Via the Belmont Club, The Times of London reports:

The spectre of a nuclear race in the Middle East was raised yesterday when six Arab states announced that they were embarking on programmes to master atomic technology.

The move, which follows the failure by the West to curb Iran’s controversial nuclear programme, could see a rapid spread of nuclear reactors in one of the world’s most unstable regions, stretching from the Gulf to the Levant and into North Africa.

I like how it's now the fault of "the West", instead of the United Nations, that Iran is still developing nukes. If the U.S. had used force in any way to stop Iran, it would have been pilloried by the international community (as well as by many Americans).

Anyway, we now face the prospect of a nuclear Middle East. Enjoy.

You can't be a superpower if you're this insecure:

Apparently, some Israeli tourists going to travel in China with the latest Lonely Planet book were asked to hand in their very expensive book at the border-crossing due to its 'political nature' showing maps of China which color Taiwan in a different color suggesting that Taiwan is not a part of China.

From fiLi’s world, based on this Israeli message board post. I found it on Asiapundit, which got it from The View from Taiwan. Truly, the Web is a powerful tool.

Oh, this one is rich. Despite perpetually haranguing Japan for glossing over its invasion of China in Japanese history textbooks, China is now doing pretty much the same thing in its own history textbooks. The New York Times reports:

When high school students in Shanghai crack their history textbooks this fall they may be in for a surprise. The new standard world history text drops wars, dynasties and Communist revolutions in favor of colorful tutorials on economics, technology, social customs and globalization.

Socialism has been reduced to a single, short chapter in the senior high school history course. Chinese Communism before the economic reform that began in 1979 is covered in a sentence. The text mentions Mao only once — in a chapter on etiquette.

...[T]he Long March, colonial oppression of China and the Rape of Nanjing are taught only in a compressed history curriculum in junior high.

Of course, China will still make sure its students learn to hate the Japanese. The Times article notes that "The junior high school textbook still uses boilerplate idioms to condemn Japan’s invasion of China in the 1930’s and includes little about Tokyo’s peaceful, democratic postwar development" and "will do little to assuage Japanese concerns that Chinese imbibe hatred of Japan from a young age."

So despite China's demands that Japan improve the accuracy of its textbooks, it's now quite clear that accuracy was never its goal. China has no problem with Japanese students learning only a superficial, propagandistic view of history — so long as it's China's view. And this from the country that lectures the world against interfering in its "internal affairs".

It's ironic that these two stories should come out on the same day:

Taiwan condemns NKorea missile tests, calls for dialogue with China
07.06.2006

TAIPEI (XFN-ASIA) - Taiwan has condemned North Korea's missile tests saying Pyongyang has threatened stability and peace in the region.

Taiwan to test-fire missile: report
Reuters
Thursday, July 6, 2006

TAIPEI (Reuters) - Taiwan plans to test-fire a missile capable of hitting China, alarming the island's main ally, the United States, a cable news network said on Thursday.

Some might say that to be consistent, I should condemn a Taiwanese missle test just as I did North Korea's. But Taiwan isn't North Korea. It has a farily stable, democratically elected leadership, and it's testing a missile that could defend it against a country — China — that's explicitly threatened to conquer it. North Korea is run by a dictator of questionable judgment, launching missiles towards Japan. The two situations aren't really comparable.

Still, I can't help but think that right now isn't really the best time for Taiwan to be rattling its saber. Not only are its actions undermining its own condemnation of North Korea's test, but at present, they're likely to draw criticism when at a later time they might inspire sympathy.

North Korea test-fired some missiles in the direction of Japan this morning. The Mainichi Shimbun reports:

Defying stern warnings from Washington and Tokyo, North Korea launched at least six missiles, including a long-range Taepodong-2 capable of reaching the United States, the White House said, describing the tests as "a provocation."

Defense Agency officials confirmed that the sixth missile was launched at about 8:10 a.m. Japan Standard Time.

Four of the five missiles were short range and the long-range Taepodong-2 failed after 35 seconds. The short-range missiles landed in the Sea of Japan.

While I would prefer Lil' Kim kept his missiles to himself, I can't say this test launch has me panicked.

First of all, for all his craziness, Kim appears rational enough to know that if he actually hit Japan or the US, he would invite a massive counterattack. Hence, blustering "test launches" like this are about all he can get away with.

