Opinion

Ian Bremmer

Fallout is just beginning in North Korea

Ian Bremmer
Dec 21, 2011 17:31 UTC

By Ian Bremmer
The opinions expressed are his own.

There are many surprising things about Kim Jong-il’s sudden death, not the least of which is that it took two days for the rest of the world to hear about it. Yet most surprising is the sanguine reaction of the global and especially the Asian markets. On Monday, or actually Sunday as we now know, the world woke up to its first leaderless nuclear power. Coming as close as anyone could to filling his seat was his youngest son, who is in his late twenties. There’s no way these facts were accurately priced into markets that took just a relatively minor dip as a first response. The news from North Korea appears to have been taken far too lightly, and just a few days out, it’s disappearing from the front pages.

While Kim Jong-un’s status as heir apparent seems to tie a nice bow around the situation, let’s get real for a moment. The son of the elder Kim only appeared on the North Korean stage after a stroke necessitated succession planning in Kim Jong-il’s regime in 2008. Consider that founder of the country Kim Il-sung put his son, Kim Jong-il, in front of the citizenry as his heir for more than a decade before his 1994 death. That decade was precious time; time Kim Jong-il spent consolidating power and putting his own people into high government office— and he was over 50 years old when his father passed away. Kim Jong-un has been deprived of that head start; he’s got to rely on whatever ground his dead father managed to clear for him since his 2008 stroke. A couple of years at his father’s side — and a promotion to four star general — is scant time for the younger Kim to have developed a real plan for ruling, or real allies in government.

That said, don’t expect Kim Jong-un to be deposed. There won’t be a North Korean spring — for real or for show — anytime soon. The country is too backward and too brainwashed to mount any sort of populist opposition to the ruling regime, and its people have little if any knowledge of the outside world. Even if Kim Jong-un proves unable to consolidate and retain power, all that would replace him as the head of state is a military junta or strongman; there’s no democracy on the horizon, given the country’s current sorry state of affairs.

Prokhorov’s presidential chances are not the point

Ian Bremmer
Dec 13, 2011 14:15 UTC

By Ian Bremmer
The opinions expressed are his own.

After a week full of anti-government and pro-government protests, Russians woke up on Monday to big news. Mikhail Prokhorov, a political novice with billions of dollars—and the New Jersey Nets— to his name, announced his Presidential bid.  Alexei Kudrin, a longtime bureaucratic infighter, also declared his plans to re-enter the political arena. These developments were even more significant considering both were ousted in rather public quarrels with the powers that be just months ago. Kudrin said he would support and aid a pro-reform liberal party that would stand as a counterweight to the incumbent United Russia. Prokhorov intends to challenge Putin for the presidency in March 2012 on a platform that would appeal to Russia’s “disenchanted middle class.”

No matter what Kudrin and Prokhorov say in public, they both represent the same thing to Russia and the world: Vladimir Putin’s iron grip on power. As I’ve written before, Putin is the most powerful individual on the planet. To think that either man would risk his freedom or his fortune to oppose Putin’s Kremlin, no matter what their stated reasons are, is just wrong. That said, there are reasons to watch this “race” as it will give some insight into Putin’s inevitable third term as president.

Putin has had to deal with a growing sense of dissatisfaction in Russia as of late.  Growth and living standards are stagnating, while economic inequality persists. It is unclear whose pockets are being lined with the wealth generated by Russia’s massive natural resources. The lack of freedom of the press, centralized control over economic opportunity, and pervasive corruption that makes a mockery of the justice and security systems and other institutions, are Putin’s levers of power– and also the focal points for protesters. The protestors’ complaints crystallized last week over United Russia, Putin’s party, winning a smaller but still strong majority in the parliamentary elections. Accusations of election fraud were widespread and tens of thousands took to the streets in protest over the course of last week. Putin has not been in a position to crack down on these protests — they’re too visible and too widespread — but be sure that the oligarchs and ruling classes in Russia are on Putin’s side. While his tactics for retaining power have had to change, the outcome is the same.

Euro zone pain: hurts so good

Ian Bremmer
Dec 8, 2011 19:02 UTC

By Ian Bremmer
The opinions expressed are his own.


It seems every Monday morning, the U.S. newspapers greet their readers with the latest news of the euro zone’s painful sovereign debt negotiations, not to mention all the politics, institutions and personalities wrapped therein. The tick-tock accounts of every phone call and meeting are important and fascinating reading, but they’re not as important as the real news coming out of this crisis: Europe is changing — painfully and haltingly, but for the better.

The Continent is moving to a point where increased fiscal coordination will redefine the nature of sovereignty for euro zone member states. Economists have long been saying that it’s going to take an extraordinary amount of pain to right the wrongs of the euro zone’s finances. Europe has already suffered through a lot: liquidity crunches in the banks (see today’s ECB rate drop), recession, riots and technocratic governments taking over the peripheral states. But what must be noted is that Europe would never be where it is today — on the verge of a sounder fiscal path forward — but for all this pain. It has all been necessary, in order to right the course of a euro zone that was, like the U.S., on an unsustainable path.

This may sound like strong medicine, so strong that it may cure the disease but kill the patient, but ask yourself this: Would any of the austerity and return to fiscal sanity have happened in Europe if Germany had simply cut the debtor nations a fat check one and a half years ago, when this crisis came to light? Would the problems of Europe have been solved? The answers to both are, of course, no.

Why is Hillary Clinton in Myanmar?

Ian Bremmer
Dec 1, 2011 19:50 UTC

By Ian Bremmer
The opinions expressed are his own.

As Syria’s Assad faces civil war, Egypt struggles to elect a new government, Iranian students storm the British embassy, and Israel’s Netanyahu worries over what it all means, it’s remarkable that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just touched down in Myanmar. Rather than sending his chief diplomat off to the Middle East to fight fires and broker deals, President Obama appears intent on minimizing US exposure there and concentrating his attention elsewhere.

Clinton becomes just the second U.S. official of her rank to visit Myanmar, once known as Burma, a country run by an isolated, paranoid military regime that represses its people from a fortified enclave in the middle of the jungle. Clinton made the trip knowing that the Obama administration and her State Department might face accusations at home, from both left and right, that she is endorsing that country’s leaders. But in fact, Clinton’s boldness has proven to be a strength for the administration. And Obama’s foreign policy savvy benefits him politically relative the lack of a coherent Republican view of US foreign policy. (See Herman Cain’s newly published map of the world or my recent column on the lack of serious foreign policy in the GOP debates.)

The visit is all the more noteworthy because, following President Obama’s recent Pacific tour, it highlights just how much time the Obama team is devoting to Asia.

  •