CNN reported Thursday morning that intercepted communications indicate that North Korea may be planning to launch ballistic missiles “within days,” in yet another potential escalation. South Korean Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin also told a government panel on Thursday that North Korea has moved a medium-range missile to its eastern coast, possibly in preparation for either a test or military demonstration.

North Korea’s threat comes from three factors: the unpredictability of its leader, Kim Jong Un; its ongoing nuclear weapons program; and its large amount of conventional weapons. Despite the difficulty it has seen in testing and its lack of large stockpiles of fissile material, North Korea’s nuclear program remains a major concern. North Korea appears to have jump-started the process of getting its plutonium reactor at Yongbon back online, but it will possibly take years to produce enough material for new weapons. At present, North Korea is estimated to have enough plutonium for 10 nuclear warheads, but Pyongyang’s ability to shrink down a nuclear warhead to the size where it would fit on a missile has advanced significantly and the country theoretically maintains rudimentary delivery methods within the region. There is also concern that North Korea could sell its weapons and/or weapons technology to third parties.

Even in light of Pyongyang’s nuclear capacity, North Korea’s large array of missiles and rockets remain a considerable threat to the peace and stability of the region. Of those conventional weapons, North Korea’s short-range Scud and Rodong missiles pose the greatest risk to U.S. assets in the area, given their high number and accuracy. With an estimated 1,800-mile range, the Musudan medium-range missile — which is mostly likely the type moved to the North Korean cost on Thursday — also may pose a significant threat, but its effectiveness has been questioned given the missile’s lack of prominent testing.

North Korea’s longer range missiles — the Taepodong-2 and Uhna rocket — are less reliable, both in accuracy and in performance. In 2006, a test of the Taepodong-2 completely failed, as did its use in an attempt to place a satellite in orbit in 2009. In Dec. 2012, North Korea did successfully test the Unha rocket, claiming to use it to a satellite in orbit. Estimates of the range for the Unha places it at approximately 4,500 miles — able to reach the U.S. West Coast — although experts have said that it is highly unlikely that North Korean missiles can hit the U.S. mainland and the Unha’s accuracy is completely unknown.

In any case, it is more likely that the launch of North Korean missiles would be a threat to U.S. allies and assets in the region, including South Korea and Japan. South Korea is well-within range of the shortest range missiles, with Seoul being only 35 miles from the Demilitarized Zone. That short distance also lends itself to the possibility that North Korea could drop a nuclear bomb on the country, rather than launch a nuclear warhead. Japan, while not particularly caught in this current spiral, has also been on the receiving end of North Korea’s threats. The two countries are home to a combined 64,000 U.S. forces, stationed in bases at Okinawa, the DMZ, and other locations.
Read more

Former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi meets with former North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il in 2002

Since North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un turned up the heat, going as far as declaring that a “state of war” exists on the Korean peninsula once more, the U.S. and South Korea have responded in kind. South Korean President Park Geun-hye on Monday gave the military the leeway to respond directly to any attack without “any political consideration.” The United States, for its part, flew B-2 stealth bombers over South Korea in a show of force meant to the show North Korea that it could strike without warning and has F-22 stealth fighters on stand-by to participate in a training exercise with South Korea.

China has expressed its displeasure with North Korea in the months since its third nuclear test, even as Beijing continues to back its fellow communist state. Even Russia has taken the opportunity to voice its opinion of the heated words coming from Pyongyang, Seoul, and Washington. So of the members of the Six-Party Talks, why is Japan the only one staying quiet about the DPRK’s bellicose rhetoric?

Given the proximity of Japan to the Koreas, and the DPRK’s history of threats against the Japanese people and U.S. bases in Japan, it’s surprising that Japan has yet to speak out during the last several weeks, particularly considering Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s reputation for hawkish behavior towards North Korea and in general.

Part of Abe’s campaign platform was editing Japan’s post-World War II constitution to allow a broader definition of “self-defense” than is currently allowed. Abe has most definitely acted on those policies once taking office, including launching a series of military exercises designed to simulate a Chinese invasion of Japan, though it never directly referenced China. Military spending is up, as well, but what’s still missing has been an active role for Japan during the crisis on the Korean peninsula.

So what’s the reason behind Abe’s seemingly counter-intuitive lack of public statements in recent weeks? Dr. Sheila Smith, Senior Fellow for Japan Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, spoke with ThinkProgress on the matter, saying that the silence from Tokyo is the wise choice. In Smith’s view, the Abe government understands that the focus of Pyongyang’s rhetoric is on South Korea, with its statements designed for consumption in Washington and Seoul. Smith also believes that Tokyo is reassured by the United States’ security pledges and doesn’t see an advantage in inserting itself into the current crisis.

Smith may be right, given the lack of direct threats toward Tokyo from Pyongyang lately. Also playing into Japan’s decision may be that it does not view Pyongyang as likely to take action. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told journalists at the daily briefing that there are no signs of troop movement from North Korea to match its rhetoric. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), Ranking Member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Monday also said that he believes that “nothing is going to happen.” Despite that, military preparations from the U.S. are ongoing. On Monday, the Pentagon announced that the U.S.S. John S. McCain, an anti-missile destroyer, was being moved to the coast of Korea, with the the U.S.S. Decatur following on Tuesday.

