Can China Dominate the World?

The Chinese Dragon shows robust economic growth, and some experts say that its GDP will surpass that of Japan next year, which will make this country the 2nd largest economy after the United States. Also, China is building up its military capability rapidly these days. The Chinese authority frequently defies the American, or more broadly, the Western world order. But how strong is China?

The media and opinion leaders often fail to think of this vital question when they talk about Chinese influence on global political economy in this century. Mixing Pei, Adjunct Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, casts doubt to overvaluation of Chinese power and its leadership role on the global stage (“Why China Won't Rule the World”; News Week; December 8, 2009). Let me review his recent article on Chinese strength.

In view of stagnant economy in industrialized capitalist nations since the global financial crisis, opinion leaders in the West praise that China overcomes the crisis very well. Some leaders in emerging and developing economies, who are disillusioned with Western-styled free market capitalism associated with democracy, are charmed by authoritarian Red capitalism in China.

However, Pei points out some negative aspects in overheated Chinese economy. The Chinese authority worried over lending by private banks and overinvestment by State Owned Enterprises to real estates and stock markets. While China produces more TVs, cars, and toys, Chinese consumers do not buy them. China’s attempts to secure natural resource supplies from the developing world face vehement resist by Western governments, multinational corporations, and local communities. If Pei is right, China cannot dominate global natural resource market as the Major does in oil.

The debate on Chinese production and financial power will be endless, because the Chinese economy is coincided with robust growth and uncertainties. In my view, the most important point is whether China has gained structural power to manage the world or not. In other words, can China exert influence on making the global system and framework, along with the West?

Susan Strange who was Professor Emeritus at the London School of Economics, says that power in global political economy is classified into relational power and structural power. “Relational power is the power of A to get B to do something they would not otherwise do”, while “structural power confers the power to decide how things shall be done” (States and Markets; p.24~29). China may have gained relational power through rapid growth in industrial production, but has the Dragon acquired structural power?

Pei asks a critical question, “If China is so strong, why doesn't it show more leadership in addressing global problems?” He points out that China has been obsessed with its self interest in international conferences from G20 London Summit to COP 15 in Copenhagen.

Certainly, China poses significant challenges to the American world order, and shows increasing defiance to Western systems and ideology. However, China is neither prepared for nor capable of setting global agendas and sharing burden of decision making to manage the world. Therefore, it is a dangerous idea to expect China to supplant the United States as the hegemony. Chinese leaders shall never provide global public goods of peace and stability embedded liberalism.

Attention to Ukrainian Presidential Election!

This summer, I talked of Russian pressure on Ukraine in view of the forthcoming presidential election in January. The election will be held on January 17, and the final result will be determined on January 27. Wikipedia shows an introduction to this election which will be helpful to understand basic points about it.

Among numerous candidates, President Viktor Yushchenko, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, and pro-Russian opposition leader Viktor Yanukovych, are key focuses. According to the poll conducted by Research & Branding Group, Yanukovich and Tymoshemko lead, while Yushchenko is far behind both candidates. A Ukrainian journalist Tetyana Vysotska introduces each candidate on her blog with a brief biosketch (Who is who in Ukraine).

Since the Orange Revolution in 2004, Ukraine has been a showcase of successful Western styled democracy under the Yushchenko administration. The power of citizens and the rule of law rectified the fraud election, and Yushchenko was inaugurated as the president, instead of pro-Russian Yanukovich. It was a spectacular victory for the Bush administration that sponsored democratic movements during the revolution. Pro-Western Yushchenko administration started to bid the membership for NATO and the EU.

However, poor economic performance and a dispute over appointment of cabinet minister have split President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Tymoshenko. An American businessman, who runs an IT outsourcing company in Kiev, talks of the split within the administration concisely on his blog (“Yushchenko, Tymoshenko Rivalry Emerges onto Public Stage”; Kiev Ukraine News Blog; February 16, 2008). In addition, as I previously quoted an article by Thomas Valasek, Director of Foreign Policy and Defence at the Centre for European Reform, Ukraine has not resolved domestic corruption since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and faces difficulty in transition to capitalism and democracy.

