North Korea’s official media denied a media report that Kim Jong-Un gave a copy of Hitler’s autobiography, Mein Kampf, to senior DPRK officials during his birthday celebrations in January.

Citing a DPRK official located in China, on Monday New Focus International, a website run by defectors in South Korea who maintain contacts with DPRK elites, reported that the North Korean leader had handed out copies of Hitler’s autobiography to “DPRK officials ranked departmental director and above in the National Defense Committee” at a meeting on January 8th.   

The source also told NFI that, “Mentioning that Hitler managed to rebuild Germany in a short time following its defeat in WWI, Kim Jong-un issued an order for the Third Reich to be studied in depth and asked that practical applications be drawn from it.”

The report was picked up by Max Fisher of the Washington Post on Monday, and from there was reported on by numerous Western and International media outlets.

According to a translation provided by World News Connection, Pyongyang’s official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) blasted the report in a commentary today, calling it a “sheer fabrication.”

It also had offered some harsh criticism of New Focus International. “New Focus is wicked media made up of human scum,” the KCNA report said, adding “The group of such dirty men talked rubbish packaged in false information, a mockery of media whose basic mission is objectivity, impartiality and neutrality and an intolerable insult to human conscience.”

The commentary piece went on to opine that such false reports were meant to “tarnish the image of the DPRK and hurt the validity and invincibility of the Songun cause,” and characterizing them as “a hysteric symptom of those who are frightened by the DPRK demonstrating its might as the world's strongest political and ideological power and a nuclear weapons state and making leaping progress to bring prosperity.”

KCNA informed its readers not to worry, however, because “just as it is impossible to smear the blue sky dark with dirty writing brush of falsity and machinations, the forces hostile to the DPRK can never undermine the validity of the Songun cause.”

Although calling the report a sheer fabrication, as New Focus International itself notes on its website, the KCNA commentary didn’t outright deny the allegations made in the report.

Interestingly, at the time of this writing, KCNA has not posted the commentary piece on its English-language website.

In its initial report on Monday, New Focus International said that there have long been rumors circulating that Kim Jong-Un became an avid reader of Hitler while studying in Switzerland as a teenager. The website also said that the head of North Korea’s secret police gave a recent speech to its members in which he called on them to “Stop focusing on ways to make money in the markets, and mold yourselves after the Gestapo,” a reference to the Third Reich’s secret police.

Asians were the fastest growth ethnic or racial demographic group in the United States during 2012, the U.S. Census Bureau announced on Thursday.

There were 18.9 million individuals of Asian heritage in the United States at the end of 2012, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, a government agency. This was 530,000 more Asians than there were in the U.S. at the end of 2011, a yearly growth rate of just under 3 percent.

More than 60 percent of this growth in people of Asian last year came from international migration, the Census Bureau said in a press release accompanying the release of updated data.

Although Hawaii was the only state with an Asian-majority population in the U.S., as of July 2012 the state of California was home to the largest Asian population with 6 million people. California also boasted the largest yearly growth in Asian residents from July 2011to July 2012. During that time, the number of people of Asian ancestry living in the state of California grew by 136,000.

Los Angeles County, California also had the largest Asian population— 4.8 million—of any county in the United States, and saw the largest growth in its population from July 2011 to July 2012 (25,000).

Although California has long had a vibrant Asian population—with immigration dating at least as far back as the 19^th Century— it has shown remarkable growth in the last decade or so. In 2001, for instance, 42 percent of California’s new immigrants came from Latin American countries, whereas 37 percent of the people were from Asian countries. By 2011, however, 57 percent of the new immigrants to California were from Asian countries and only 22 percent came from Latin America.  

A number of different Asian nationalities are well represented in California as well. The city of Los Angeles has both a Chinatown and Little Tokyo section of the city. In fact, all three Little Tokyos in the United States are located in the state of California.

On the other hand, the 2010 U.S. Census found that of the ten cities with the largest Vietnamese populations in the United States, no less than seven were located in California. Overall, California’s over 581,000 Vietnamese residents were more than twice as many as in Texas, the state with the 2^nd largest Vietnamese population at around 210,000.

