DIPLOMATIC MEMO: "Breaking Taboo, Clinton Talks About Prospect of North Korean Succession Question," by Mark Landler, New York Times, 20 February 2009. ARTICLE: "Hillary's State: Huge expectations, big egos, turf wars; Is Clinton's State Department just like her campaign?" by Michael Crowley, The New Republic, 4 March 2009.

On the first point, I've been saying this for years: the real conversation to have with the Chinese about Kim starts with the question, "What do you want the Korean peninsula to look like once he goes?" Clinton: "North Korea is on China's border, and I want to understand better what the Chinese believe is doable." She makes that statement WRT to the latest missile development news out of Pyongyang, but it applies to the larger question as well. Kim is 67. There is no question about the DPRK's collapse triggering war between the US and China. We simply need the event to go down in such a way as to bolster our bilateral ties and to make Beijing feel secure enough to play the role it needs to play. Done well, this crisis is an opportunity for major growth in security--a final processing of the Cold War's tailbone. As for pissing off the North Koreans by being forthright on the question of Kim's demise, screw them. In the end, they represent a very manageable threat that is destined to be liquidated on our--meaning the U.S. and China's--collective terms. We should act and speak with that in mind. More generally, the TNR piece gives me a lot of comfort on the quality and number of Asia-smart hands around Clinton--to wit, Jim Steinburg and Kurt Campbell (who taught me briefly as a first-time instructor at Harvard in the late 80s). Add in Anne-Marie Slaughter at the State "Kennan post" (Office of Policy Planning) and that's an awfully solid team. I got a chance to meet Slaughter when she invited me to speak at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson Center a while back, and she is very impressive. Overall, passing grades and plenty of optimism.