According to David Kramer, Senior Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United　States, the principal issue in this election is the economy as Ukrainian GDP is expected to fall 15% this year. While Yanukovich and Tymoshenko lead the poll, no candidates are likely to gain over 50% of votes, and the second round election will be held on February 7. Although Yanukoich courts Russia, the Kremlin strikes a balance between both leading candidates very carefully (“Ukraine’s Presidential Election: A Primer”; Focus on Ukraine; December 18, 2009).

Fair election is an important issue, as the 2004 fraud is too widely known. The result of this election will have significant implications to relations between Russia and the West, and Euro-Atlantic security. Furthermore, the consequence of the forthcoming election will place critical influence on democracy promotion in the former Soviet Union. In other words, post Berlin Wall world will be tested.

New Year will start turbulently. Keep an eye on this election. Finally, enjoy listening to Ukrainian national anthem by a top singer of this country Ruslana, who is the champion of the Eurovision Song Contest 2004, and supported the Orange Revolution. Watch the video.

NEA Awards Grants to Six Berkshire Cultural Organizations

The grants were announced by new NEA chair, Rocco Landesman.

Both the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) have completed a new round of funding. The NEA has selected six organizations in the Berkshires, while the NEH looked, but came up empty.

As might be expected, large, well known Berkshire based organizations like Tanglewood, Jacob's Pillow and The Clark Art Institute were among those blessed, and so was the feisty Barrington Stage Company - for its Musical Theatre Lab project. It runs each summer under the watchful eye of composer William Finn (he of Spelling Bee fame).

But two smaller, literary organizations were also selected, the Orion Society based in Great Barrington, and the Tupelo Press, recently arrived in North Adams and headquartered at the Eclipse Mill. While the Berkshires have long been home to visual and performing artists, the tradition of literary lights living here is also well established, going back to Herman Melville whose home in Pittsfield was named Arrowhead and Nathaniel Hawthorne who had a small cottage in Lenox.

The NEA grants were made under the Access to Artistic Excellence program and chosen from more than 1,600 applications. Access grants "support the creation and presentation of work in the disciplines of dance, design, folk and traditional arts, literature, media arts, museums, music, musical theater, opera, presenting, theater, and visual arts."

Here is a summary of the six grants made in the Berkshires:

The workshopped Calvin Berger is typical of the Musical Theatre Lab's best work. Top left to right - Michael Perreca (Other Stages Producer), Justin Paul (Musical Director) and Stephen Terrell (Director and Choreographer); Bottom row l-r: The Cast of Calvin Berger - Aaron Tveit, Elizabeth Lundberg, David Perlman and Gillian Goldberg. Photo by Charlie Siedenburg.

Barrington Stage Company Inc.
Pittsfield, MA. 
$25,000
 CATEGORY: Access to Artistic Excellence   FIELD/DISCIPLINE: Musical Theater
. To support the Musical Theatre Lab. The program provides emerging composers, lyricists, and book writers the opportunity to develop new works of musical theater in a supportive environment with an experienced management team.

In talking to Artistic Director Julianne Boyd about the Musical Theatre Lab, she noted that quite a few musicals and performers got their start there. The 2007 musical Burnt Part Boys gets produced in New York this Spring. And in Summer 2010, Nikos Tsakalakos and Janet Allard musical Pool Boy (first workshopped by BSC last summer) will get a fully staged production.

Earlier, the musical workshop of Calvin Berger brought Aaron Tveit to the public's attention, and he "got his equity card through that show," she noted. Tveit has since gone on to become much in demand in American musical theatre, being featured in Next to Normal which went from Arena Stage to Broadway, and assuming the Leonardo DiCaprio role in the new musical Catch Me If You Can which is in preparation for Broadway.

Each summer, the Jacob's Pillow Dance Festival in Becket becomes the world's center of contemporary dance.

Jacob's Pillow Dance Festival, Inc., 
Becket, MA. 
$90,000 
CATEGORY: Access to Artistic Excellence   FIELD/DISCIPLINE: Dance
. To support residencies and performances of dance companies. The project will include a Creative Development Residency, presentation of national and international dance companies, and audience engagement and educational programs.

