16,237 ft) -- just 20% shorter than Mt McKinley (20,320 ft) in Denali, Alaska
  

But that is only where the railway actually goes through, Tanggula Pass is at 6070m. The peak around the pass is called Gladindong(6621m), and Purog Kangri (6929) of Tanggula Shan, which divided Tibet from Qinghai.

Just south of the Tanggula Pass Station (5068m) is the highest point of the railway (5072m).

20km of the railway is above 5000m. 780 km from 4500 to 5000m.

The railways rises to above around 5000m, near the 1338m long Fenghuo Shan Tunnel and continue to be around that altitude beyond the pass. About 550km in length of this section is on permafrost, i.e. so high that the temperature is always signigicantly below freezing point.

Stations, tunnels and bridges on railway


Related links:
1) Wiki's station list, and stations with vista points.
2) Chinapage
3) Schaefer's "The Railway to Tibet"
4) BBC' new report on inauguration July 1st (video)
5) Timesonline: Passages for endangered chiru, and "Video monitoring shows that more than 800 antelope have already passed under the railway"

6) Comminganarchy has discussion on merit of train travel in the comment section

---
These pictures were taken in June between Andu and Tanggula Pass stations

Tibet Antelope (Chiru) (see also early post)

Tibetan donkey

Categories:

• tibet
• china
• ent
• travel
• geo

Pearl Harbor II? Don't belive it

This is actually a geography post (Background (i) (ii) (iii)).

Apparently someone in Japan got very imaginative (or had some weed, got over-excited, or deliberate rumour mongering to capitalize on this incident - pick you choice), NK Zone wondered if it is supposed to be Pearl Harbor II, I guess half-jokingly.

• "A North Korean missile launched on Wednesday was aimed at an area of the ocean close to Hawaii, a Japanese newspaper reported on Friday"

I googled the news reports, and found that "that Japanese newspaper" is, surprise, nothing but the notorious right wing Sankei Shinbum, a die-hard Yasukuni propaganda organ and WWII atrocity apologist, who also has an interest in re-militarizing Japan.

Now why I think Sankei's claim is bullshit. Here comes the geography.

• Although the theoretical estimate for the range of Taepodong-2 is large, 4000-10000km. The particular missile fired this week was believed to have a maximum range of 6000km (see, eg, Reuter report above), i.e. at best reaching somewhere in Alaska northwest of Anchorage, had the launch been successful. The estimate is based on the payload (assumed very small) and the amount of fuel and the type of fuel used in the rocket
• Now the great circle (shortest path) distance between Pyongyang and Anchorage is 6000km, and Pyongyang-Honululu 7400km (the launch pad at Musudan-ri is located at the NE of Poyongyang so one could subtract about 200km in the 2 numbers above) -- always remember that the distance is longer if the destination is closer to the equator, since our maps exaggerate distance near the poles.

If Sankei is right, then the missile range need to be at least 1400km longer than previously thought. So either the pentagon is wrong, or Sankei is churning out a lot of bullshit. Of course, you can argue that Sankei only said "oceans near Hawaii". Well, the width of the "Sea of Japan" is about 800km at most, from Hokaiddo to the East coast of Korea. 1400km is almost twice that distance. That is pretty far away from Hawaii.

p.s. there are a lot of obvious errors in these new reports. e.g. the KHON link (perhaps it was a direct translation from Sankei) above had the missile range and the distance to Hawaii totally wrong. It then made a further mistake of saying the path to Hawaii does not pass a land area - Japan is in between N Korea and Hawaii!

Relates: With Few N. Korea Facts, a Rumor Got Launched
A warhead found in Alaska? The report's longevity illustrates the uncertainty and fear. -- LA Times

Update:
1) globalsecurity senior fellow CP Vick has a comprehensive analysis, the satellite launch theory seems to be the most likely -- consistent with my post here, that it either aims at the open sea or is a satellite launch. In any case, Hawaii was not the target, not was any US base from Alaska to California. If it were a satellite, then it could pass through the ocean near Hawaii, in theory.

• "Almost certainly it was a satellite launch at an inclination of 41 degrees or perhaps a three stage booster dummy warhead launch to impact down range in the south Pacific relative to South America"

2) NK Zone hypothesizes NK's rationale for the launch and predicts the next launch

Categories:

• korea
• japan
• pol
• geo

Where did Taepodong-2 land? (ii)

BBC has this chart, showing the Long range missile (TPD-2) landed about 400 km east of Korean coast (launch site musidan-ri).

...and wiki has a similar one


According to wiki, Taepodong-2's full speed is around 8-9km/s, and that the missile landed about 40 seconds after it was launched.

Let's do some simple maths, on the maximum distance the missile travelled. Let's assume the missile reached top speed before it landed (more likely it didn't. it would have started burning the second stage if it did, plus acceleration stopped a few seconds before it reached water surface), and let's assume only the horizontal component of the velocity (the range would be smaller for parabolic trajectory, because the horizontal component is less than 8-9km/s), then the upper bound of the distance traveled is:

• average speed x 40 sec
• = (0+8.5)/2 x 40 = 170 km
  

In reality the distance the missile traveled was at most 50-100km from the launch site. i.e. closer to NK than Russia and it should be to the west end of BBC's green ellipse. More likely it probably landed less than 10 km away from the launch pad, as most of the initial thrust was given to vertical accelerarion. BBC's red ellipse seems to be placed totally wrong.

Update: Globalsecurity confirms my hypothesis here. It also showed that the S Korean claim of 499km is incorrect and "appears to be mixing the other missile flight data observations". In fact, Globalsecurity's estime is only 1.4km, confirming my suspection that a lot of the energy was given to the vertical thrust upward.

• "[Vick] is reasonably certain it was not aimed at the United States at a much higher inclination as discussed below. It ultimately impacted near the launch site infrastructure just off shore perhaps about 1.4 kilometers from the pad with perhaps 4.4 km altitude gained before collapsing into the Sea of Japan"

Update: An anon commentator (presumably a rocket scientist), posted a table of typical 2-stage rocket trajectory below. Given the known size/weight and nature of the rocket's fuel/propelling mechanism, the actual trajectory should be within the order of magnitude of the 'typical trajectory (i.e. at most a factor of 3-5 away). Vick's estimate was confirmed
"TIME___ ALT___ RNGE ___VEL.
(SEC)___ (KM)____ (KM) ___(KM/SEC)
40.0 ____4.3 _____ 1.2 _____ 0.25
45.0 ____ 5.6 _____ 1.7 _____ 0.29"

4.4km above sea level is like the peak of the highest mountain in Europe/US.
1.4km is slightly less than a mile or some 5 football fields away, just barely into the ocean
0.26km/sec=260m/s = 936km/hr = 585mph, which is sub-sonic and slightly higher than the cruising speed of a 747 airliner

Categories:

• korea
• pol
• science

Tech tips: how to download video from Youtube (and other sites)

This works for many 'pseudo-streamed' multimedia files. Youtube is just one of them.

There is really no trick. You just have to know that Internet Explorer already cached the contents on your IE page somewhere ("Temporary Internet Files" folder or "Temp" folder) in your hardisk and try to locate them. As soon as you finished watched the (pseudo-)streamed media, the full file is somewhere on your hard-disk. Use search (for the file type or restrict to size over certain MB and time to the past hour).



For Firefox, there are similar file folders to cache the temporary contents.

To play flash video one can download (and install) a flash-player (only 1.13MB), or use other players of your choice.

Categories:

• tech

picture of the week: fan of gel'ed hair

油发粉丝 (source: Apple Daily, via 賭的網誌)

Categories:

• taiwan