The relationship between Asia and California goes both ways, however. Five of California’s largest export markets are in Asia—China, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. California Governor Jerry Brown has also met with Chinese President Xi Jinping on a number of occasions now, including traveling to China earlier this year to open trade offices in Shanghai and other cities inside China.

Although the latest census release didn’t break the Asian population down by country of origin, the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau found that Chinese were the largest Asian immigrant group in the U.S. with over 3.3 million, followed by Indians (2.84 million), Filipinos (2.55 million), Vietnamese (1.5 million), Koreans (1.4 million), and Japanese (763,325). Overall, the 2010 Census said nearly 14.7 million people of Asian ancestry were living in the U.S. in 2010, a 43.2 percent increase from 2000.

As Iranians head to the polls to select a new president, global perceptions of Iran are at an all-time low.

That’s at least according to a new poll by Pew’s Global Attitudes Project, which surveyed views of Iran from 39 countries around the world and found only 20 percent of respondents viewed Iran favorably compared to 59 percent who viewed the country unfavorably. Interestingly, Iran enjoys some of its highest favorability ratings in Muslim-majority countries in the Asia-Pacific.  

For the countries in which Iran was viewed unfavorably, two issues stand out: its nuclear program and human rights record. On the former issue, over the past year Chinese have further soured on Iran becoming a nuclear armed power, with Beijing joining the United States, Israel, and the European Union countries in staunch opposition to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Indeed, 62 percent of respondents in China now oppose a nuclear-armed Iran, up from 54 percent in 2012; in Russia, no less than three in every four respondents agree with the majority view of their Chinese counterparts. Only in Palestine did a slight majority (51 percent) approve of a nuclear-armed Iran.

While Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is widely opposed, the international community is far more divided on how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program.

While solid majorities in the U.S. (78 percent), Germany (77 percent), Britain (75 percent), France (73 percent), Israel (91 percent), Egypt (61 percent), Jordan (74 percent) and Lebanon (77 percent) support further tightening sanctions to dissuade Iran from its current nuclear trajectories. Majorities in places like Turkey and Palestine oppose further sanctions.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64 percent) and 58 percent of French citizens also support attacking Iran’s nuclear sites to prevent it from building the bomb. However, in other NATO countries—like Germany (50 percent) and the UK (48 percent)— citizens are much less receptive to this course of action. Outside the Western world there is little appetite for the military option, even among citizens who oppose a nuclear-armed Iran. For instance, in China only 35 percent of respondents favored the use of military force, compared to 38 percent who opposed it. The comparable figures in Russia were 28 percent and 30 percent respectively.

Within the Middle East, however, majorities in Israel (62 percent) and Jordan (59 percent) do support the military option if necessary, but respondents elsewhere in the region expressed much less enthusiasm about military attacks.

Iran’s domestic policy was also the source of much criticism around the world, Pew found in the poll. Indeed, a staggering 61 percent of respondents said that Iran does not respect the personal freedoms of its citizens, as memories of the brutal government crackdowns on the “Green Movement” following the disputed 2009 presidential election continue to shape perceptions of Iran. Only Pakistan represents a clear majority to the contrary, while Indonesia and Malaysia follow suit in small pluralities.

Indeed, one of the few pockets of support Iran retains in the world are in Muslim-majority countries in the Asia-Pacific, including majorities in Pakistan (69 percent) and Indonesia (55 percent), and a plurality Malaysia (48 percent) all expressing positive views of Iran. This is hardly a fluke; in Pew’s poll from last spring, Pakistan was the only country in which a solid majority expressed favorable attitudes towards Iran (Malaysia and Indonesia weren’t included in that survey.)

What accounts for this small pocket of support?

The most obvious factor is that all three are Muslim-majority countries, with over 96 percent of Pakistanis practicing the Islamic faith and 86.1 percent and 60.4 percent doing the same in Indonesia and Malaysia, respectively. Still, their Islamic faith alone can’t account for their positive views of Iran. After all, Jordan and Egypt are both Islamic countries and their citizens hold extremely negative views of Iran, as seen by the short-lived thawing in people-to-people contacts between Egyptians and Iranians.