The BSO's Contemporary Music program takes place at Tanglewood in Lenox/Stockbridge. Ozawa Hall is the concert hall used for these concerts, and it too opens to their glorious lawn.

Boston Symphony Orchestra, Inc. (on behalf of Tanglewood Music Center)
 Boston, MA. 
$45,000
 CATEGORY: Access to Artistic Excellence.   FIELD/DISCIPLINE: Music. 
To support the Festival of Contemporary Music at the Tanglewood Music Center. The 70th anniversary festival will honor the resident composers who have led composition activities for the festival over the past seven decades.

Orion Magazine is at the junction of art, science, politics and the environment. It serves as an intellectual, spiritual and discussion center for the conservation movement.

Orion Society
, Great Barrington, MA. 
$15,000 
CATEGORY: Access to Artistic Excellence   FIELD/DISCIPLINE: Literature. 
To support feature-length pieces of literary prose in Orion magazine. A bi-monthly literary and visual arts journal devoted to exploring the relationship between people and the natural world, the magazine currently has 20,000 subscribers.

The Clark Art Institute may be battling over expansion with their NIMBY neighbors in Williamstown, but its role as the steward for the world's greatest art has never been challenged.

Sterling & Francine Clark Art Institute, 
Williamstown, MA. 
$75,000
 CATEGORY: Access to Artistic Excellence   FIELD/DISCIPLINE: Museum. 
To support the exhibition Picasso/Degas, with accompanying catalogue and education programs. The exhibition is being organized in association with the Museu Picasso in Barcelona.

Tupelo Press publishes innovative, unpredictable and visceral poetry by authors such as the young luminary Larissa Szporluk's. Her Embryos and Idiots is sly, seductive and spare.

Tupelo Press, Inc.
, North Adams, MA
. $25,000
 CATEGORY: Access to Artistic Excellence.   FIELD/DISCIPLINE: Literature
. To support the publication and promotion of new collections of poetry and international literature. Proposed authors include Gary Soto, Ellen Doré Watson, Michael Chitwood, Megan Snyder-Camp, Rebecca Dunham, and Stacey Waite.

Back to Carter’s America?: Warning Flashes of Little Americanism

In the last post, I mentioned an interesting blog post, affiliated with Foreign Policy, that raises a concern over growing isolationism in the United States, surging to the highest level in 40 years. This is based on a poll by the Council on Foreign Relations and Pew Research Center (“U.S. isolationism at a 40-year high”; FP Passport; December 3, 2009).

According to the poll, the rate of Americans, who believe that the United States focus more on domestic issues rather than global problems has risen precipitously (See Chart Ⅰ). Also, an increasing number of American public see the leadership role of the United States less important (See Chart Ⅱ). Quite interestingly, the percentage of skeptics on the American hegemony is rising in recent few years. Seen from this chart, Obama’s America looks like Carter’s America. The American public is less confident in America in both eras. There is no wonder why notoriously apologetic speeches in Prague and Cairo are accepted so warmly in a Carterian America.


　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Chart Ⅰ



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Chart Ⅱ



Regarding the surge in Afghanistan, the public is less supportive of it than the members of the Council on Foreign Relations (See Chart Ⅲ). This illustrates it is isolationist trend that hampers the vital goal of defeating terrorists there, and defend the United States and its allies. As I quoted in a previous post, a former Japanese journalist Yoshiki Hidaka said that American voters chose Barack Obama because they saw the United States did not face critical threats, and national and global security was not a big issue in the presidential election. Had voters regarded foreign and security affairs as the key issue in the election, they would have chosen John McCain, says Hidaka.



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Chart Ⅲ　


Quite alarmingly, such isolationism seems to be bipartisan. Even though President Obama’s approval rate drops, conservatives focus almost entirely on domestic issues. They need to show visions for American leadership in the world. Some opinion leaders launch movements like Keep America Safe and the Foreign Policy Initiative to reverse isolationist trend among the public.

