Pitak Siam’s failure | New Mandala

Pitak Siam’s failure | New Mandala

Aim Sinpeng, Guest Contributor, 26 November 2012

“There is no real democracy in Thailand. Elected politicians come from vote-buying, fraud and corruption. We can’t wait for these crooks to be voted out…it may take 100 years to get rid of them. We need to act now…We need to topple this government and freeze democracy for 5 years in order to begin real political reforms.” vowed Seh Ai, leader of the newly formed conservative, anti-government coalition, Pitak Siam.

This weekend the Pitak Siam Organisation (PSO) declared their D-Day where thousands of supporters would gather in the heart of Bangkok to oust elected government of Yingluck Shinawatra. Their “warm-up” rally in late October 2012, which drew an estimated 35,000 demonstrators, suggests anti-government momentum was gathering strength and that time might be “ripe” for what General Boonlert, or Seh Ai, called the last step of his two-stepped ladder. The PSO leaders hoped this D-Day would attract enough supporters to delegitimize the current government and eventually prompt a military intervention.

On 24 November 2012, more than 20,000 supporters turned up to major rally sites in the heart of Bangkok. Prime Minister Yingluck invoked the Internal Security Act (ISA) ahead of the rally, while deputy prime minister Chalerm Yoobamrung cleverly employed deterrence tactics, such as road blocks and checkpoints to hinder protesters from reaching the rally sites. After a somewhat violent morning, where clashes with the authorities led to a few arrests (now released) and use of tear gas, General Boonlert called it quits just before 6pm, stating that the government’s dirty and violent tactics made it unviable for the rallies to continue. He also stepped down as Pitak Siam’s leader.

But this rally is not about the Yingluck government, or the Red Shirts for that matter. Rather, it is an attempt of the former Yellow Shirt forces to recalibrate an identity and position in Thai society. The decline of the movement beginning in 2009, has led to the breakup of its leadership, nasty back-stabbing and significant loss of support. Since the coming to power of yet another Thaksin-aligned party, Pheua Thai, Yellow Shirt forces have continued their activities with mixed success through smaller-scale, albeit targeted, opposition be it via the constitutional court, the military or the privy council. Pitak Siam rallies in late 2012 exemplify a renewed effort to build opposition alliances across various groups and mimic the Yellow Shirt’s pre-coup success.

The Pitak Siam Organisation is the re-incarnation of the 2006 Yellow Shirt Movement, with largely the same supporters and alliances, but with new leadership structure and re-organisation. Pitak Siam brought back former Yellow Shirt-aligned groups that have left the movement following the 193-day rally in 2008, such as Dr. Tul’s Multi Colored Shirts, the Thai Patriot Networks, some sections of the Assembly of the Poor and state enterprise unions, under the guidance of Somsak Kosaisuk, a former People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) leader. Pitak Siam endorsed a new leader, a retired army general Boonlert Kaewprasit, in an attempt to elicit support from “old soldiers [who] never die” and entice the current military top brass, which has clearly softened their stance towards the Yingluck government in the past few months. The PAD retreated its role into the back seat, which makes sense given the unpopularity of Sonthi Limthongkul among key groups of PAD’s former alliances. Even so, Pitak Siam admitted using ASTV as one of the main media outlets and relying heavily on Santi Asoke’s Dharma Forces for organisation. The PAD leaders reckoned more than 50 percent of the Pitak Siam supporters are PAD members.

The PSO justify their rallies with three key reasons: 1) the current government turned their eyes blind to, and in some cases supported, lese majeste activities; 2) the Yingluck government is a nominee of Thaksin; 3) continuous and widespread corruption both in terms of government policies and state projects. These are the same grievances the Yellow Shirts trumpeted in the pre-coup period as well as during the Samak-Somchai governments. The leadership hoped to reignite the fire inside those who either loathe Thaksin and/or are fiercely protective of the monarchy. They have purposely sidelined issues that have proved unpopular in previous rallies, such as national sovereignty, and Khao Pra Viharn and kept to the basic, “Nation, Religion, Monarchy”. WIth this in mind the rhetoric is robust. ”The crisis, the disaster and the tragedy of this government and its politicians is unprecedented. It’s the biggest threat to our nation. Our demonstrations represent the real power of the people. We have the right to protest and demand our rights, as citizens, back,” said Prasong Soonsiri to the cheering crowd at Nang Leong racecourse.