The reasons why Pakistanis hold positive views of Iran are easy to discern. Despite its sometimes abhorrent treatment of its own Shi’ites, most Pakistanis have personally experienced living under U.S. sanctions because of their political leaders nuclear program. In fact, Pakistanis overwhelmingly view the United States negatively, and also have first-hand experience with U.S. military action against their country. Furthermore, many Pakistanis number one priority is greater access to electricity, and therefore likely support Iran’s dedication to building a natural gas pipeline through their country.

Iran’s favorability in Southeast Asia is more difficult to explain but appears to be driven by economics as Iran, Indonesia, and Malaysia have cooperated on joint energy projects for years. For instance, in 2008 the three countries pledged to spend US$6 billion building a 300,000 barrel per day (b/d) oil refinery in Indonesia, with Iran supplying half the crude for the facility. The project has faced repeated delays.

More recently, Iran-Indonesian trade flows grew by 51 percent in 2011 over the previous year, and two-way trade now tops US$1 billion annually. Notably, the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) has reportedly been using Indonesian and Malaysian ports to subvert Western sanctions on its oil exports.

Indonesians in particular may be taking their cue from their political leaders. In February, for instance, Dian Wirengjurit, Indonesia’s Ambassador to Iran told reporters, “Indonesia is reluctant to comply with the oil sanctions against Iran and will not be affected by the embargos in its transactions with Iran.” Late last year President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad even visited Indonesia, where he met with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

Whatever the case may be, Iran’s next president will have his hands full trying to improve Iran’s standing throughout the world, with Muslim-majority countries in Asia being a rare exception.

Andrew Detsch is an editorial assistant at The Diplomat.

Meeting with the national chairs of the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC) in Vancouver last week, Canada’s International Trade Minister Ed Fast worked hard to make a convincing case that Canada is serious and is engaged for the long term. He cited as evidence his numerous trips to Asia-Pacific countries, Prime Minister Harper’s visits to the region, including visits to China and India, and the bilateral trade agreements that Canada is negotiating in the region – with Korea, India and Japan (although none have been completed and the Canada-Korea agreement has been under negotiation since 2004).

While there has been a flurry of activity by Canadian officials (Defence Minister Peter MacKay attended the Shangri-la Dialogue meetings in Singapore, while lobbying for Canadian participation in the ASEAN-led Pacific Defence Ministers meeting), public opinion in Canada is following rather than leading. In its 2013 National Opinion Poll, the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada documented that while Canadians are increasingly recognizing the growing importance of Asia, they are approaching it with less enthusiasm than in the past and have reservations about inward investment from Asia, especially in the resources sector. Enthusiasm for engagement with Asia drops as one moves from west to east in Canada.

Reflecting this ambivalence, the Canadian government, after approving CNOOC’s $15 billion takeover of Canadian oil company Nexen, stated that future acquisitions in the oil industry would be off limits to state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Now it has taken this decision a step further by announcing in recent enabling legislation that the definition of SOE will include any entity that is controlled or influenced by the government of a foreign state, directly or indirectly. That means even minority investments by SOEs could be subject to special review if it is determined that foreign governments are behind a particular group of investors. What was once a bright line with regard to foreign control has become distinctly blurred.

Against this backdrop of unfolding debate, PECC, a unique non-governmental, multilateral policy “think tank” established in 1980 as a precursor to APEC and encompassing 26 economies in the Asia-Pacific region, came to Vancouver for its 21^st General Meeting. The last time PECC had convened such a gathering in Canada was in 1986. The meeting was held in conjunction with Canada-Asia 2013, a major conference on Canada’s relations with Asia organized by the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, attended by the great and the good from business, government and academic circles across Canada. The theme, Charting Canada’s Asia Strategy, raised a number of questions. Will the current level of interest be sustained? Will Canada’s interests move beyond trade, energy and natural resources? What needs to be done to prepare the next generation? Comparisons were made with Canada’s more vigorous efforts in Asia in the past, and with Australia’s recent policy white paper, Australia in the Asian Century. 