China is one of the key points in this survey. In the Singapore Speech at the APEC Summit, President Obama declared that the United States would accept the rise of China. Surprisingly enough, CFR members see China more important future allies to the United States than Britain, the EU, and Japan (See Chart Ⅳ). Why CFR members are so lenient to the growth of potential threat to a liberal world order since Pax Britannica? According to the theory of hegemonic stability, when a hegemonic superpower provides the global public goods of free trade and liberalist ideology, a peaceful world order of will be maintained. Remember, when Britain had to choose democratic America and authoritarian Germany from the late 19th century to the early 20th century, America was chosen. The transition of hegemony from Britain to the United States was relatively smooth. However, China is neither prepared nor qualified to share the burden of securing a liberal world order, which is an anchor of world peace and stability.


　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Chart Ⅳ


Regarding major threats to the United States, while the public sees China, North Korea, and Russia critical, CFR members regard transnational issues such as climate change and financial crisis as important (See Chart Ⅴ). This implies that CFR members are more liberal, non-hegemonic, and cooperation-oriented beyond ideology (“U.S. Seen as Less Important, China as More Powerful”; Pew Research Center Publication; December 3, 2009).


Chart Ⅴ



The problem is, neither the public nor CFR experts are reluctant to assume imperial mission of American predominance in the world. It is not only the Obama administration, but also the public opinion in current United States is dangerously Carterian.

Global public opinion may prefer calm and conciliatory diplomacy by the Obama administration to high handed moralistic approach by the Bush administration. However, none of other great powers are willing to share the burden of a global policeman (“The Quiet American”; Economist; November 26, 2009).

It seems that global political economy with Obama’s America is moving toward a Carterian world. The cost of blaming a Strong America will be enormous. Illiberal powers like Russia and China will exert more negative influence to undermine a liberal world order. Global public will be more tolerant to rogue regimes and terrorists. As shown in speeches in Prague, Cairo, and Singapore can a less confident America under President Obama manage the world? If no, everything is gloomy.

First online critic admitted to New York Drama Critics Circle

There are many websites, digital magazines and blogs that cover the arts today, and many professional critics find themselves online as the world of print continues to shrink. Alas, there has been a problem in that many of those left in the print media have been resistant to giving credibility to their online counterparts. Until this week.

After years of debate, the New York Drama Critics Circle has admitted Theatre Mania's critic and commentator David Finkle to full membership and participation. I learned of the precedent in Adam Feldman's Time Out New York column.

David Finkle

"Everyone agreed that Finkle was qualified; but several members, particularly those who had been in the Circle for a long time, were reluctant to start down what they worried would be a slippery slope into the blogosphere. And because admission to the Circle requires a daunting two-thirds vote of the entire membership, their concerns carried the day.

But times have changed, and so has the Circle.

So it is my pleasure to announce that in our meeting last week, the Circle voted to accept Finkle for membership, making him the first critic in the group’s history to have been accepted primarily for his online work. (Two previous members had stayed on in the Circle after moving from print to the Net: Ken Mandelbaum of InTheatre, who moved to Broadway.com, and John Simon of New York, who switched to Bloomberg News.)"

Read more: TimeOut NY

David Finkle is a New York-based writer who concentrates on the arts. He's currently the chief drama critic for TheaterMania.com and writes regularly on music for The Village Voice and Back Stage. He's contributed to many publications, including The New York Times, The New York Post, The Nation, The New Yorker, New York, Vogue, Harper's Bazaar and American Theatre. Finkle's blog is part of the regular Huffington Post entertainment offerings.

In the Berkshires, where the print media is dominated by the crusty Berkshire Eagle and North Adams Transcript, many of the old school arts administrators (who tend to think in terms of branding instead of audience development) still defer to them even though the times are a changin'.

For example, yesterday an announcement of the retirement of Nicholas Martin from Williamstown Theatre Festival was given to the print media which exploited it in a rather unfortunate manner. Those of us who write online - and there are quite a few of us - were sidelined. Of course, when there are tickets to be sold, we count. Eventually more of the communications experts at the cultural organizations will include us in the breaking news, but for now, there sometimes seems to be benign neglect.