Yet the real purpose of the Pitak Siam rallies is three-fold. First, the new grouping needs to gauge the size of their supporters to determine the likelihood of future rounds of large-scale mobilisation. Earlier rounds of opposition rallies in 2012, organised by the Multi-Colored Shirts and the Siam Prachapiwat Group, for instance, were able to turn out a maximum of a thousand protesters. Overestimating its own support-base, an expensive lesson the PAD learned in 2010, can lead to movement overreach.

Second, Pitak Siam rallies are meant to lure back old Yellow Shirt supporters and to attract new ones. Campaigns against the Yingluck government’s policies, such as the rice pledging scheme, 300 baht minimum wage and ongoing state infrastructure projects, which have been waged by other opposition groups, are incorporated into Pitak Siam’s protest platforms. These are aimed to gain support among disaffected farmers, community rights activists and business owners.

Third, the new leadership of Seh Ai, endorsed by Yellow Shirt old-timers, such as Pramote Nakorntap, Prasong Soonsiri, and several retired generals and high-ranking civil servants, was strategic. Seh Ai was not an active Yellow Shirt in the past and could conceivably represented some degree of “neutrality” in terms of leadership – a much needed factor given how much bad blood within the various opposition groups over the years. More importantly, as an army general himself, if Seh Ai succeeded in turning out mass rallies against Yingluck government, Pitak Siam would be able to signal strong mass support for military intervention that would overthrow the government. When asked during a Thai PBS interview whether Pitak Siam is calling for a coup, Seh Ai said: “A military coup requires popular support to succeed. If we [Pitak Siam] are able to show the military that we have a lot of supporters then we hope the military would know what to do. The military are there to serve the people…they must stand by the people. If we do well, the military will take our side.”

At this stage, the Pitak Siam rallies failed on a number of fronts, be it in terms of leadership, numbers and coordination among various groups. Nonetheless their continued opposition to the “Thaksin regime” and zealous efforts to preserve their vision of royalist-conservative Thailand will not be abated.

Aim Sinpeng is a doctoral candidate at the University of British Columbia, Canada

Protect Siam: What’s new? | New Mandala

Protect Siam: What’s new? | New Mandala

Nick Nostitz, Guest Contributor, 1 November 2012 

 

 

Recently the new anti-government group “Pitak Siam”, or in its English name “Protect Siam”, under its leader General Boonlert “Sae Ai” Kaewprasit rallied at the Royal Turf Club.

It was quite obvious though that this is an attempt to regroup the same alliance whose protests led to the 2006 military coup against the Thaksin Shinawatra government and in 2008 to the ouster of the Somchai Wongsawat- led People Power Party government.

Many old acquaintances were there – several second generation People’s Alliance for Democracy leaders, members of the Group of 40 Senators, General Pathompong Kesornsuk, Dr. Tul, and several groups allied with the Siam Sammakhi network, such as Boworn Yasinthorn, leader of the “Network of Monarchy Protection Volunteers”. The Democrat Party claimed that it was not involved in Pitak Siam, nevertheless, in the days prior to the rally on Sunday, 28 October 2012, the event was heavily advertised on the Democrat Party’s Satellite TV station Blue Sky.

One of its presenters compared the coming Pitak Siam rally with Sondhi Limthongkul’s rally in Lumpini Park back in late 2005 being the spark for the 2006 PAD mass protests. Also guards that were at the recent Democrat Party rally in Lumpini were at the Pitak Siam rally on duty. Santi Asoke’s Dhamma Army organised the food.

One interesting aspect was that Prasong Songsiri made an open appearance at the rally, even spoke on the stage, as far as I know the first time in the political turmoil of the past 7 years.

A group of 52 former members of the Communist Part of Thailand who were stationed in the Khonkaen area during the insurgency took part in the rally as well. I asked them why they now allied themselves with with ultra-royalist forces while in the 1970s they were fighting them. They said that they have changed, and now support the monarchy.