PECC’s noted that its work in the areas of trade policy, financial markets, inclusive growth and service trade can offer insights on these issues, and PECC pledged to work with Canada as it works out its Asia Pacific strategy. Through a Vancouver Statement issued to mark the conclusion of its meeting, PECC welcomed the desire expressed by Canadian leaders to re-engage more closely with the region.

There are still questions that need answers. Will government and business in Canada commit the resources needed to follow through on the rhetoric? Will Asians and Asian governments accord to Canada the role that it is seeking, and treat it as a full Asia-Pacific stakeholder? The jury is still out, but the hand of welcome extended by PECC is a good sign that Canada will be welcomed back into the region as a key player provided it proves that it really is serious about Asia.

Hugh L. Stephens is a former senior official in the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. He is currently Principal of Trans-Pacific Connections/TPC Consulting, based in Vancouver, BC, Canada (www.tpconnections.com).

The Samsung Galaxy S4 has been a tremendous success for the Korean manufacturer, not unlike the previous smartphones in the series. The SGS4 managed to sell better during its first month on the market than any other Galaxy S smartphone. That’s probably one of the main reasons why Samsung has decided to launch numerous other spin-offs based (more or less) on the successful S4.

Although there are currently three confirmed Samsung smartphones that wear the “Galaxy S4″ moniker, if we take a look at their specs, only one of them can be viewed as an actual spin-off. The SGS4 Mini doesn’t have too much in common with the flagship device aside from certain design cues, while the camera-centric Galaxy S4 Zoom is an entirely different device – a mash-up between the S4 Mini and the Samsung Galaxy Camera point-and-shoot. That leaves us with the Samsung Galaxy S4 Active, which believe it or not, actually has a lot of things in common with the original counterpart.

If you were wondering which one of these two smartphones might best suit your needs, or if you’re simply curious about the similarities and differences between the two, you’ve come to the right place. Let’s take a look!

Starting off with the similarities, both the S4 and the S4 Active take pride in their 5 inch displays that boast a resolution of 1080 x 1920 and a pixel density of 441 pixels per inch. Underneath the hood we can find a Qualcomm Snapdragon 600 quad-core processor with a frequency of 1.9 GHz, an Adreno 320 graphics chip and 2 GB of RAM.

A 2,600 mAh battery is keeping these two smartphones powered up, and both run on Android 4.2.2 (with Samsung’s latest version of TouchWiz UI on top). Various other details remain the same, such as the wide range of connectivity options; both handsets feature an IR blaster, Bluetooth 4.0, NFC and 4G LTE capabilities.

So far these two handsets mirror each other perfectly, but that’s not entirely the case. To begin with, the S4 Active has an 8 MP main camera instead of a 13 MP one. It’s also comes only with 16 GB of internal storage, whereas the S4 comes with 16, 32 or 64 GB. On the similar side, both handsets can benefit from an additional 64 GB with the help of a microSD card slot.

Additionally, while both the S4 and the Active boast 5 inch full HD screens, the former has a Super AMOLED panel whereas the latter packs a TFT display.

Aside from these factors, the design language clearly isn’t hiding the fact that you’re looking at two different smartphones. The Galaxy S4 arrives with a glossy finish and a plasticky feel to it; a characteristic that is easily found on most of Samsung’s latest devices.

On the other hand, the Galaxy S4 Active delivers a metallic finish and an industrial design with visible bolts at every corner of the back panel. The “menu” and “back” capacitive buttons have also been replaced by physical ones. However, all of these changes have not been made just for the sake of different aesthetics. In reality, the SGS4 Active is a rugged device, boasting IP67 certified dust and water resistance, allowing the handset to survive submerged under 1 meter of water for 30 minutes.

This leads us to “Aqua Mode“, which is yet another new feature that the S4 doesn’t have. Since the Active is a waterproof smartphone, it only makes sense for it to feature a camera mode that works best under water, and that’s where “Aqua Mode” comes in.

Last but not least, the ruggedized Active is also slightly larger, thicker and heavier than its sibling. Measuring 139.7 x 71.3 x 9.1 mm, the ruggedized spin-off is roughly 3 mm taller, 1.5 mm wider and 1.2 mm thicker. It also weighs 23 grams more than the original SGS4, for a total of 153 grams. However, that’s something that you probably won’t notice unless you’ll weight both handsets in each hand at the same time.

