“It’s time to get a jackhammer and to simply chip off that part of New York City,” said Huckabee, “and let it float into the East River, never to be seen again!” That remark got him a standing ovation, and Huckabee went on to suggest de-funding the U.N. entirely.

“It’s time to say enough of the American taxpayer’s dollar being spent on something that may have been a noble idea, but has become a disgrace!” said Huckabee. “It has become the international equivalent of ACORN and it’s time to say enough!”

Huckabee continued, suggesting that the U.N. be handed over to one of the nations that attacked America. “Let’s end the diplomatic excesses that these people enjoy,” he said. “Let any country that is willing to spend the money that the United States is hosting–let them have it. Give it to the Saudis and let these diplomats suck the sand out of the Saudi desert for a few summers and see if that’s where they’d like to go, and make their ridiculous speeches.”

I actually think it wouldn't be the worst idea for the U.N. to find a new home. The security requirements for that many heads of state are pretty taxing on post-9/11 New York City, and it couldn't hurt to have the organization based in a country that doesn't arouse such strong feelings in the vast majority of the world's population. 

That said, I don't quite get what point we'd be proving by sticking the Saudis with the event  and the ACORN comparison doesn't make too much sense beyond that fact that they're both "institutions that Mike Huckabee doesn't like."

Update: U.N. Dispatch's Matthew Cordell says the security issue is bogus:

First off, the stringent security requirements and the accompanying costs are only a burden on the city one week a year.  At most other times the security perimeter of the UN rarely extends beyond its grounds.  The economic benefits, on the other hand, stream in every day, as the UN draws in droves of diplomats, press, NGO types, and business leaders to spend money in NY hotels, restaurants, cabs, shops, and on and on.  Mayor Bloomberg's office has said that the United Nations adds $2.2 billion a year to the economy of New York City and creates 18,000 jobs. On top of that, the current renovation of the UN headquarters is expected to bring in over a $1 billion to U.S. businesses.  If I were a New Yorker, I'd be up in arms about a suggestion that would lead to more money being drained from the city.

Fair enough. For the record, I don't think the United States should "kick out" the U.N. or withdraw from it or any of what Huckabee was suggesting. I do think that it couldn't hurt for at least the General Assembly to be held in a somewhat more neutral site, but I'm sorry this was seen as a "silly side-swipe" at the United Nations. 

Last year, Passport made the case for Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, hosting the 2016 Olympics over closest rivals Chicago, Tokyo and Madrid.

Today, one Chicago website is making that same case.

"It would be exciting to host the Olympics here in Chicago," ChicagoansforRio.com says. "But you know what would be even better? Rio de Janeiro. Just let Rio host the 2016 Olympics. We don't mind. Honest."

Just eight days until the announcement of the winner, Chicagoans for Rio break down some reasons Brazil would host the games better. For instance: 

Statues. Rio has Christ standing. Chicago has Lincoln sitting. (To be fair, Chicago also has statues of Lincoln standing.)

Signature events. Rio has naked people dancing. Chicago has chubby people eating.

Nickname. Rio is the "Marvelous City." Chicago is the "Second City."

The site also points out Chicago has a budget deficit of nearly $220 million; they claim Rio has a $0 budget deficit because, "If you're a Chicagoan, Rio's budget deficit does not matter."

They also say 21 of Athens' 22 Olympic venues remain unused.

It appears the latest victim of recessionomics is the ambition to host the world's second most important sporting event.

ANTONIO SCORZA/AFP/Getty Images

Another piece of news from today's roundtable with Sudan envoy Scott Gration comes more subtlely, but perhaps just as importantly for anyone watching Sudan. "The neighbors" are pushing for unification when a vote comes in 2011. In other words, they are not keen on an independent Southern Sudan.

Gration says: "In many ways, the neighbors are all pushing for unity because they understand that the instability caused by a fledgling nation that is not ready for independence will have ramifications that spread far and wide across Africa. So countries like Ethiopia and Egypt and others are fearing, to some degree, an independence [vote]."

To recap: the 2005 peace agreement signed between North and South Sudan, ending a decades long war, stipulated that in 2011, the autonomous South would hold a referendum in which it would be allowed to decide whether it would prefer independence or unification. If the vote were to happen today, it's almost certain they would vote to become Africa's newest state.