Second, this test launch revealed that his most powerful missile of all, the long-range Taepodong-2, was a dud. I don't know why we assume that a country that can't even build a hotel correctly is capable of developing and maintaining complex modern warfare systems.

I'm not saying we should ignore or dismiss North Korea. At some point, Kim (or his successor) might decide to stop behaving rationally. His short-range missiles and artillery remain a threat. And there's also the possibility that he could hand over a nuclear bomb to a terrorist group like al Qaeda. But I do think a direct attack by Kim is less likely than some might imagine.

Via the GI Korea Blog, Jeff in Korea posts about Korea's Dokdo Riders. (And here's a San Franciso Chronicle article on them from earlier in the year.)

The Dokdo islets are the subject of a territorial dispute between Korea and Japan, which refers to them as Takeshima and claims them as Japanese territory. The Dokdo Riders, a group of five Korean college students, are touring the world by motorcycle to promote the view that Dokdo belongs to Korea.

Using a motorcycle tour to draw attention to a political cause is actually a pretty neat idea, but Jeff finds some flaws in the Riders' execution of it:

While in San Francisco, the Dokdo Riders held a press conference that was attended by... Koreans.

...They visited UCLA and held a seminar and presentation attended by... Koreans, where they drummed with... other Koreans. After the seminar, they went out to eat... at a Korean restaurant... with a bunch of Koreans.

At some point, the Dokdo riders seem to have been in San Diego. Where they played their drums... in front of a Korean market... and passed out leaflets about Dokdo to... other Koreans.

Kind of reminds me of American tourists who fly halfway around the world, only to eat all their meals at McDonald's.

This week's photo showed President Bush pulling the sleeve of Chinese President Hu Jintao:


FIRST PLACE: Dave Justus (blog)

In a shocking turn, President Bush prevents the leader of China from going too far to the right.

SECOND PLACE: THM (blog)

Bush: Hey, is this an Armani?

Hu: No, this is made in China. It's an Ermani.

THIRD PLACE: RFTR (blog)

President Bush catches President Hu, preventing him from falling off the stage, directly onto Senator Bill Frist — thereby sparing us all endless 'Hu's on Frist' puns.

HONORABLE MENTION: Gridlock

Look out, Hu... Barney left a "present" over there...

WHAT I CAME UP WITH:

Hey, what's the matter? I just asked if you wanted to see the new Jimmy Fallon-Gong Li movie tonight.

Hmmm.... no muscle tone. Dude, I could so totally take this guy.

Hu was slightly offended by the arm pinch, but matters escalated into a full-blown diplomatic crisis when Bush followed up with several "noogies" and a particularly vigorous purple nurple.

Waitaminute... what did you mean by, "May you live in interesting times"?

And finally, in response to Rodney's caption:

Bush used the meeting with Hu to announce his new plan to improve stalled trade relations with China, but John Kerry was quick to denounce it and offer what he described as a much more nuanced plan of his own.

And that wraps up this week's contest. Coming up next week: A rare group photo of North Carolina Congressman Mel Watt, Las Vegas developer Steve Wynn, and hockey great Gordie Howe.

This week's photo looks at international diplomacy:

U.S. President George W. Bush (R) reaches out and pulls Chinese President Hu Jintao back by his suit jacket as the President of China prepared to walk down the wrong set of steps to leave the stage during official South Lawn Arrival Ceremonies at the White House in Washington, April 20, 2006. (Jim Bourg/Reuters)

Submit your best caption, and tune in Friday to see Hu wins.

FOLLOW-UP
The contest is now over, and comments on this post have been closed. You can see the results here.

Via Asia Pages, United Press International reports:

Tokyo's governor has condemned Mickey Mouse as inferior to Japanese anime, the highly detailed cartoons that feature busty girls with big blue eyes.

Shintaro Ishihara made the remark while opening the Tokyo International Anime Fair on Saturday, which saw tens of thousands of fans strolling aisles packed with anime books, art, posters and a myriad of other souvenirs.

"I hate Mickey Mouse," Ishihara said. "He has nothing like the unique sensibility that Japan has."

Of course, whatever Mickey-san's shortcomings, he's certainly popular in Japan. Ishihara's outburst seems to be another example of Japan's leaders falling out of touch with the society they govern.