Overall, the Galaxy S4 Active borrows enough elements from the S4 to be rightfully called a “Galaxy S4″ variant, but it’s also different enough to justify its existence and presence on the market. In the end, it’s up to the buyer to figure out which one is these smartphones is best suited for his or her needs. Once the reasons for buying one or the other are clear, the buyer can’t really go wrong with either one of these handsets.

Which one do you think would be best for you? Are you actually planning on buying one of these Samsung flagships? Share your thoughts on the matter by leaving a comment below.

Vlad Andrici is editor for gforgames.com and writes about technology issues.

Some of Hollywood’s biggest stars have joined with the anti-nuclear group, Global Zero, in a new You Tube video to demand more action on the elimination of nuclear weapons.

Among the stars making a cameo in the video are Whoopi Goldberg, Morgan Freeman, Naomi Watts, Alex Baldwin, Michael Douglas, Martin Sheen, Danny DeVito, Robert DeNiro, Matt Damon, Zoe Kravitz, and Christoph Waltz.

The video begins with a clip of President Barack Obama’s famous 2009 speech from Prague when he stated, “clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” 

The stars then take turns explaining the importance of eliminating nuclear weapons—including denouncing the notion that the spread of nuclear weapons cannot be stopped. While admitting the enormity of the task, the stars contend in the video that if the world decides it can’t stop the spread of nuclear weapons then it is in some ways admitting that nuclear war is inevitable.

In the second half of the video, the stars introduce themselves and one-by-one say that they demand zero, a reference to Global Zero’s goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

Watch the video below:

In a press release accompanying the video, Global Zero says the video was intended to pressure President Obama to raise the issue of nuclear disarmament at the upcoming G-8 summit.

Following President Obama’s speech in Prague, he became the first President to chair a meeting of the UN Security Council in which that body passed a historic resolution committing itself to work towards the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. Notably, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are the same five countries the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) recognizes as the world’s legal nuclear weapon states.

During his earlier tenure as President, Obama also concluded a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, pledging the two countries to reduce their stockpiles of deployed strategic nuclear arms to 1,550. New START faced tough resistance from Republicans in Congress but was eventually ratified during the lame duck session following the 2010 Congressional elections.

There have been some indications the White House intends to make an active push for a follow-on treaty with Russia during Obama’s second term, however, this effort was being led primarily by National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, who is slated to leave government sometime next month. His replacement, Susan Rice, has a tenuous relationship with Russia, at best.

Moscow itself has expressed reluctance to signing another bilateral nuclear reduction treaty believing that other nuclear powers like China should be included.

Obama is often seen as close to Hollywood. Many stars donated to his political campaign and a number even held fundraisers on his behalf. Almost all the stars in the video openly endorsed Obama’s election or re-election.

Iran’s Reformists have now united around a single presidential candidate, but the available polls suggest it won’t be enough to secure Iran’s presidency.

Two relatively reformist candidates had been competing for the presidential election before Monday— Hassan Rowhani, a former nuclear negotiator, and Mohammad Reza Aref, a former vice president. Both men served in these positions under Iran’s Reformist President Mohammad Khatami.

Rowhani’s campaign has gained more acclaim over the past few weeks and many Reformist leaders were reportedly seeking to push Aref out of the race to prevent a split in their supporters’ votes.

On Tuesday, Aref announced he was bowing out of the race, citing pressure from former President Khatami.

“On Monday evening, I received a letter from Mr. Mohammad Khatami and decided my presence to the election is not beneficial to overall reform,” Aref said in a statement on his website.

This paves the way for Rowhani to win all of the Reformist votes.

Rowhani is a rare figure in Iranian political circles in that he enjoys support from all of Iran’s major factions, with the possible exception of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The only cleric in the race, Rowhani is a protégé of former President Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, served as head of the Supreme National Security Council during Khatami’s presidency, and in recent years has been a foreign policy advisor to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.  