If only it were that easy. In recent months, tensions have picked up along the border. The South blames the North for stirring up trouble and arming militias. The North blames the South for the same. More importantly, there has yet to be a settlement on the referendum law that will govern the 2011 vote. So it's far from clear that Khartoum is ready to let its Southern half... go.

If the neighbors are reluctant, matters are even more complicated. (Imagine moving into a 7 person townhouse with 6 hostile roommates... multiplied by South Sudan's between 7.9 and 9.5 million people.... and you've got the idea). Reticient neighbors would, uh, complicate the process that Gration already described as seriously daunting: "We're trying to bring about an environment [such] that, in five months, we can help make a country -- a country that will have its own currency, if they choose independence, have embassies around the world, have a central bank, control it's own airspace... there's a lot of work."

Gration promised to push ahead with the referendum law, acknowledging the overwhelming popular support for independence.

Unrelated, one more piece of news from the briefing: queried about the statement by the outgoing peacekeeping chief that the war in Darfur is essentially over, Gration replied that the he agreed, but said the tasks ahead in Darfur were no less daunting: "Even though the war, where the technical answer in terms of military view is that the war is over, the insecurity and the fear associated -- fearing for your life -- is still there."

We have received several responses to the post last week about the State Department's struggle to get security clearances for interns. The post was based on this National Journal story. Below are comments by readers identifying themselves as former interns. The consensus so far is that while the process isn't great, the clearance is important.

Matt Born, who served as an intern in Athens in 2007, responded by email, and said that he applied in May 2006, was accepted in September, had his clearance request submitted in October and received an interim clearance in January 2007: 

I was a State intern a few years ago, and found the process to be opaque and difficult.  I was offered and served as an intern in the political section in Athens, but I can vouch that the clearance process took a significant amount of time and only succeeded after they stopped pursuing top secret clearance and opted for interim secret.  I'm on my third passport, and have spent maybe 10 percent of my life overseas, but due to the opacity of the process I don't know whether that had any impact.

Regarding whether interns handle classified material, I can say that it varied.  There were times when I had to remind the FSOs that my clearance didn't go high enough to do what they were asking.  There were three other interns during my stay in Athens, and some of them never saw a coversheet.

Commenter tbeau85 agreed that access is important:

As a former overseas DOS intern, I had access to classified cables for intern projects. No intern is "running" anything but your reaction does overlook the fact that in reality, "classified" material does not always include "sexy" news. It can be simply politically sensitive discussions--access to which is necessary if an intern is to get a full experience with DOS. Even not related to direct assignments, perusing the cables everyday was one of the best experiences as an intern. If interns could only read UC material, the whole experience would not be nearly the same.

alkenn93 says he/she also received an interim clearance one week ahead of time and that the process was "incredibly difficult": 

Yes, it was extremely useful to be able to read classified cables and to attend sensitive meetings, and I wouldn't argue that interns shouldn't have to be granted secret clearance. Still, the difficulty of the process only serves to weed out eager students with relevant overseas experience, and is not proportionate to the actual amount of sensitive work we complete.

Another description of the access provided for cleared interns:

For better or worse, many areas and documents are marked as secret, and I agree that not clearing interns would rather limit their experiences. Cables, NIEs, and other documents that have classified versions offer a lot more insight into the whole process and are a neat perk of the job. Certainly, the process could be improved -- interns who applied nine months ahead of time should be told more than a week before the first day that they will, in fact, be permitted to show up for work -- but the difficulty in obtaining a clearance shouldn't detract from the value of that clearance.

Finally, commenter Guyver describes the frustration of never getting to start:

I was supposed to be a summer intern at State in 2006. I did not get my clearance till end of August, by which time summer was over. Funny thing, I was offered the internship because I have native-fluency in Arabic, but that’s what delayed my clearance, because I spent many years overseas in Arab countries.

Based on these comments, here are some further questions for discussion:

If State Department funding is increased, as has been indicated, will the problems lessen?

Are normal State hires having the same problems with clearance? Or is it easier because training and the first year doing consular leave plenty of time? 

Update: A prospective Foreign Service Officer (FSO) wrote in to explain that the clearance process for hires is just as long. She asked to have her name withheld as her employment offer is still in the clearance phase.