Elyse Sommer
In terms of the New York Critics, it seems obvious that Elyse Sommer, publisher and chief critic of Curtain Up should be considered next. She already is a member of the Drama Desk of the Outer Critic's Circle.

Some old timers believe granting credibility to internet reviewers is a dangerous and slippery slope. They are right up to a point. Not every online writer is a worthy candidate. But, as all can see, the nose of the camel is already under their tent, competing for space. And the readers are continuing to change their loyalties.

The Final Decision for the Surge in Afghanistan

President Barack Obama has made a long awaited decision to increase the troop level in Afghanistan to defeat Taliban and Al Qaeda. In a previous post, I mentioned that President Barack Obama was cautious to accept the strategic assessment by General Stanley McChrystal. Armed forces leaders, notably, Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff; General David Petraeus, Head of the US Central Command; and Admiral James Stavridis, Supreme Commander of NATO; talked with General McChrystal to urge President Obama to accept the strategic assessment. Obama faced a pressure from an ally. British Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth criticized Obama for delaying the surge, which led to more casualties among British soldiers. It was unprecedented that a British cabinet minister blames the US President in public (Daily Telegraph; “Bob Ainsworth criticises Barack Obama over Afghanistan”; 25 November 2009). Also, Republicans led by Senator John McCain had been demanding the President to take vital actions to improve security in Afghanistan (“The decider”; Economist; November 26, 2009).

Finally, President Obama decided to send additional troops to Afghanistan. Also, Obama struck a balance to soothe domestic antipathy to this long war. In his speech at West Point on December 1, Obama said that the US forces would begin to withdraw in 18 month. Quite interestingly, this is before his re-election campaign. While placating doves at home, Obama reminded the American public of 9-11 terrorist attack and the fear of Pakistani nuclear weapons falling into terrorists’ hands (“Obama’s War”; Economist, December 2, 2009).

In the video on the White House web page, President Obama articulates three points to defeat insurgents and never allow them build safe havens to attack the United States and its allies. They are strengthening Afghan security forces, civil life assistance, and partnership with Pakistan. The President has made it clear that the US led coalition will transfer responsibility to the Afghan government and security forces, after succeeding in the mission to defeat Taliban and Al Qaeda in “18 months” (“President Obama’s Afghanistan Plan in 4 Minutes”; December 1, 2009).

Contrary to the presidential election, Obama draws more support from hawks than doves, regarding the Afghan War. William Kristol, Director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, and Frederick Kagan, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, applaud the decision to boost the troop level in Afghanistan. Though President Obama’s surge of 30,000 falls short of General McChrystal’s request of 40,000, and setting the schedule for withdrawal is inappropriate, both authors argue that General McChrystal will have sufficient forces to defeat insurgents. The surge will be of much help for British and Canadian forces in Helmand and Kandahar. Also, they point out that economic assistance is aimed at poverty, not insurgents. Therefore, William Kristol and Frederick Kagan call for a nationwide support for the Afghan mission, although they disagree to the Obama administration’s policy on Iran, Russia, China, and defense budgets (“Support the President”; Weekly Standard; December 14, 2009).

NATO allies welcomed the surge, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was emboldened to hear pledges for 7,000 extra troops from European members, at the foreign ministers meeting in Brussels (“NATO allies pledge 7,000 more troops for Afghanistan mission”; Washington Post, December 5, 2009). While Britain, Italy, Poland, and Georgia send additional forces, France and Germany declined to join the surge (“Allies Help McChrystal Reach Troop Goal”; Wall Street Journal; December 7, 2009).

President Obama’s decision shall be welcomed, but there are some problems. In the West Point Speech, Obama mentioned the timetable for withdrawal. However, General McChrystal in Afghanistan is not Lord Mountbatten in India. The coalition forces still face formidable enemies. In a previous post, I talked of the panel discussion by Frederick Kagan and Jack Kean at the AEI. General Kean said that the surge in Iraq achieved success because the US forces showed firm willingness for continual commitment there. In addition, isolationism is on the rise in the United States (“U.S. isolationism at a 40-year high”; FP Passport; December 3, 2009). These problems may impose some constraints on the War in Afghanistan.