Since announcing his candidacy, however, he has clearly vied for the Reformist vote by denouncing the degree of censorship and restrictions of social mores in the country during the Ahmadinejad administration.

"There should be an end to the suppression and radicalism of the last eight years," Rowhani said at a recent rally Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported.

Rowhani has always been a harsh critic of Ahmadinejad’s confrontational foreign policy—when Ahmadinejad first became president, Rowhani refused to continue serving on as head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, according to former Iranian officials—and has said that if he is elected president he would seek to improve Iran’s standing in the world.

Still, even with the Reformist vote behind him, Rowhani is unlikely to win Friday’s election. A recent phone survey of Iranians by the U.S.-based Information and Public Opinion Solutions found that if voters supporting Rowhani and Aref united behind a single candidate, that candidate would tie for third place with Iran’s current nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili.

Although one survey is hardly definitive, it suggests Rowhani still faces an uphill battle. At best, Rowhani and the Reformists will finish in first or second place with no candidate receiving a majority of the ballots. This would trigger a run-off ballot between the candidates finishing with the two highest vote counts. In this scenario, Rowhani would face one of the Conservative candidates— most likely Tehran Mayor Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf or Jalili— in a one-on-one competition. With the Conservatives united behind a single candidate it’s extremely unlikely that Rowhani would prevail.

On the other hand, the victory of a Conservative or Principlist candidate will not signal that Iran’s political elite has become monolithic. Both the Reformists and Pragmatists are likely to continue exercising some influence, while intra-Conservative discord will rise proportionately with the decline in other factions’ influence. The failure of the Principlists or Conservatives to unite behind a single candidate in the upcoming election is proof enough of that.  

The U.S. has been quietly lobbying China to play a larger role in the Middle East peace process, China’s envoy to the Middle East recently told a Hong Kong-based publication.

In an interview with Phoenix Weekly, Wu Sike, China’s special envoy to the Middle East, rejected the notion that China’s recent inroads into the Israel-Palestinian conflict were a challenge to the United States traditional dominance of the issue, citing a number of occasions where senior U.S. officials asked for enhanced cooperation with China on the issue.

In the report Wu says that during a visit to Beijing last October, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, William Burns, raised the possibility of including the Middle East peace process in the next U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue that is scheduled to be held next month in Washington.  A State Department press release says that Burns was in China on October 17^th as part of a larger trip to the region.

Wu goes on to say that in October of last year, he also discussed the issue of strengthening U.S.-China cooperation on the Middle East peace process with his U.S. counterpart, David Hale. It was not clear if this occurred at the same meeting as Deputy Secretary of State Burns or at a different meeting during the same month.

Wu also told Phoenix Weekly that China and the U.S. again discussed enhancing their cooperation on the Middle East peace process when Secretary of State John Kerry visited Beijing in April of this year. Since becoming Secretary of State, Kerry has worked tirelessly on the issue of Israeli-Palestinian peace, visiting the region repeatedly over the last few months. He also was in California for the Obama-Xi summit over the weekend and will join Treasury Secretary Jack Lew in heading the U.S. delegation at the Strategic and Economic Dialogue next month.

Shortly after Kerry’s visit to China, in early May Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had overlapping visits to China, albeit they did not meet while in the country. During his meeting with President Abbas, President Xi Jinping unveiled a new four point proposal for Israeli-Palestinian peace based on: a full independent Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital; Israeli security and its right to exist acknowledged; upholding the principle of land for peace; and the international community’s full support for negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders.

Although the proposal far surpassed China’s past efforts on the issue, some foreign observers doubted it was little more than an empty gesture.

Wu Sike has sought to dispel such notions, telling Xinhua in an interview last week that: "China's proposals on resolving the Middle East hot issues come directly from its higher leadership as China is a permanent UN Security Council member and a valued state of high sense of responsibility."

China has a strong interest in becoming more immersed in the politics of the Middle East in general, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular. In recent years Beijing has been the largest consumer of Middle East oil and oil imported from that region accounts for nearly 60 percent of China’s entire oil imports. Moreover, its position on Syria has almost certainly created turbulence between China and its largely Arab oil producers. China likely hopes it can minimize some of the fallout from its support of Bashar al-Assad’s regime by more actively supporting the Palestinians and Arabs in their ongoing conflict with Israel.