FOLLOW-UP:
To clarify, Ishihara seems out of touch because Disney characters are actually quite popular in Japan. But Japan's own home-grown anime characters are popular, too. The New York Times reports on Ishihara, the Anime Fair, and otaku culture here.

ANOTHER FOLLOW-UP:
Ishiara also said he prefers anime because "The Japanese are inherently skilled at visual expression and detailed work." It's true.

YET ANOTHER FOLLOW-UP:
Begun, these flame wars have.

Via Fark, National Geographic reports that Japan's fishing companies are getting out of the whaling business:

Nissui, Japan's second largest marine products company, and four other firms jointly owned whaling company Kyodo Senpaku. This business operated the six-ship whaling fleet on behalf of the Institute of Cetacean Research under the authority of the Japanese government.

All five firms say they will "soon donate" their shareholdings in Kyodo Senpaku to public organizations, including the government-backed research institute.

The Japanese government, meanwhile, vowed to press on with its controversial annual whale hunt.

Whaling will still continue in Japan, but the whaling fleet and catch processing will be handled by the government.

I've said before that it makes no sense for Japan to catch more whales than its people want to eat. It's picking a diplomatic fight for no reason. And yet even now, with private industry clearly repudiating the economics of whaling, Japan shows no sign of changing course:

The Japanese government, however, says whale meat carries great cultural significance among the nation's people.

..."The transfer of the shares in the whaling firm will not affect our policies at all," Hideki Moronuki, an official in charge of whaling for Japan's Fisheries Agency, told the AFP news agency.

"Rather, we welcome the move," Moronuki said. "From now on, whaling will be regarded as something backed by all of Japan, not just a particular group in the private sector."

Of course, if the Japanese people really "backed" whaling, they'd be eating enough whale meat to keep private firms in the business. But they're not. Instead, the government is using PR campaigns to get them to eat more of it. A nation's true culture wouldn't have to be literally forced down its people's throats.

Newsweek covered it in January, and now the Los Angeles Times reports on the China-Taiwan gift panda kerfuffle.

Riding Sun, however, has been on top of this developing story since last May, with numerous updates since then (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Any more panda coverage, and I'd be Ron Burgundy.

FOLLOW-UP:
The LA Times does provide quite a bit of detail about China's history of panda diplomacy, and about pandas themselves. For example:

The species has earned the nickname "living fossils" for having an inefficient reproductive system, with captive males showing little interest in sex, and females in heat only a few days a year. Foreign scientists working with the Chinese have made advances in artificial insemination, while Chinese keepers have taken a different tack: panda "porn" videos to get them in the mood.

Via the Mainichi Shimbun's unpermalinkable Photo Journal, it looks like Japan and South Korea have thankfully been able to put aside their differences and meet up for a nice game of soccer:

Japan's Gamba Osaka player Akihiro Ienaga, right, fights for the ball against South Korea's Chonbuk Hyundai player Choi Chul-soon during the AFC Champions League at Jeonju, south of Seoul, South Korea, Wednesday, March 8, 2006. Chonbuk Hyundai defeated Gamba Osaka 3-2. (AP)

You can almost feel the goodwill spreading.

The Associated Press reports:

North Korea test-fired two short-range missiles Wednesday, an unsettling reminder of the reclusive communist regime's ability to cause instability in the region where a standoff persists over its nuclear program.

The development underscored the dangers posed by the country's longer-range missiles and professed nuclear weapons program.

And, from Kyodo News, we have this:

North Korea is preparing to deploy a new intermediate ballistic missile capable of "easily" reaching Okinawa, Guam and "probably" Alaska, the commander of U.S. forces in South Korea said Tuesday.

[General Burwell] Bell said Pyongyang continues to develop a three-stage Taepodong missile, noting that it "could be operational within the next decade" in providing North Korea with the capability to directly target the continental United States.

Kim must be jealous of all the attention Iran's been getting.

Since last summer, China has been trying to give Taiwan a pair of pandas. Supposedly, they're merely a goodwill gift, but China has been hyping them as a "symbol of unity" &$151; or, in other words, of Taiwan's reunification with the mainland and submission to Beijing's rule. It's a story I've blogged about quite a bit (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

Now, the Yomiuri Shimbun reports, it seems that Taiwan may indeed reject the gift pandas after all:

Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian said during an interview with The Yomiuri Shimbun on Friday that he would reject China's decision to present two pandas to Taiwan if China aims to exploit the gift as part of its strategy to unify Taiwan with the mainland.