The surge worked in Iraq. As Professor Niall Ferguson of Harvard University often mentions, it is psychological stamina that matters. The American public should remember the vital point that 9-11 terrorists came from their safe haven in Afghanistan. It is a necessary war that must be won.




See “Fact Sheet: The Way Forward in Afghanistan” by the White House.

Holiday Inflation Hits Nutcrackers, 12 Days of Christmas

The New York City Ballet's Nutcracker is spectacular. Here an army of toy soldiers foil the Chubby Mouse King.
Neither Nutcrackers nor tickets for The Nutcracker come cheap these days. It can cost $1.59 a minute to watch the New York City Ballet's Nutcracker from their "Sweet Seats" which cost $215 each for the 2 hour and 15 minute show which includes an intermission.

This chubby "Mouse King" Nutcracker is on sale by the Pacific Northwest Ballet for $82.00 With rabbit fur hair and ears, it is handmade in Germany, probably by Dr. Drosselmeyer himself.
This life sized Nutcracker is sold out, even at $700.00
12 Days of Christmas Inflation is running about 2%.
While you might be able to get some nutcrackers cheap this year, the cost of buying all the gifts in the song "The 12 Days of Christmas" is higher.

To buy everything in the song this year, from a partridge in a pear tree to 12 drummers drumming, would cost $21,456.66, up $385.46 from last year.

Two items that saw the sharpest price rises: five golden rings and three French hens.

Donation Request

New Global America, the publisher of Global American Discourse, would like to request donations from citizens of the willing like you.

We are in the era when civic power exercise tremendous influence on policymaking processes on national and global stages. Unlike parliamentary politicians and bureaucrats, private activists and organizations can act beyond narrow minded constituent interests and byzantine sectionalism. We can pursue our own agenda from disinterested and fair viewpoints.

But we need your money to improve the quality of our advocacy. We need your donation!

Free nations of the world, unite!

Donation Amount:
Individual citizen: 1,000 yen (or more if you like)
Incorporation: 3,000 yen (or more if you like)

Bank account:
Bank of Tokyo-MitsubishiHigashi Ikebukuro Branch, Futsu (checking) account
Account number: 1804071
Account holder's name: New Global America

Please let us know when you donate. Send an e-mail from the profile page. Let's get to know each other very well. Thank you very much in advance.

State Under Secretary Hormats at Waseda University

Shortly after the APEC Summit in Singapore, Under Secretary of State for Economic, Energy, and Agricultural Affairs Robert Hormats delivered a speech entitled "U.S.-Japan Leadership in the New Global Economy" at Waseda University. The event was held in the Okuma Auditorium, which is a historical landmark of Waseda University.

Since the lecture was given just after the APEC Summit, the focus was regional rather than global (See the full text of this lecture.). Quite symbolically, Under Secretary Hormats started his speech by mentioning the normalization of US-Chinese relations in 1972. In those days, Japanese policymakers were upset, because they thought it would lower importance of the US-Japanese alliance in East Asia. However, he said, Japan stayed as the primary ally in the Asia-Pacific region, despite the US-Chinese normalization. Implicitly, Hormats says that the Japanese public not be obsessed with rivalry for regional primacy and dispute on wartime history with China. At the APEC Summit in Singapore, President Barack Obama welcomed the Peaceful Rise of China, which spurred wide spread criticism among conservatives at home.

Under Secretary Hormats’ stance to China is beyond geopolitical consideration. He emphasized that multilateral approaches are necessary to manage transnational issues such as climate change, alternative energy, developing aid, and the global economy. During the lecture, he mentioned G20 cooperation repeatedly, instead of G7 or G8. His foreign policy viewpoints reminds me of a post Cold War essay by Former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, which talked of multi-multilateral policy coordination among state and non-state actors (“Globalization and Diplomacy: A Practitioner's Perspective”; Foreign Policy; Fall 1997). Does the Obama administration envision a Clintonian world where conflicts over ideology and geopolitics end, and global citizens pursue a wonderful dream of fraternity beyond regimes?