The number of protesters surprised all observers. Initially 2000 to 3000 protesters were expected, but in the end about 10,000 showed up. Estimates of 20,000 are exaggerated — the stadium was not almost full, the center, opposite the stage was full, but towards the upper ranks and the side wings the crowd ranged from thin to non-existent. Also police estimates of 6000 were too low. As usual, I go with Special Branch estimates, which I have found over the last years the most reliable, and mostly correspond with my own impressions as well.

One of the second generation PAD leaders present described the event to me as “warming up the engine”. Given the number of protesters, more than any recent PAD, Siam Samkkhi or Blue Sky event, we may be in for more interesting times.

Why Burma is of Growing Importance to China | The Irrawaddy Magazine

Why Burma is of Growing Importance to China | The Irrawaddy Magazine
WILLIAM BOOT, November 27, 2012

Burma’s strategic importance to China will grow as Beijing’s dependency on the Middle East increases and the United States’ declines. That’s the message in a new assessment of trends in oil production and consumption over the next two decades by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Iraq supplied only five percent of China’s oil imports in 2011—around 275,000 barrels per day—but this will increase to more than eight million barrels per day by 2035, IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol forecast in a study on consumption trends. This will come on top of rising Chinese imports from Saudi Arabia.

Burma’s significance in this is as a conduit for Middle East oil bound for Chinese refineries.
One oil pipeline now being built through Burma into neighboring China’s southwest Yunnan Province by China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) will begin pumping Middle East oil from around the middle of next year.

When it reaches full capacity the pipeline will carry up to 23 million metric tons per year, Beijing’s Global Times newspaper reported. That’s not a huge amount per se but could be the vanguard of much bigger transshipments of Middle East crude through Burma in the future.

CNPC is spending a total of US $4.7 billion on the current pipeline and a dedicated transshipment terminal at Kyaukphyu, Arakan (Rakhine) State, to handle oil tankers from the Middle East.

“If the Burma pipeline scheme isn’t undermined by armed turmoil by militias operating in some of Burma’s northern regions then it is quite likely that the Chinese NOCs [National Oil Companies] will want to build more pipelines through the country,” regional independent energy industries analyst Collin Reynolds told The Irrawaddy.

“If China is going to increase its imports of oil from Mideast countries it also is going to want to take whatever steps it can to limit the risks of using the sea route through the Malacca [Melaka] Strait. That’s why the Chinese have invested in Burma as an alternative and they are also going to want to protect that route also.”

India has also been expressing concerns about the increased presence of Chinese Navy vessels in the Indian Ocean.

The CNPC and the China National Offshore Oil Corporation are investing billions of dollars in Iraqi oil fields, said the IEA, leading Iraq to soon emerge as the world’s biggest oil producer after Saudi Arabia—with China its biggest customer.

“Increasing oil imports from Iraq is very possible and beneficial for China. Compared with other countries in the Middle East, Iraq is relatively stable at present, but we still should be aware of the risks,” Lin Boqiang, the director of the China Center for Energy Economic Research at Xiamen University, told the China Daily.

China’s domestic oil production is expected to peak at 220 million tons per year by 2020, but if China’s economy continues to expand at seven percent or more a year its oil consumption would then reach over 650 million tons a year, the Sinopec’s Economics and Development Research Institute has forecast.

The IEA report said China’s growing emphasis in Middle East oil will force it and other countries of the region to “focus on the security of the strategic routes” those tankers take.

Beijing is especially concerned with the narrow bottleneck of the Malacca Strait between Malaysia and Indonesia through which all its vessels must navigate via Singapore en route to East Asia. The Chinese are worried that the Strait could easily be blocked in a political  crisis.

Beijing’s emerging geopolitical reliance on Burma is becoming a concern as anger grows within the Southeast Asian nation over a perceived view of Chinese firms riding roughshod over local interests.