The motives of the U.S. in seeking to get China more involved in the Middle East peace process are less clear. The two countries have pledged to build a “new type of great power relationship” and the U.S. has, at times, sought to integrate China into the existing U.S.-led global order as a way of minimizing any intention it may have to challenge the status-quo.

During the Cold War both great powers were actively involved in the politics of the region with the Soviet Union even co-sponsoring the Madrid Peace Conference that followed the first Gulf War, despite its vastly weakened state by that time. Thus, by enhancing its cooperation with China on the issue, the U.S. may be trying to signal to Beijing that it is ready to treat it as a global power.

On the other hand, the Middle East peace process has been stalled for years and, as noted above, the U.S. has recently begun a new initiative to revive the stalled negotiations. It’s possible, then, that the U.S. recognizes that greater Chinese involvement in the negotiations could be conducive to solving the long-standing conflict.

The Guardian has had a big week, with some fairly stunning revelations regarding the extent to which the U.S. government is essentially spying on its own citizens. Yesterday both the name of the whistleblower and his whereabouts came to light. 

It has been revealed that Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old ex-CIA technical assistant and employee of National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Booz Allen Hamilton (where he worked for less than three months), chose to leak a number of highly classified documents from a hotel room in Hong Kong, pitting himself directly against the world’s largest intelligence agency.

In Hong Kong, Snowden stuffed pillows against the doors of his room and donned a large red hood when entering passwords, suggesting he was fully aware of the consequences. Yet he remains convinced that he did the right thing.

“I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things,” he told The Guardian. “I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under.”

When revealing the jaw dropping information to The Washington Post and The Guardian, Snowden – who claims he was always intent on outing himself – used the pseudonym “Verax” (“truth teller” in Latin). It’s a moniker with quite a history. Predecessors who went by “Verax” included Clement Walker, a 17^th critic of British parliament who met his end in the Tower of London, and Henry Dunckley, a 19^th-century social critic who used the name in writing for The Manchester Examiner.

According to the leaked information, the NSA is gathering information on U.S. citizens through multiple avenues, from collecting millions of Verizon phone records on an “ongoing, daily basis” and accessing the servers of Google, Apple and Facebook, to developing a highly sophisticated datamining tool called Boundless Informant that catalogs the myriad data collected. 

Snowden's choice to launch his truth offensive from Hong Kong has many speculating at what happens next. Some have wondered whether his decision represented an implicit endorsement of China’s human rights record, but this does not seem to be the case.

"I think it is really tragic that an American has to move to a place that has a reputation for less freedom," he told The Guardian. "Hong Kong has a reputation for freedom in spite of the People's Republic of China. It has a strong tradition of free speech." 

What may be more important than this tradition, which persists under Beijing’s sovereignty, is the extradition treaty signed by the U.S. and Hong Kong in 1997 just before mainland rule recommenced.

Under the treaty, both countries have the right to refuse to hand over fugitives. Complicating matters, Beijing retains the right to veto Hong Kong's decision to return a criminal if the Chinese government deems the surrender of a particular criminal as being harmful to China in any way. In other words, the decision as to whether to return Snowden to the U.S. depends on America's foremost Pacific rival, China.  

Of Snowden’s real motives for choosing Hong Kong, Josh Marshall argued on his Talking Points Memo blog that even if Snowden leaked the documents because he thought it was the right thing to do, “he still seems to be hoping to evade the criminal consequences by defecting to China, a key US rival and one that comes up rather short of being the kind of libertarian and transparent society Snowden apparently believes in.”

Marshall continued, "Call me naive but I think this is going to come down to how Beijing wants to play this. If they don't want a fight over this, Snowden's toast." 

With U.S. National Security Adviser Tom Donilon stepping down in July, President Obama will once again need to find an individual to serve as his point person on China.