As someone with a conditional offer of employment as an FSO, I must note that one cannot be accepted into training without passing the Final Suitability Review, which requires both the top-secret clearance and medical clearance to be completed before the actual hiring can take place. This process takes months to complete.

I asked what prospective FSOs do for the months while awaiting clearance:

I think some people do drop out, but the process to pass the FSO exams is so arduous, and people have invested so much time and energy already, that I think most don't. Most keep working wherever they've been working, or get short-term jobs, things like that.

This week's list looks at some of the late Ted Kennedy's notable international achievements. Of course, it's only a very partial list. See Joe Cirincione for Kennedy's impact in the nuclear disarmament debate or UNHCR commissioner Antonio Gutteres on his longtime advocacy for refugees. There's also a lot more to be said on Kennedy's Cold War diplomacy and work on immigration reform.

Given the number of areas of U.S. foreign policy where Kennedy helped shape the debate, it's actually a testament to his outsized impact on domestic politics that this isn't a big part of his legacy. 

There are so many great Kennedy anecdotes, but here's one truly bizarre one from Peter Canellos's book "Last Lion" about an awkward meeting between Kennedy, his advisor David Burke and President Lyndon Johnson, soon after Kennedy's return from a trip to Vietnam in 1968:

Finally, in the last week of January, Ted received word that the president wanted to see him.

Burke and Ted prepared their presentation for Johnson and then sat with him in the Oval Office. As Ted began his remarks about the failure of the United States to win over hearts and minds of the Vietnamese, Johnson cut him off.

"Now wait a minute, Teddy," the president drawled. "There's no need to rush on this. There was something I wanted to ask you first, and then we can get down to what you wanted to say."

"Yes, sir."

"Teddy," Johnson said, pausing for effect. "Do you want a Fresca?"

"Um, no thank you, Mr. President," Ted stammered.

As Ted tried once more to deliver his report, Johnson again interrupted and turned to Burke. "Dave, would you like a Fresca?"

"No thank you, Mr. President."

"Well, I'm going to have a Fresca," the leader of the free world announced. Then he turned to look at his butler, who was holding a silver beverage tray. "I'll ask you again, Dave, are you going to have a Fresca with your president? We'd enjoy it."

Burke caved. "Yes, Mr. President, I'll have a Fresca."

Johnson smiled. "Good, good. Now that's good." He turned to his butler. "David and I will have a Fresca." He waited several beats before adding, "Teddy doesn't want one. 

As the butler left the room, one of Johnson's dogs came bounding into the room and leaped onto Burke's lap. So in between sipping his Fresca, Burke sat in the Oval Office dutifully petting a dog. He couldn't have looked more like and 8-year-old boy if he tried, which was precisely what LBJ had in mind. Ted tried to suppress a laugh as he glanced at Burke.

From there, Ted tried resuming his remakrs, but it was clear to both him and Burke that Johnson had absolutely no interest in anything he had to report. Their command performance in the Oval Office had been just one more exercise in Johnson proving who was top dog. 

Something tells me this kind of thing wouldn't have worked on Kennedy later in his career.

STF/AFP/Getty Images

Last week in the Washington Post, Michael O'Hanlon lamented the inability of the U.S. military to get "boots on the ground" in peacekeeping operations in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo. O'Hanlon, who served in the Peace Corps in Eastern Congo, made the case that an all-volunteer military force trained for peacekeeping could help overcome the current overstretch of the military and the U.S. hesitation to deploy peackeeping troops for fear of public outcry when, as in Somalia in 1993, casualties could result:

The notion is this: Ask for volunteers to join a peace operations division for two years. They would begin their service with, say, 12 weeks of boot camp and 12 weeks of specialized training and then would be deployable. They would receive the same compensation and health benefits as regular troops, given their age and experience. Out of a division of 15,000 troops, one brigade, or about 3,000 to 4,000 soldiers, could be sustained in the field at a time.

This type of training would be modeled after standard practices in today's Army and Marine Corps. To be sure, soldiers and Marines in regular units usually go beyond this regimen to have many months of additional practice and exercise before being deployed. But the peace operations units could be led by a cadre of experienced officers and NCOs -- perhaps some of whom would be drawn back to military service after leaving...