In the case of the oil pipeline, Burma would receive a maximum of $36.8 million a year in transit fees, according to CNPC’s partners Myanmar Oil & Gas Enterprise (MOGE) and the Ministry of Energy. A flat right-of-way fee of $13.8 million will be supplemented by $1 per ton of oil pumped—a deal criticized by human rights groups as far too cheap.

NGOs allege numerous cases of social disruption, forced community relocations and land theft along the pipeline route which runs in tandem with a separate natural gas pipeline.

CNPC claims to have donated $6 million to “help the locals improve education and healthcare standards,” Global Times reported. CNPC has also agreed to contribute $2 million per year of the pipeline’s life to “further help develop villages along the pipeline.”

However, Chinese firms—mostly NOCs—have not endeared themselves to Burmese communities where they operate on contracts agreed secretly with the likes of MOGE or front firms belonging to the Burmese military leadership.

These are contracts which could cost Burma dearly in compensation if they are canceled, Burma’s President’s Office Minister Aung Min admitted this week during meetings with objectors to an expansion of the Monya copper mine in Saigaing Division.

The mine is jointly owned by Wanbao Company of China and the Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings.

Aung Min was seen telling protestors that the Burmese government was “afraid” to upset Chinese businesses because of the possible financial consequences. This applied in particular to the Myitsone hydroelectric dam, construction of which has been officially suspended by President Thein Sein on environmental grounds.

“It would need a stronger Burmese government to take on CNPC and its oil shipments strategy,” said Reynolds.

Korn compares Thai government to Hitler: has he lost his mind? | Asia Provocateur

Korn compares Thai government to Hitler: has he lost his mind? | Asia Provocateur

Asia Provocateur, 25 November 2012

About 18months ago I interviewed Thailand's then Finance Minister, Democrat Party Deputy Leader Korn Chatikavanij - my interviews with him can be found here and here.

On the two occasions that I met Korn I found him to be erudite, articulate and willing to engage on a number of subjects and policy details.

A dual-British/Thai national, the UK-born Korn attended Winchester College and later studied politics, philosophy and economics at Oxford. Urbane, well-educated and with a cosmopolitan air, it's hard not to be impressed by Korn, not least because at roughly 6ft 4inches tall, he has quite an imposing physical presence as well. While I disagreed with him on a number of subjects I found him personally charming and certainly likeable.

So, his comments on his Facebook page today (see screen grab in Thai just below) come as a complete shock.

In a rambling monologue Korn complains about the government's handling of this weekend's Pitak Siam protests. Utilising that tried and tested logical fallacy - the false equivalence  - he states that the government used the police to assault the protesters and that the Red Shirts abandoned their own principles by supporting such actions.

Of course the simple facts that Pitak Siam's publicly stated aims were to destroy democracy and create conditions for a military coup are oddly missing from Korn's narrative. Also the fact that the Pitak Siam protesters drove a large truck directly into police lines and attacked them with sticks and other weapons. Then there's the tiny inconvenient detail that the present ruling government party, Pheu Thai, has an overwhelming parliamentary majority, something his party has not achieved in its 66years of existence. Absent too is that when the government he served in were faced with Red Shirt protesters in 2010 they sent Army snipers onto the streets and shot nurses and school children.

But it was the final part of Korn's rambling comment that raises questions about his mental state.

Using an arcane Adolf Hitler quote (is it only me who finds it odd Korn could quote Hitler so readily?) Korn states that

"The Red Shirt government thinks and behaves like this [like Hitler] - therefore they will end up the same as/not different from Hitler."

To make this bizarre claim is straight out of the nuttiest Thai extremist handbook. The Second World War killed almost 70million people, unleashing unspeakable horrors and crimes on the world. Hitler committed the worst of these crimes, including the terrible slaughter of 6million Jewish men, women and children and 12million Soviet civilians.

It is an utter obscenity for Korn to make a comparison between firing a dozen or so tear gas grenades at violent protesters and Hitler's genocidal slaughter of millions. He should not only be widely ridiculed for making this comparison but condemned as well.

I am quite right to question his sanity in such circumstances and can only hope he sees the error of his ways and offers an immediate retraction and apology.

