I always said Sullivan would one day have to confront the fact that he and the Bush administration are fundamentally incompatible. It seems the day has arrived.

Just back from his vacation, the former snarling attack dog is sounding disillusioned and disappointed, even disdainful of Bush and his bungling of the US economy and the Iraqi quagmire.

Of course, he’s still got some poison in him (note the casual reference to Saddam as being “perhaps in league with al Qaeda”) but he’s certainly not the starry-eyed Bush worshipper he was six weeks ago:

I could forgive this administration almost anything if it got the war right. But, after a great start, it’s getting hard to believe the White House is in control of events any more. Osama bin Laden is regrouping in Afghanistan; Saddam, perhaps in league with al Qaeda, is fighting back in Iraq. The victims of terror in Iraq blame the United States – not the perpetrators – for the chaos. And the best news of the war – that Shi’a, Sunnis, and Kurds were not at each others’ throats – is now fraying. Worse, the longer the impasse continues the harder it will be to get ourselves out of it.

About this we hear two refrains from the White House: a) everything is going fine, actually; and b) this new intensity of terror in Iraq is a good thing because it helps us fight the enemy on military, rather than civilian, terrain. The trouble that we’re discovering is that a full-scale anti-terror war is not exactly compatible with the careful resusictation of civil order and democratic government, is it? And if we are in a new and vital war, why are we not sending more troops to fight it? And why are we not planning big increases in funding for the civil infrastructure at the same time? The response so far does not strike me as commensurate with the problem, and I say this as someone who once wavered in regard to support for this war. What to do? I’d be hard put to express it better than John McCain Sunday: more troops, more money, more honesty from the president about the challenges, swifter devolution of power to Iraqis, and so on. And yet the White House in August decided to devote the president’s public appearances to boosting his environmental credibility. Are they losing it? So far, I’ve been manfully trying to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, especially given the media’s relentlessly negative coverage of Iraq. But they’re beginning to lose me, for the same reasons they’re losing Dan Drezner. They don’t seem to grasp the absolutely vital necessity of success in Iraq. And I can’t believe I’m writing that sentence.

When Sullivan says (one post down) of Bush’s Top Gun landing on the aircraft carrier, “Can we all now agree that that was the dumbest political gesture of the last two years?” we all know there’s been a fundamental shift.

I was taken somewhat aback today as I browsed through my copy of Streats, a free Singapore tabloid, and came across a 4-color, full-page ad congratulating North Korea on its upcoming 55th Anniversary (September 9, in case you are planning to celebrate).

I wish I could post the whole page, but scanning it is a pain because the type is so small; I’m going to try to post a thumbnail below of the second half of the ad which is a bit easier to read. If that fails, email me and I’ll forward it on.

The ad reads like the hallucination of a crazed Stalinist. Of course, there’s the obligatory photo of Dear Leader smiling and waving in the center, adorned with tacky drawings of colorful flowers. I’ll type out some excerpts, but hopefully you’ll be able to find the whole ad somewhere; every line is precious:

The people’s government is a sturdy political weapon in revolution and construction for consolidating and developing the socialist system and and winning the final victory of the socialist cause.

[….]

The working class leader establishes and guides the socialist government, a weapon in revolution and construction, with which to put his ideas into effect. The socialist government separated from his ideas and leadership cannot conduct revolutionary and practical politics. The politics of the socialist government is nothing but the working class leader’s politics, and its might and vitality are dependent on the greatness of of his politics.

Are you following this so far? It rambles on like an old Communist textbook, ranting about the great leader’s politics of “democracy, benevolence, deep love and trust in the masses of people.” This is the sane part of the advertisement. The nutty part follows:

All taxes have been repealed. No one is out of work in the DPRK and every family is provided with a rent-free house. They are a harmonious family free from exploitation and inequality.

The DPRK is a kind of utopia.

Other countries boast of their great economic strength and welfare systems but the DPRK is the only genuine people’s country.

[….]

The DPRK shines as one of the last bastions of Stalinism socialism….It has heroically overcome its difficulties and is on the way to being a strong and successful power with a rosy future.

It is no wonder the eyes of the world are focussed on this country.

Well, that part is true — everyone’s eyes are focused on North Korea, though not, I suspect, with admiration, but with a strong sense of bewilderment that such a looney place can exist in the 21st century — and a strong sense of discomfort that it’s developing nuclear weapons.

The whole thing is a riot, that I would like to think is a parody, a colossal joke put out by Dear Leader showing us that he’s lightening up. Can you imagine Kim Jong II ever laughing at himself? No, it’s for real, and that is nothing to laugh about.

Okay, I’ll try to upload the scanned image, but it may be illegible. Click to see the whole thing, and remember, this is just half of the ad.

My immediate inclination is to reject the Chinese argument and even to laugh. But then, not having been there, maybe I don’t have the whole picture:

China said on Monday that United States policy on North Korea is the biggest obstacle to resolving the nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula, but expressed confidence the North wanted to work for a peaceful solution.