The dangers of deploying such units to missions such as the one in Congo, would be real, but the risks would be acceptable. First, those volunteering would understand the risks and accept them. Second, in most civil conflicts such as Congo's, possible adversarial forces are not sophisticated. Soldiers in the new division would not need to execute complex operations akin to those carried out during the invasion of Iraq or current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. They would largely monitor villages and refugee camps, inspect individuals to make sure they did not have illicit weapons, and call for help if they came under concerted attack.

I agree with O'Hanlon's major point that it can be difficult for peacekeeping operations to succeed without active U.S. support. Most current missions are undermanned and underfunded, even for their already very limited mandates. I also think the volunteer idea has potential, but my hangup is the idea of creating a separate track within the military that has less training. Wouldn't it be better to ask for volunteers from within the armed forces and give them additional peacekeeping training?

To get a perspective on this proposal from the kind of person who might volunteer, I called my friend Marcus Williams, who at the last minute this spring chose to withdraw from his planned Peace Corps deployment in West Africa and instead apply to Officer Candidates School for the U.S. Marines.

Interestingly, Marcus cited peacekeeping and development as one of the reasons he hopes to join the Marines. "Arguably the Iraq war and Afghanistan are right now peace keeping missions. So it becomes kind of hard to define where people are deploying," he said. He added that for better or worse, working on development from within the military means you get resources that Peace Corps volunteers simply do not. 

The proposed short training period and separation from the normal military also worried Williams, who graduated from Stanford in four years with both a degree in International Relations and a Masters in African Studies:

If you had people volunteering and there was less training involved, there's this sort of vision of the idealistic African advocate who's in college or going to college and may not have the serious commitment it takes to serve in the armed forces. They're going to end up in the field and not be a very effective unit. When it comes down to it you have to follow orders and accept very seriously that you might die.

Williams pointed out that for the Marine Corps, Officer Candidates School itself is almost 12 weeks and for those who choose to join afterward another six months or so of basic training is required. 

Ultimately, Williams argued, if the U.S. wants to get serious about supporting peace-keeping operations in places like the DRC, that would be great, but U.S. troops aren't necessarily the key.

I think that if the U.S. were really committed to these peacekeeping operations we wouldn't be focused on getting U.S. boots on the ground. The cost of the Ghanaian peacekeeper on the ground is much less and if the U.S. peacekeeper is going to literally receive less training, it seems like it would be better to support other troops.

If the U.S. really wants to help, he said, it should focus on its comparative advantages:

flying helicopters, intelligence, communications operations. I'm thinking most of the peacekeepers in Sudan. They had boots on the ground but they didn't have any real logistics.

Does all this mean O'Hanlon's idea should be written off? Absolutely not, Williams said, it just needs some careful thought. "I think you'd have a lot of people interested in volunteering," he said.

ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP/Getty Images 

Wired correspondent Sharon Weinberger has a compelling investigative piece in the New York Post about the CIA's quest for Russian helicopters to sneak into Afghanistan before the full-scale U.S. invasion. It's a tale of secrecy, corruption, Siberian cold, and credit card rewards.

Here's a bit of Weinbeger's synopsis at Wired's Danger Room:

As with many “black” programs, the contract had elements of craziness: Contracting officials paid the multimillion-dollar contract on a credit card at a local El Paso bar and then used the credit card rebate to redecorate their office; the team traveled under the guise of being private contractors; and the charter crew transporting the group abandoned the team in Russia in the middle of the night.

Ultimately, a five-year investigation into the mission led to the conviction of the Army official in charge and the contractor who bought the helicopters on charges of corruption. The two men, currently in federal prison, are appealing their convictions.

The full article is a thrilling read.

For more of Weinberger's coverage of questionable helicopter contracting, check out her April piece, "How to get a no-bid contract for Russian choppers." Turns out being a middleman in U.S.-Russian arms deals is pretty lucrative. 

When U.S. taxpayers shell out for these kinds of shenanigans, at least we're getting some entertainment value.

Above, Russian Mi-17s in 2007.

SERGEY PONOMAREV/AFP/Getty Images

Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo will today become the first Southeast Asian leader to visit the White House since Barack Obama was elected last year. On the agenda for the two presidents is the global financial crisis, climate change and terrorism -- a high priority for the Philippines that has consistently sought U.S. help in combating Muslim separatists on the southern island of Mindanao.