Philippines, Vietnam protest map in China passport | Asia News – Politics, Media, Education | Asian Correspondent

Philippines, Vietnam protest map in China passport | Asia News – Politics, Media, Education | Asian Correspondent
AP News, Nov 23, 2012


MANILA, Philippines (AP) — A map that China has incorporated into its passports has drawn diplomatic fury because it appears to claim the entire South China Sea, ignoring competing claims from the Philippines, Vietnam and other countries.

Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario told reporters in Manila that he sent a note to the Chinese Embassy that his country “strongly protests” Beijing’s inclusion of an image showing China’s claimed maritime borders in its new passport.

Del Rosario says China’s claims include an area that is “clearly part of the Philippines’ territory and maritime domain.”

The Vietnamese government said it had also sent a diplomatic note to the Chinese embassy in Hanoi, demanding that Beijing remove the “erroneous content” printed in the passport.
In Beijing, the Foreign Ministry said the new passport was issued based on international standards.

“The outline map of China on the passport is not directed against any particular country,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said Thursday.

China maintains it has ancient claims to all of the South China Sea, despite much of it being within the exclusive economic zones of Southeast Asian neighbors. The potentially oil- and gas-rich South China Sea islands and waters also are claimed by the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Brunei and Malaysia.

There are concerns that the disputes could escalate into violence. China and the Philippines had a tense maritime standoff at a shoal west of the main Philippine island of Luzon early this year.

The United States, which has said it takes no sides in the territorial spats but that it considers ensuring safe maritime traffic in the waters to be in its national interest, has backed a call for a “code of conduct” to prevent clashes in the disputed territories. But it remains unclear if and when China will sit down with rival claimants to draft such a legally binding nonaggression pact.

The Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam are scheduled to meet Dec. 12 to discuss claims in the South China Sea and the role of China.

Toxic leaks fuel Thai villagers’ fight against gold mine | Asia News – Politics, Media, Education | Asian Correspondent

Toxic leaks fuel Thai villagers’ fight against gold mine | Asia News – Politics, Media, Education | Asian Correspondent
  The Isaan Record, Nov 22, 2012

LOEI – In the past month, the walls of a gold mine’s tailings pond in Na Nong Bong, Loei have collapsed not once but three times. The tailings pond, which holds the waste water used to dissolve the gold from the ore, contains extremely high levels of cyanide and other chemicals used in the extraction process. As such, the community members from the neighboring village, located just one kilometer from the Tungkum Limited mine, are channeling their fear of the effects into their ongoing fight to close the mine.

People Who Love Their Hometown (PWLTH), a community organization comprised of concerned villagers, has been fighting to close the mine since 2006 in attempts to mitigate the contamination of their food and water. Since the gold mine began its operations, the villagers have experienced lower crop yields, skin rashes, and high levels of cyanide and arsenic in their blood which they attribute to contamination from mining operations. As such, the leak from the tailings pond, which contains cyanide and other dangerous chemicals, has given them greater cause for concern.

“On the 28th of October, the day the wall collapsed for the second time,” explained one of the leaders of PWLTH, “We found that that the water leaked out into some of the farms that were growing yard long beans. The farmers couldn’t harvest because there was water in their fields. We didn’t know whether or not the water was dangerous or not.”

The villagers were the first to report the leak to the government offices after a member of PWLTH found unexpected water in his field. The villagers sent a report to the Provincial Industry Office (PIO) as well as the Department of Primary Industry and Mining (DPIM) and then contacted the Tambon Administration Organization (TAO) to survey the area.

On October 30th, the TAO sent a committee to investigate the broken wall as well as the quality of the water that leaked from the pond.  The TAO reported, “TKL has admitted the wall did collapse and that they have been continuously repairing the damage to the wall of the tailings pond.”

The community, however, is still not fully convinced that there will be no lasting effects from the leak.

“It is necessary for the company to warn the people,” said one of the leaders from PWLTH. “We don’t know whether or not this water is dangerous, because no tests have been done on the water. But we are scared of what the effects might be.”