Asked by reporters what he thought was the main obstacle to progress, China’s Vice Foreign Minister Wang Yi, said: “The American policy towards DPRK — this is the main problem we are facing.”

North Korea, officially known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, had said its expectations at last week’s talks also involving China, Japan, Russia and South Korea had been “betrayed” by “hostile” US policy.

North Korea also described the discussions as “pointless” and threw into doubt its participation at the next round of talks.

Maybe I’ve totally misread things, but it struck me from the start that North Korea was being its usual psychotic self, trying to terrify the world into doing things on its terms. Then again, Team Bush is running things now, so maybe we really are being hostile and undiplomatic.

For an intelligent look at the situation from several viewpoints, check out the Straits Times’ analysis today, which contends that China is actually the player with the most to lose at the moment.

The country now facing a really serious dilemma is China.

In the weeks to come, Beijing will have to decide whether to intensify the pressure on Pyongyang – perhaps by threatening yet again economic sanctions as it has briefly done a few months ago – or remain silent and see the entire diplomatic process disintegrate.

It is a choice which Beijing never wanted to face.

It’s probably a good thing that China is going to let 2,000 money-losing state-owned enterprises die of natural causes over the next five years. 8,000 others were shed over the past seven or so years. It’s a good start, but once these are out of the way, there are about 157,000 others.

I am no economist, but it appears to me that this is the conundrum of China’s economy:

”The policy of allowing these loss makers to go bankrupt will make China’s employment situation much tougher,” the official was quoted as saying.

State-sector reforms have led to the shedding of tens of millions of workers every year, many of whom cannot find new jobs.

The Ministry of Labour and Social Security said that China needed an additional 24 million jobs for its unemployed urban residents.

That’s 24 million jobs for urban residents alone. I don’t even want to think of how many in the countryside are out of work. On top of this, the government is always borrowing more and more to support the non-productive, cash-bleeding SOEs, so the banking system is under perpetual strain.

And that’s where the “maintain social stability at all costs” mentality steps in. Once you have any sort of panic, any run on the banks, the entire system is threatened. I realize the situation is more complex than that, but I was always aware when I lived there of just how fragile things really were.

A common myth, I believe, is that multinationals in China are thriving, and that the Chinese are lining up to buy foreign goods. I’ll take that back — it’s half myth. There is no doubt a sliver of the vast population is indeed buying Mercedes sedans and Louis Vuitton bags. And the middle class is certainly growing, though I believe most readers would be amazed at what would constitute the “middle class” wages of, say, an accountant or marketing manager in Beijing.

I would guess that most of the Louis Vuitton, Ermenegilda Zegna and Hermes boutique shops that seem to be everywhere in Shanghai and Beijing are breaking even (maybe), thanks to that high-spending sliver at the top, as well as the expats. But I can’t imagine anyone getting rich from them.

Most companies seem to feel they must establish a presence in China now and take advantage of the great marketplace of the future. I can state for a fact that nearly all the multinational communications companies there are operating at either a loss or with profits that are razor-thin. But still, they all feel they need to be there. And I think it’s that way in other sectors as well.

Time will tell if this is an ingenious strategy or a doomed goldrush. I honestly can’t say. Some are definitely doing very well, especially certain auto manufacturers like Volkswagen and Buick, which made shrewd deals to assemble their cars on Chinese soil. Others are operating at a painful loss.

One thing’s for certain: the new pheomenon of the Chinese millionaire and of that small sliver at the top that can afford Prada bags and trips to Paris is a mixed blessing when it comes to holding the society together. Their money is certainly trickling down, but it also exacerbates the already shocking discrepancy between the nouveau riche and the dirt-poor peasant/migrant worker. The government appears to be truly concerned (justifiably, IMHO), about a possible “Let them eat cake” gulf between the rich and poor.

This is why each year, in keeping with a tradition started by the Great Helmsman Mao in the early 1960’s, they resurrect the mythological figure of Lei Feng and milk it shamelessly. The message is similar to “blessed are the poor, blessed are the meek” — Lei Feng led a happy life by aspiring to be “a screw” in the Chinese Communist machinery, and you should feel that way, too! This theme is repeated ad nauseum on the Party’s networks, especially around Lei Feng’s birthday.

And yet, how can the poor laborer, being told how glorious it is to be poor and subservient — how can he not feel frustration, envy and a sense of being duped when he sees the proud owner of a spanking new Mercedes drive by? Can he really take great joy and pride in his poverty?

Tough situations. I’d have to say that holding it all together — the tangled mess of SOE’s, the exhausted banking system, the new social imbalances, the unbelievably huge legions of unemployed (not to mention those in the countryside working for literally slave wages) — is a task I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. It’s been done so far by a sort of juggling act, aided to a huge extent by the draw of big MNCs that set up their manufacturing facilities in China. But at some point there’s going to have to be a lot more pain felt somewhere. That day won’t be a pretty one.

Once more, I started off with the intention of writing a few paragraphs and found myself wandering off in every conceivable direction. Sorry.