Well, is China doing that? Let's see:

In January this year, the Chinese government selected two pandas based on criteria including "health" and "cuteness."

After asking the public to suggest names for the pandas, it decided on Tuan Tuan and Yuan Yuan, a play on the Chinese word "tuanyuan," which means "reunion." The term is also used to describe the occasion when dispersed family members get together.

Not very subtle, is it? But two can play at that game. I recently suggested that one way to get in a little dig at China would be to give pandas names like "Freedom" or "Democracy" — and it seems that some Taiwanese have had the same idea:

"There are those who even say they should be renamed Duli (independence) and Jianguo (nation-building) when they come to Taiwan," said Chen who looked irritated when he was questioned about the pandas.

Heh. I'd love to see China's reaction to that one.

Given that he was once sworn to defend the US Constitution, it's a bit surprising that Bill Clinton has taken a firm stand against free speech. Deutsche Presse-Agentur reports:

Joining in the worldwide condemnation, former US President Bill Clinton Friday described publication of offensive caricatures depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a 'mistake' that infringed on feelings in the Islamic world.

Talking to reporters in Islamabad after meeting Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, Clinton condemned the publication of the sacrilegious drawings in the European media.

'I strongly disagree with the creation and publication of cartoons considered blasphemous by Muslims around the world,' he said, and called it 'a mistake.'

...He stressed that religious convictions of the people should be respected 'at all costs' and no media be allowed to play with religious sentiments of any faith.

Sheesh. At least Robert Wright realized that media must be legally free to criticize and offend Muslims, even if he ultimately claimed it would be better for them not to. Clinton apparently thinks the media should not even be allowed to offend the delicate sensibilities of Muslim extremists. That is, quite simply, a shameful position for a former US president to take.

In this New York Times op-ed, Robert Wright offers his assessment of the Mohammed cartoon protests. Remarkably, he uses false claims and flawed comparisons to make a self-contradictory argument, only to end up recommending the status quo.

First, the false claims and flawed comparisons. Wright says America is being hypocritical when it demands that the Muslim world recognize the media's free speech rights, since American media outlets regularly censor themselves:

Editors at mainstream American media outlets delete lots of words, sentences and images to avoid offending interest groups, especially ethnic and religious ones. It's hard to cite examples since, by definition, they don't appear. But use your imagination.

I can't believe I've never thought to use that tactic myself when trying to prove a point: "I don't have any evidence to support my argument — but use your imagination."

Unfortunately for Wright, his contention that American media back away from offending is nonsense, and we don't have to use our imaginations to see why. A recent Rolling Stone magazine cover featured rapper Kanye West dressed up like Jesus, complete with crown of thorns. And the New York Times itself, in a recent article discussing the Mohammed cartoon protests, featured not the cartoons, but a photo of Chris Ofili's The Holy Virgin Mary, a painting of Christ's mother festooned with chunks of elephant dung.

Wright next turns to that hoary old standby, Christian bombings of abortion clinics:

Hugh Hewitt, a conservative blogger and evangelical Christian, came up with an apt comparison to the Muhammad cartoon: "a cartoon of Christ's crown of thorns transformed into sticks of TNT after an abortion clinic bombing." As Mr. Hewitt noted, that cartoon would offend many American Christians. That's one reason you haven't seen its like in a mainstream American newspaper.

Uh... well, another reason is that there haven't been any abortion clinic bombings for years. According to National Abortion Federation statistics, there hasn't been a clinic bombing since 2001, while literally thousands of extremist-Muslim attacks have taken place in that time. Nevertheless, if an American newspaper did choose to run a cartoon of Christ with a crown of TNT, it could expect some angry letters to the editor, or maybe a picketing or two. Not weeks of riots and death threats.

Wright also overlooks the difference between editorial judgment and official censorship. An American paper can choose to avoid printing certain material that it fears might offend its Christian readers. But if it wants to take that risk, it is free to do so under the law. By contrast, the Mohammed cartoon protesters have mainly been demanding that editors who reprint the cartoons be punished as criminals. There's a big difference between getting readers angry and breaking the law, and Wright completely ignores it.