With the U.S. election finally over, it’s entirely possible that some poll junkies are already looking for their next fix. While some may be jumping ahead to the 2014 midterms, or even the 2016 Presidential race, an easier solution would be to look at the multitude of elections coming up around the world. According to the National Democratic Institute’s 2012-2013 election calendar, there are still plenty of races to keep an eye on while the U.S. settles down.

Japan currently doesn’t have elections officially scheduled, though they must be held no later than May 2013. But in August 2011, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda promised that elections would be held “soon.” Since then, Noda has said that he is in no hurry to open the polls, fearing a “political vacuum” in the run-up to the vote and facing a fiscal cliff of its own at the end of November.

Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of the Liberal Democratic Party is particularly interested in having the chance for his party to reclaim control of the Cabinet given unpopularity of the Democratic Party of Japan in opinion polls. No matter who wins the eventual election, both Abe and Noda are signaling that a more muscular foreign policy may be ahead for Japan.

The Republic of Korea’s Presidential race will conclude on Dec. 19. Leading the polls is Park Geun-hye, heading the Saenuri, or New Frontier Party. Park is the daughter of former President Park Chung-hee, who held power for sixteen years following a 1961 military coup and his election in 1963. Park has defended her father’s actions in the past, saying “I don’t think it’s the place of politicians to be fighting over whether [Park's rise to power was] a ‘coup d’etat’ or a ‘revolution.”

Park’s main competitors, Moon Jae-in, nominated to head the Democratic United Party following the end of current President Lee Myung-bak’s term, and independent candidate Ahn Cheol-soo merged campaigns recently. Park is seeking to keep pressure on the duo though by pledging to ease Lee’s hardline stance against North Korea, even indicating that she’d be willing to meet with new North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un.

Israel will be choosing members of the 19th Knesset on Jan. 22, 2013. Israeli lawmakers voted on Oct. 16 to dissolve and move elections up from October 2013. In a surprise move, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avadgor Lieberman then announced the merger of their two parties as the new Likud Beiteinu.

Many experts have said it’s nearly impossible for the center and left-wing parties in Israel win, though Netanyahu’s new party may not wield quite as much power as currently thought. However, it’s unclear what a dominant Likud Beiteninu means for negotiations with the Palestinian Authority and it looks like more heated rhetoric toward Iran is on the horizon.

Iran won’t be holding its presidential election until June 2013, but it’s worth it to starting to watch now. The race to replace Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has yet to solidify into solid candidates, but speculation is already occurring. Some believe that Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, an ally of Ahmadinejad, may be being groomed to take over in 2013, despite Mashaei’s run-in with conservatives. Ali Akbar Velayati, former Foreign Minister of Iran, has also been mentioned as a potential candidate. Velayati has the advantage of having Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s ear and a history of work on difficult negotiations.

Whatever the result , the un-elected Khamenei holds the real power in the Islamic Republic. While Ahmadinejad has already started to feel the effect of his lame-duck status, whomever wins in June won’t wield the power that many associate with so high an office.

The Chinese Communist Party’s 18th Congress is kicking-off and in a completely choreographed event, over two thousand delegates will come together to begin the process that ends with current Vice President Xi Jinping being named the party’s leader and thus head of state. These delegates — who are not democratically elected — will still cast votes for those who eventually will winnow down to the either seven or nine members that will form the Politburo Standing Committee, the head of the country.

The Congress will also decide who sits on the Central Military Commission and amend the Party’s Constitution. All told, the Congress will usher in a new generation of Chinese leaders, though the previous may still seek a large role in determining China’s direction.

The Supreme Court’s decision yesterday to uphold the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marked a defining moment in the decades long battle to bring affordable healthcare to the U.S. But while healthcare continues to be a divisive issue domestically, the U.S. has funded and advocated for some of the best universal health systems around the world.

The U.S. is ranked 37th in the World Health Organization’s rankings of health systems. But the impact of U.S. health policy extends beyond U.S. borders. Laurie Garrett, a Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote that the U.S. is now in line domestically with policies it has been promoting internationally:

Dating back to the Marshall Plan in post-WWII Europe, Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s 1945-49 occupation of Japan, and then the Korean War, it has been a matter of U.S. foreign policy to invest in the creation of universal health systems. More recently, the Marshall Plan was cited by AFRICOM in support of a Department of Defense engagement in health systems construction across Africa. This year (FY2012), South Africa was the number one recipient of health aid from the United States, totaling nearly $470 million, much of which is supporting the country’s fourteen-year program to build universal health coverage.

Indeed, Japan and Marshall Plan countries in Europe make up the majority, thirteen out of twenty, of the top national health systems in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 2000 report [PDF]. Those countries are highlighted in the following chart:

And a 2010 Commonwealth Fund comparison of population health [PDF] in seven countries — Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the UK — found the U.S. underperforming “relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance.” Half of those countries outperforming the U.S. — Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK — were recipients of Marshall Plan assistance.

The ACA will provide access to health insurance for 30 million uninsured Americans and prevent insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. “[P]erhaps it will now be possible for an HIV-infected individual in Mississippi or Alabama to have access, at taxpayers’ expense, to the same level of care as the U.S. government supports for comparable individuals in Johannesburg,” writes Garrett.