In response to the villagers’ report, the DPIM issued an order to the company to shut down operations until the situation was resolved. The company appealed to the PIO, however, claiming that they were working in accordance with Article 58 of the Mineral Act and, furthermore, that they needed to continue mining in order to acquire specific rocks needed to repair the break that can only come through the crushing process. At present, the mining company, which has assured the government they are working to fortify the tailings pond wall, is still operating.

The leak comes at a particularly pivotal moment for PWLTH, as Tungkum Limited will be holding a public scoping forum on the 22nd of this month. The forum, which has been postponed four times already due to protests staged by the community organization, is one step in the process of obtaining concessions for opening a new mining site near the existing one. The members of PWLTH, however, hope that the news of the tailings pond leak will strengthen their case for the decommissioning of the current mine as well as halting concessions for the newly proposed mine.

Tungkum Limited, which has been in hot water with its shareholders and the Stock Exchange of Thailand over the past year for alleged financial mismanagement, now has more to worry about.

How Asia sees Obama’s pivot to the Pacific | Asia News – Politics, Media, Education | Asian Correspondent

How Asia sees Obama’s pivot to the Pacific | Asia News – Politics, Media, Education | Asian Correspondent
AP News Nov 20, 2012

TOKYO (AP) — A lot has happened in Asia while the United States was off fighting its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and most of it can be summed up in one word — China. Fueled by China’s amazing growth and the promise of its huge and expanding consumer market, the Asia-Pacific region is now, as experts like to say, the global economy’s center of gravity. Sorry, Europe.

But prosperity requires stability.

As President Barack Obama tours the region to push his year-old pivot to the Pacific policy, the big question on everybody’s mind is how much of a role Washington, with its mighty military and immense diplomatic clout, can play in keeping the Pacific — well, pacific. Here’s a look at how different countries perceive the U.S. Pacific policy and how it impacts them:
___

CHINA: HOW NOT TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON

As far as Beijing is concerned, Obama’s pivot was pulled right out of the old Cold War containment playbook. Afraid of China’s rise, Beijing believes, Washington is trying to enflame new tensions by isolating it and emboldening the countries that China has territorial disputes with, which is just about everybody with whom it shares a border.

“Using China’s rise and the ‘China threat’ theory, the U.S. wants to convince China’s neighbors that the Asia-Pacific needs Washington’s presence and protection in order to ‘unite’ them to strike a ‘strategic rebalance’ against China in the region,” security scholar Wang Yusheng wrote recently in the China Daily.

It’s a strategy that’s bound to lose, Beijing says.

China sees its rise as inevitable and unstoppable and believes its neighbors will ultimately opt for stronger ties while gradually excluding the U.S. Beijing also views its economic dominance as an unalloyed good. And as it tests out its first aircraft carrier, stealth jets, cyber capabilities and high-tech missiles, it is in an increasingly strong position to deny Washington access to its shores and some key Pacific sea lanes, which could be a problem if Obama’s pivot ever has to go from push to shove.
___

JAPAN: ALREADY FEELING THE PINCH

Without a doubt, Japan is Washington’s most faithful security partner in the Pacific. And it’s the most pinched by China’s rise.

For months, Japan and China have been in an increasingly tense dispute over a group of small, uninhabited islands in the East China Sea. The near-constant presence of Chinese ships around them has stretched the Japanese Coast Guard to its limits. Japan’s air force says Chinese surveillance flights in the area have increased significantly.

Wary of getting caught up in the volatile brew of nationalism, historical animosity and populist politics that is fueling the flare-up, the U.S. has been careful not to take sides. Instead, it has urged the two countries to work out their problems among themselves, diplomatically.

That has confounded many in Japan, which hosts 52,000 U.S. troops under a treaty signed in 1960 that obliges the U.S. to defend territories under Japanese administration. Washington has repeatedly affirmed that includes the isles at the center of the current tensions with China. Tokyo would have preferred at least some moral support to its claim.

“It’s strange,” said Kazuhiko Togo, a former senior diplomat who now heads the Institute for World Affairs at Kyoto Sangyo University. “I trust the U.S. as our ally, but we need to address this issue of U.S. ‘neutrality.’”
___

MEANWHILE, IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA…

Washington took a similarly standoffish stance early this year in the dispute between China, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan over the South China Sea islands, believed to be rich in gas and oil and straddling busy shipping routes.