Even by DC standards, the Obama administration has witnessed a high-level of turnover in the individuals spearheading China policy. In the initial years of the administration’s first term, Jeffrey Bader and James Steinberg seemed to take the lead in running the China portfolio. At the time, Bader was serving as senior director for East Asian affairs on the National Security Council, and Steinberg was serving as Hillary Clinton’s Deputy at the State Department.

Both men were well qualified for the position, and got along well, having worked together on China policy during the Bill Clinton administration and later at the Brookings Institution. Indeed, in his memoirs on his time serving in the Obama administration, Bader refers to Steinberg as his mentor. Both were also strong advocates of constructive engagement with China, and in this was reflected in numerous ways from candidate Obama effort to avoid criticism of China during the 2008 Presidential campaign, and the way Steinberg was given the chance to float his catchphrase “strategic reassurance” to explain its policy towards  China very early on.

They also both left the administration earlier, with Bader returning to the Brookings Institution in March 2011, and Steinberg leaving in July of that year) to become the Dean of the Maxwell School at Syracuse University. Long before then, there were signs that Steinberg at least was having a tough go of it in his position, partly because the administration began taking a tougher line on China (some say he left the administration over disagreements with Donilon, although he always send he’d only stay two years).

After their departure, the administration appeared to lean most heavily on Kurt Campbell, the Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and Tom Donilon, who had been promoted to National Security Adviser in October 2010, to craft and execute China policy (for Campbell, all of Asia really).

Campbell, in particular, was eminently qualified to lead Asia policy, having founded and lead an Asia consulting firm for years and previously served as deputy director assistant secretary of defense for Asia and the Pacific, among countless other positions. Donilon had spent much of his career working on politics but had been chief-of-staff to then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher and clearly had President Obama’s ear. Both seemed to take a harder line on China than Bader and Steinberg had, but they don’t appear to have gotten along as well given the ongoing disagreement on who deserves the credit for the pivot.

When Donilon steps down in July both men will have returned to the private sector, with Campbell leaving earlier this year. Thus, once again, President Obama will need a new point person to handle China policy (It’s likely that Donilon will stay on through the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue scheduled for the second week of July, although that dialogue is led by the State and Treasury Departments).

Personnel turnover is of course a fact of life in the U.S. policymaking system. But as the importance of U.S.-China ties rises, this level of turnover could be damaging to the bilateral relationship. True, the U.S. certainly had to contend with this issue during the Cold War, but there’s a fundamental difference. Namely, during the Cold War nearly every senior foreign policy official was a Soviet hand of some degree or another.

This is hardly the case with China today. Indeed, the principals on the Obama national security team are notable for their lack of Asia and China experience. John Kerry has always been most involved in the greater Middle East (extending to Afghanistan and Pakistan), and his tenure at the State Department so far has strongly suggested this will be the region he intends to devote most of his energy on.

Obama’s nominee as UN ambassador, Susan Power, has spent her career advocating for U.S. intervention in genocides and civil wars most notably in Africa and Europe. Incoming National Security Adviser Susan Rice’s background is also primarily in Africa and intervention promotion. Moreover, her tenure as UN Ambassador has hardly endeared her to policymakers in Beijing.  Not only did she call Russia and China’s veto of sanctions against the Syrian regime “disgusting and shameful” and then vigorously defend doing so (which, to be fair, might have been U.S. policy rather than her personal words), but she has also stuck to a harder line with China on North Korea then most the administration in recent months.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has far more background and experience in Asian affairs than either of the other three, but like Kerry the Middle East has by Hagel’s own admission been his life’s work. Moreover, U.S. diplomacy with China cannot be spearheaded by a defense secretary, at least if relations are going to be improved.

It’s unclear at this point who Obama might turn to as his point person on China once Donilon’s gone. One possibility if Daniel R. Russel, who Obama nominated last month as Kurt Campbell’s replacement as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs (he’s yet to be approved by the Senate). A career diplomat with extensive experience in Japan in particular, Russel worked most recently at the White House serving as the National Security Council’s Senior Director for Asian Affairs, and is rumored to be close to Obama’s chief of staff, Dennis McDonough.

Still, given how top-heavy this administration is said to be on foreign policy, Obama might want his point person to be someone who is working at the White House, such as deputy national security advisor Tony Blinken.