These and other off-base assertions are meant to buttress what is ultimately, as noted above, a self-contradictory argument. Wright claims:

The initial Muslim response to the cartoons was not violence, but small demonstrations in Denmark along with a lobbying campaign by Danish Muslims that cranked on for months without making it onto the world's radar screen.

Only after these activists were snubbed by Danish politicians and found synergy with powerful politicians in Muslim states did big demonstrations ensue. Some of the demonstrations turned violent, but much of the violence seems to have been orchestrated by state governments, terrorist groups and other cynical political actors.

If that's correct, why should the West respond to the manipulations of "cynical political actors"? Wright wants us to accept the following:

(1) Most Muslims weren't all that upset about the Mohammed cartoons, although some were cynically manipulated into violence.

(2) Therefore, America should be careful not to upset Muslims by publishing material like the Mohammed cartoons.

It's hard to believe someone could contradict himself so blatantly without even realizing it. But what's truly amazing is that Wright expends all this energy simply to end up recommending the status quo:

So why not take the model that has worked in America and apply it globally? Namely: Yes, you are legally free to publish just about anything, but if you publish things that gratuitously offend ethnic or religious groups, you will earn the scorn of enlightened people everywhere. With freedom comes responsibility.

Sounds good to me. Of course, this is precisely the model that already exists in much of the Western world. Wright, then, seems to be upset not that various media published the Mohammed cartoons, but that they didn't "earn the scorn of enlightened people everywhere" for doing so. Perhaps in an age when Islamic terror and intolerance dominate the daily headlines, enlightened people no longer feel such cartoons are gratuitously offensive.

FOLLOW-UP:
At LGF, Charles comments on another aspect of the Wright piece that I left out from my own post simply in the interest of length and focus: Wright thinks we should appease Muslims protesting the Mohammed cartoons, calling appeasement a "quintessentially American response." In particular, Wright compares the cartoon protests to America's race riots of the 1960's:

Amid the cartoon protests, some conservative blogs have warned that addressing grievances expressed violently is a form of "appeasement," and will only bring more violence and weaken Western values. But "appeasement" didn't work that way in the 1960's. The Kerner Commission, set up by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1967 to study the riots, recommended increased attention to the problems of poverty, job and housing discrimination, and unequal education — attention that was forthcoming and that didn't exactly spawn decades of race riots.

The commission recognized the difference between what triggers an uproar (how police handle a traffic stop in Watts) and what fuels it (discrimination, poverty, etc.). This recognition has been sparse amid the cartoon uproar, as Americans fixate on the question of how a single drawing could inflame millions.

Answer: depends on which million you're talking about. In Gaza much of the actual fuel came from tensions with Israelis, in Iran some fundamentalists nursed longstanding anti-Americanism, in Pakistan opposition to the pro-Western ruling regime played a role, and so on.

In the 1960's, blacks in America rioted in America, because of racist treatment by America, and an appropriate response came from America. But the Mohammed cartoon protests lack a similar connection between the target of the protesters and the many different things Wright claims they really want. Even if Western media worldwide agree to never, ever again print a picture of Mohammed, Musharraf will still rule Pakistan, Israel will still be in the West Bank, and, as Wright puts it, so on. If the protesters are really complaining about problems in their own countries, how can Western media possibly appease them?

Note also that while American blacks wanted equal rights, today's Muslim protesters claim a special right: the right not to be offended.

Azerbaijan's Trend news agency reports that Japan last Wednesday clarified its position on the Mohammed cartoons:

Japan stands for freedom of expression throughout the world, however, it does not accept any attacks on religious feelings of people, the Ambassador of Japan to Azerbaijan, Tadahiro Abe commented today...

Sometimes I wish people worked like computer programs, so that we wouldn't be able to make logically contradictory statements.

Previously, I blogged about Iran renaming Danish pastries after Mohammed, in response to the Mohammed cartoons. Then, blogger Don Surber raised suspicions that the story was a hoax: it had been reported by just one news service, and without much detail at all. Later, the New York Times reported a similar story, with the Iraninan Student News Agency as its source. Still not much detail, though, and no sign that the proposed name change had gone into effect.