But back in Manila, the Philippine Daily Inquirer says Obama plans to "lecture Arroyo on democracy" during her visit. Since coming to power in 2001, the Philippine president has fielded numerous allegations of -- among others -- corruption, extrajudicial killings, torture, bribery and fraud. Arroyo's attempts to push through a charter change, instituting a unicameral parliamentary form of government and effectively allowing her to extend her term in office past June 2010, has sparked a great deal of opposition.

A recent Social Weather Stations survey revealed that 70 percent of Filipinos are opposed to amending the Constitution. Her current approval rating stands at -31 percent, making even former U.S. President George W. Bush look good.

An estimated 10,000 protestors took to the streets on Monday in yet another anti-Arroyo demonstration. The Philipines has a history of "people power" movements and has twice ousted sitting presidents using popular mobilization. Arroyo (and Obama) would be wise to take heed.

Ted Aljibe/AFP/Getty images

Honduras's interim government has sent a lobbying team to Washington to try to talk the Obama adminsitration out of its pledge to impose sanctions if ousted President Manuel Zelaya is not returned to power. I can't help thinking they don't quite understand the new U.S. president's priorities:

Appealing to free trade supporters, they hope to nudge the Obama administration away from its threat to impose sanctions on the impoverished country, where export-assembly factories are dominated by U.S. firms and investors.

"I imagine there would be some reaction from them" to trade sanctions, Amilcar Bulnes, head of the Honduran Council of Private Business, said Monday.

[...]

Zelaya's foes appear to hope President Barack Obama doesn't have the time or energy for this battle when he has weightier problems like his push to reform the U.S. health care system and turn around the economy.

"Honduras is a small, poor country," Bulnes said. "The world would look very bad if it takes out its wrath on this country."

Obama has never been much of a free trader, particularly when it conflicts with a political principle, and as for looking like a bully, the U.S. position on this issue puts it on the same side as the OAS and the EU, neither of whom have recognized the new government. In fact, the U.S. would more likely be accused of meddling if it didn't oppose the coup. It shouldn't be a surprise that the U.S. cares more about it's overall standing in the region (particularly with powerful regional players like Brazil) than it does about its relationship with Honduras.

This also seems ill advised:

Micheletti vowed not to back down - and implied that Washington is betraying a staunch ally, one that let its territory be used as a staging area for U.S.-backed Contra rebels battling Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista government during the 1980s and more recently sent troops to Iraq.

Touting your country's role in two of the most controversial Republican foreign policy ventures of the last quarter century is not really the best way to win over a Democratic president who (I'm just assuming with Nicaragua.) opposed both of them. 

U.S. ambassador Hugo Llorens claims that the Obama administration had tried to talk the parliament and military out of the coup, but the interim government still seems genuinely shocked that the U.S. has not backed them up. Micheletti and co. may have assumed that when push came to shove, the U.S. was not going to stand up for Zelaya, a power-hungry, leftist who also happened to be backed by Hugo Chavez. They seem to have profoundly misjudged the degree to which the new administration values international public opinion over regime type.

Still, speaking of Sandinistas, I think Daniel Ortega may be pushing his luck.

YURI CORTEZ/AFP/Getty Image

As promised, Barack Obama recorded a video response to several questions from Africans submitted by text message about his administration's policy towards Africa.

That only three were answered is probably a let down to the more than 5,000 people who submitted questions. However, the White House tried to reiterate its interest in African concerns by allowing three African journalists from Senegal, Kenya and South Africa to each select a question. The video is below and to summarize the three questions were:

1. How can Africa reverse its brain drain and lure skilled Africans back to the continent?
2. What did the administration intend to signal by choosing Ghana
3. How can Africa promote international trade? 

These aren't exactly the hardest questions ever, and Obama had time to prepare, but the video, which was released to African radio and tv stations, shows a president who in his own words, is "probably as knowledgeable about African history as anybody who's occupied my office."

This is a good thing. Now let's see how the policy measures up. 