The Philippines — America’s closest ally in that dispute — eventually pulled its ships out of the hotly contested Scarborough Shoal, but Chinese vessels have remained.

Manila-based political analyst Ramon Casiple said the disputes have left America’s allies more aware of their own vulnerabilities and what they can — or can’t — expect from the U.S.

“America’s treading a very fine line,” Casiple said. “It has to reassure its allies that at the end of the day the U.S. would be there for them.” He added that the U.S. has made it clear it is not willing to risk a major confrontation in which its options would be limited “to either intervene or lose influence.”

There is, however, one other thing it might do in the meantime.

When U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta visited Vietnam in June, he hinted the Navy would like access to Cam Ranh, a deep water port facing the contested waters of the South China Sea. Hanoi’s counter-proposal?

Lift a ban on selling it lethal weapons.
___

TAIWAN: LEFT OUT IN THE COLD

Best friends forever? Not so much.

As China has gotten stronger and more important to the U.S. economy, Washington has become extremely wary of engaging Taiwan as a full security partner — a big pullback from the 1950s and the 1960s, when the two had a formal defense treaty and the U.S. based thousands of troops on what it considered a — if not the — key forward base to keep China at bay.

Today, cooperation is limited to some intelligence sharing, the training of Taiwanese air force personnel in the U.S., occasional security consultations and very restricted arms sales — definitely not the kind of advanced F-16 fighters and diesel submarines the Taiwanese military really wants.

Even so, political scientist Alexander Huang of Taipei’s Tamkang University says Taiwan can play a role in Obama’s pivot — but only if Washington decides to make a clear commitment.
___

THE KOREAS: STEALTH OVER SEOUL?

Ah, North Korea.

It’s got a new leader, about whom, typically, the world knows almost nothing, a nuclear weapons/ballistic missile program that it likes to trot out every so often to raise regional tensions and a belligerent attitude toward the U.S.
But Obama has a friend in Seoul.

Back in the 1950s, the U.S. fought on Seoul’s side in the Korean War — and contemplated nuking China before it was over. China still supports the North, and Washington continues to have about 28,500 troops in the South. South Korea also buys about 70 percent of its weapons from the United States, and a big payday for an American company might come soon after Obama’s inauguration, when South Korea is expected to formally announce the winner in a $7.6 billion project to build 60 sophisticated fighter jets.

The deal will be South Korea’s biggest-ever weapons procurement. The top contender is believed to be Lockheed Martin’s stealthy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter — which after a long run of development problems and cost overruns could certainly use a multi-billion dollar boost. Boeing and European aerospace giant EADS are also in the running.
___

AUSTRALIA: LIVING WITH THE US MARINES

Australia got one of the first waves from the pivot when the U.S. announced last year it would begin rotating up to 2,500 U.S. Marines through the northern city of Darwin. Now the U.S. is seeking access to an Australian navy base south of the western city of Perth and to bombing ranges in the northern Outback.

Some experts fear the relationship may be moving too fast.

On one hand there is broad support for Australia’s defense relationship with the U.S., so having American Marines was seen as a natural step. But it has also raised concerns that Washington will push for more — something Australia might not be ready for. After all China is central to Australia’s economy, buying a bulk of its mineral and coal resources.

“What worries us is the way in which it seems to confirm that the United States and China are increasingly viewing each other as strategic rivals,” said Hugh White, professor of strategic studies at Australian National University.

“We worry about the idea of the U.S.-China relationship becoming more adversarial,” he said. “America wants to remain the dominant power in Asia, and China wants to become the dominant power in Asia.

“What the rest of us all want is for neither of them to be the dominant power in Asia.”
___

AP writers Christopher Bodeen in Beijing, Peter Enav in Taipei, Taiwan, Jim Gomez in Manila, Philippines, Hyung-jin Kim in Seoul, South Korea, Elaine Kurtenbach in Tokyo, Chris Brummitt in Hanoi, Vietnam, Jocelyn Gecker in Bangkok and Kristen Gelineau in Sydney contributed to this report.