Well, now we appear to have proof. Via Michelle Malkin, the Associated Press has a nice, detailed report:

Iranians love Danish pastries, but when they look for the flaky dessert at the bakery they now have to ask for "Roses of the Prophet Muhammad."

Bakeries across the capital were covering up their ads for Danish pastries Thursday after the confectioners' union ordered the name change in retaliation for caricatures of the Muslim prophet published in a Danish newspaper.

"Given the insults by Danish newspapers against the prophet, as of now the name of Danish pastries will give way to 'Rose of Muhammad' pastries," the union said in its order.

Actually, it's not 100% clear that this name change is the same one mentioned in the previous reports; it may have been a new, separate decision by the confectioners' union. But I'll take it. Vindication is sweet.

FOLLOW-UP:
Don Surber has apologized like a gentleman. Frankly, Don, I think it was good of you to be suspicious. You pointed out how easy it can be to get duped by a hoax if you're not careful.

A while ago, I blogged about how Japan's whaling fleet is killing more whales than people in Japan actually want to eat. As a result of this imbalance between supply and demand, Japan has amassed a fairly large stockpile of surplus whale meat. But don't worry — Japan has devised a solution.

It won't be killing fewer whales, though. It'll be pushing people to eat more whale meat. Via Sean, the Asahi Shimbun reports:

The government wants the public to eat more whale meat to reduce the bloated stockpile and to prevent a rise in international criticism against the nation's whaling program in the name of research.

The excess stock stems from the expanded catch of whales in the northwestern area of the Pacific Ocean, coupled with sluggish demand among consumers.

The whale meat stock soared to 4,800 tons at the end of August, before falling to 3,511 tons at the end of December. The stockpile was between 600 tons and 700 tons in 1998.

Fisheries Agency officials say the mounting stockpile could fuel anti-whaling nations' arguments that Japan should reduce the number of whales it hunts or terminate the whaling program altogether.

And scaling back the program to a point where supply actually matched demand would be bad... how? At a time when Japan has no shortage of front-burner diplomatic issues, its insistence on turning up the heat for no good reason is absolutely baffling.

NOTE: As was the case previously, the Japan Times is the only source I can find for the following story. This one is based on an interview its reporter conducted, not on a press release or press conference. I may have to re-think my policy about not linking to it just because it requires user registration to read old articles. After all, the New York Times charges a fee to read old articles, and I still link to them.

I blogged previously about how the Japanese government pressured Japanese media not to run the notorious Mohammed cartoons, out of fear that angry Muslims would attack Japanese people and buildings overseas.

And as the Japan Times reports, it was right to be afraid. Incredibly, Egypt's ambassador to Japan has issued a not-so-veiled threat of attacks within Japan itself unless the Japanese media play along:

Attacks like the ones on the Danish embassies in Syria and Lebanon last weekend could take place in Japan if the media here insult Muslims by reprinting cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad, Egyptian Ambassador to Japan Hisham Badr warned Friday.

"This is not a question of freedom of expression... This is a question of blaspheme of religion," Badr said in an interview with The Japan Times. "It touches a very raw nerve" with Muslims worldwide.

Badr praised both Tokyo for urging media not to reprint the cartoons and news organizations for complying.

..."Reprinting (the images) is a provocation," the ambassador said. "It is as if they are saying 'we don't care about your feelings.'"

He added that even pictures of the caricatures that show them indirectly is unnecessary. The Japan Times printed a photograph in its Feb. 4 editions of a person holding a French newspaper that carried the cartoons.

So according to Badr, there's no right to free speech, but there is a right not to have your feelings hurt. Oh, and just in case you got the wrong idea, Badr actually opposes violent protests:

The Egyptian envoy condemned violence, urging Muslims in Japan to express their feelings peacefully.

Unbelievable. The Mohammed cartoons should be printed far and wide, not to provoke or anger Muslims, but to show people like Badr that this is an issue of freedom of expression — and the nations who enjoy that freedom will not surrender it to thuggish threats.

FOLLOW-UP:
Reader Cathy Mossholder emailed to remind me that the Mohammed cartoons were already published in an Egyptian newspaper long before Badr warned Japan not to print them! You can see photographs of the cartoons in Egypt's Al Fagr newspaper here.