There is actually not much new from North Korea – except that it lost a soccer game against Japan last week. But instability in North Korea seems to increase - in the government, the military, and Kim Jong Il’s family. Right now North Korea seems to be eager to wake up the U.S. from its benign neglect in area – probably because payments of its regional neighbors have been flat or falling last year. The risk premium for the region would increase if the U.S. brings the case to the UN Security Council because of the breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But that also depends on developments as far-reaching as the current Iran atomic-programs stand-off.

Former Attorney Gen. (under President Lyndon B. Johnson) Ramsey Clark explains his offer to help Saddam Hussein

Mr. Koizumi got very critical reviews for his high-profile visit to North Korea. That's strange.

Certainly, Koizumi’s political position is still strong enough to outlast criticism about a lack of progress in Japan’s North Korea relations, or the non-payment of some months of pension dues. Messing around with North Korea relations is also nothing that any Japanese politian would take lightly. So it makes you wonder why the high-profile trip has been criticized as a pure diversion from domestic policy issues and scandals, as Japan’s media seem to suspect. For Mr. Koizumi there was little to win, but lots to lose during his trip to North Korea.

Rather, the usually hawkish Mr. Koizumi seems to have become more inclined to joining Asia's integration oriented "sunshine policy" than with following the U.S. on every move against rogue countries. So the move of Mr. Koizumi to fill in the current policy gap, which opened when the U.S. became preoccupied with the war in Iraq and South Korea with its president’s impeachment process, seems to be rather good news for Asian foreign policies.

Even foreign sympathizers with the War on Terrorism are getting increasingly critical towards the Bush administration. Here is what Martin Wolf writes in his FT column:

So what is wrong with this administration? Put simply, it fails to understand the basis of US power, mis-specifies US objectives and is incompetent in executing its intentions. As a result, the position of the US - and so of the west - is worse, in significant respects, than it was the
day after September 11 2001.

By Anatol Lieven

Educated Americans often say rather mournfully that Tony Blair expresses American values and goals better than the current US president. Whether this is what a British prime minister is elected for is, however, questionable. For while many US values may be virtuous in themselves, they can also be terrifying in their naivete.

Nick recommended the book. Here is the review from Amazon:

From its opening-line salvo—"It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world"—Of Paradise and Power announces a new phase in the relationship between the United States and Europe. Robert Kagan begins this illuminating essay by laying out the general differences as he sees them: the U.S. is quicker to use military force, less patient with diplomacy, and more willing to coerce (or bribe) other nations in order to get a desired result. Europe, on the other hand, places greater emphasis on diplomacy, takes a much longer view of history and problem solving, and has greater faith in international law and cooperation. Kagan does not view these differences as the result of innate national character, but as a time-honored historical reality--the U.S. is merely behaving like the powerful nation it is, just as the great European nations once did when they ruled the world. Now, Europe must act multilaterally because it has no choice. The "UN Security Council is a substitute for the power they lack," he writes.

Kagan also emphasizes the inherent ironies present in the relationship. European nations have enjoyed an "American security guarantee" for nearly 60 years, allowing them to cut back on defense spending while criticizing the U.S. for not doing the same. Yet Europe relies upon the U.S. for protection. This has led America and Europe to view the same threats much differently, as evidenced by the split over how to deal with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Kagan points out that some European leaders are more afraid of how the U.S. will wield its power in the Middle East than they are of the thought of Hussein or other "rogue state" leaders acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

President George W. Bush is presiding over the ruin of US foreign policy. A world united against the war in Iraq is only the start, since US diplomatic failure and neglect extend to virtually every area of foreign policy.
Another stunning example lies in the Andes, where the US administration has proved to be incapable of even the simplest responses to a profound crisis engulfing the region. Venezuela's chaos continues, while Colombia's violence deepens. Most recently, the US has looked on as Bolivia, a close ally and a desperately poor, and until recently stable, Andean nation, teeters on the brink of collapse. This is in large measure because of US policies but the administration has not shown the slightest recognition of the incipient disaster it is helping to create.

What are the prospects for postwar nation-building in Iraq? An optimist would say that the historical precedents are not all bad. The US was, after all, remarkably successful in helping restore democracy in Japan after the second world war. Yet Iraq is a very different proposition and not just because of the difficult political, institutional and cultural legacy. Large oil revenues are a huge obstacle to the entrenchment of democracy and property rights in any developing country.

 I admire Tony Blair. I have admired him ever since he was responsible for persuading the Labour party to abandon its support for the trade union closed shop. He is far from perfect. But he is principled, brave and thoughtful. He is prepared to take big risks. Now, with the launch of the war against Iraq, he is taking his biggest. He is placing his political capital on the sagacity of George W. Bush.

I have just returned from a visit to India, where many people asked me why Mr Blair was taking this risk. The tone in which the question was asked revealed how deluded they thought he was. This is itself telling since India's interests and values coincide to a high degree with those of the US. It is a democracy, a victim of Islamic terrorism and a worried neighbour of a resurgent China. Yet even Indians worry about a world in which the "sole superpower" claims the right to launch pre-emptive war, at will.