The relationship and power dynamic between Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin remains intriguingly mysterious for the Western media. But it's interesting to see how Russian papers are doing their own "Kremlinology" on factions in the White House. This Nezavistimaya Gazeta article, via Johnson's Russia List, theorizes about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's absence on Obama's trip to Russia. It's seems they're not buying the broken arm story:

In any event, Obama is not going to be accompanied by State Secretary Hillary Clinton on this visit, and experts ascribe it to two considerations (the formal explanation concerning Clinton's elbow trauma is dismissed, of course). First, official Moscow associates the incumbent US State Secretary with Bill Clinton's Administration and everything that transpired in its period - war in Yugoslavia, 1998 default. Second, the US President apparently wants the triumph he counts on for his own, without the necessity to share it with the Clintons whose clan occupies commanding heights in the Democratic Party.

First came word that the United States would be sending an ambassador back to Damascus, and now this:

Syria's leader sent a July 4 message full of praise to President Barack Obama on Friday and invited him to visit Syria -- the latest signs Damascus is hedging its bets in Mideast politics, warming up to its rival the United States at a time when its longtime ally Iran is in turmoil. [...]

Assad sent a telegram to Obama on the occasion of the July 4 Independence Day holiday, saying, "The values that were adopted by President Obama during his election campaign and after he was elected president are values that the world needs today."

"It is very important to adopt the principle of dialogue in relations with countries based on respect and mutual interest," Assad said in the telegram, which was carried by state-run news agency SANA.

In an interview with Britain's Sky News, Assad invited Obama to visit Damascus to discuss Mideast peace.

''We would like to welcome him in Syria, definitely. I am very clear about this,'' Assad said in English. Asked whether such a visit could take place soon, Assad said: ''That depends on him.''

He added with a smile, ''I will ask you to convey the invitation to him.'' 

I'll be interested to see if Obama takes up Assad's offer. No U.S. president has been to Syria since 1994, when Bill Clinton visited Damascus.

Historically, the Assads have sometimes seemed queasy about their alliance with the Iranian regime. So, it's not too surprising that, with Tehran in political turmoil and lashing out at foreigners, Syria is lining up a potential Plan B.

During the past two weeks, diplomats and experts have continued to watch nervously as a U.S. destroyer has shadowed the North Korean transport ship Kang Nam 1. Now, the ship has apparently turned around -- and nobody in the U.S. defense establishment knows what to make of it.

U.S. officials said Tuesday that a North Korean ship has turned around and is headed back toward the north where it came from, after being tracked for more than a week by American Navy vessels on suspicion of carrying illegal weapons.

The move keeps the U.S. and the rest of the international community guessing: Where is the Kang Nam going? Does its cargo include materials banned by a new U.N. anti-proliferation resolution?[...]

The U.N. resolution allows the international community to ask for permission to board and search any suspect ship on the seas. If permission for inspection is refused, authorities can ask for an inspection in whichever nation where the ship pulls into port.

North Korea has said it would consider any interception of its ships a declaration of war.

Two officials had said earlier in the day Tuesday that the Kang Nam had been moving very slowly in recent days, something that could signal it was trying to conserve fuel.

They said they didn't know what the turnaround of the ship means, nor what prompted it.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said Sunday that Washington was "following the progress of that ship very closely," but she would not say whether the U.S. would confront the Kang Nam.

Even before the unexpected reverse in course, some in Washington were beginning to doubt the whole operation:

Inside the White House, they are beginning to call it "The Cruise to Nowhere."

For more than two weeks now, White House officials have been receiving frequent updates on a rusting North Korean ship, the Kang Nam 1, as it makes its way dead-slow across the South China Sea. Earlier this month, Mr. Obama's aides thought the aging hulk - with its long rap sheet for surreptitious deliveries of missiles and arms - would be the first test of a United Nations Security Council resolution giving countries the right to hail suspect shipments, and order them to a nearby port for inspection.

But now some top officials in the Obama administration are beginning to wonder whether Kim Jong-il, the North Korean leader, ordered the Kang Nam 1 out on a fishing expedition - in hopes that a new American president will be his first catch.

"The whole thing just doesn't add up," said one senior administration official who has been tracking the cargo ship's lazy summer journey. "My worry is that we make a big demand about seeing the cargo, and then there's a tense standoff, and when it's all over we discover that old man Kim set us up to look like George Bush searching for nonexistent W.M.D."

With this kind of "made-you-look" trickery, perhaps Kim Jong Il has been taking lessons from Lucy van Pelt.

KHIN MAUNG WIN/AFP/Getty Images