As seen in the attitude to Russia and China, the Obama administration is not willing to promote Western liberalism into both authoritarian giants. Instead, current administration pursues engagement with them beyond differences in regimes and political values.

Under Secretary Hormats said that Japan and the United States work closely to manage a world like this, particularly in the Afghan War, environment, and development aid.

At the Q& A session, I said “Please forgive me to ask a critical question to the Obama administration”, because I wanted to express a concern to the Singapore Speech in which President Obama said America would accept the rise of China. I am not obsessed with the Sino-Japanese rivalry, but critically concerned with Chinese ascendancy from “The Return of History” viewpoint. If their illiberal capitalism supplants our liberal capitalism throughout the world, I believe it a threat to free nations, notably, the United States, Japan, and Europe. Moreover, Western experts and media are alert to the rise of radical nationalism in China ("China's rising nationalism troubles West"; BBC News; 17 November 2009). The Singapore Speech sounds like famous apologetic speeches in Prague and Cairo, for me.

In reply to my question, Under Secretary Hormats generously said that he would welcome any questions in democracy. He stressed that China was an important partner for the United States and free allies through G20 and other multilateral frame work, despite numerous disagreements in political values and national interests.

The lecture was a good opportunity to understand the Obama administration’s foreign policy viewpoints. I enjoyed listening to some questions on environment, development, and other transnational and bilateral issues by Waseda students. As more students are involved in international cooperation now than my college days, interactions between students and Under Secretary Hormats were quite stimulating and lively.



Photo: US Department of State

ACCJ Lecture by the Commander of the US Forces in Japan

On November 5, I attended a luncheon at the Peninsula Hotel in Yurakucho of Tokyo, in order to listen to a lecture by Lieutenant General Edward Rice of the US Air Force. Lieutenant General Rice was appointed to the Commander of the US Forces in Japan in 2008.

Lieutenant General Rice talked about the changing nature of international security environment, and stressed that the US-Japanese alliance transform in order to deal with new challenges. Those challenges are primarily transnational threats, such as terrorism, pandemic, organized crime, climate change, and so forth. Furthermore, he said that such threats have become more important than traditional threats of conflicts between nation states. He said that Japan and the United States develop further partnership to manage these global threats.

It seems to me that the lecture by Lieutenant General Rice reflects foreign policy viewpoints of the Obama administration. Certainly, multilateral security cooperation has become increasingly important in the era of transnational challenges. However, I think that the tone of the lecture could have been different, if Senator John McCain assumed the presidency at present. Regardless of his own political creed, Lieutenant General Rice works for the Obama administration now, just as General David Petraeus does even though he is an icon among Republican supporters. There is nothing strange that the lecture at the Peninsula Hotel was Obamanian.

At the Q & A session after the lecture, attendants asked a broad range of questions on US-Japanese relations and East Asian security, such as North Korea, US bases in Futenma of Okinawa, the East Asian Community, and interest in national security among the Japanese public.

Regarding the East Asian Community, Lieutenant General Rice said that it was necessary to see what it was, and told the attendants not to judge it prematurely. As to public attention to national security, the USFJ (US Forces in Japan) Commander commented that Americans were not necessarily more well-aware of security issues than Japanese.

The USFJ Commander was so cautious that he did not say something like, "the hardest thing right now is not China, it's Japan", as I quoted an anonymous comment in the Washington Post before. Unlike the media, Lieutenant General Rice did not say something provocative about the Hatoyama administration.

My Question to Lieutenant General Rice was whether the role of nation state was declining in global security in view of the rise of radical nationalism in Russia and China. Ever since I wrote a post on the discussion between Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times, top opinion leaders from America and Europe, I have been watching both illiberal capitalisms very closely. I quoted phrases back to the old Soviet Union for Russia and Peaceful rise for China, to ask policy implications of their challenges to free industrialized nations like the United States, Europe, and Japan.

In reply to my question, Lieutenant General Rice said that traditional power games between nation states still mattered, even though transnational challenges were getting increasingly important. Also, he said that a combination of engagement and containment approaches were necessary to deal with the Russo-Chinese challenge. If the Western alliance depends solely on hardliner measures, radical nationalism in Russia and China will be invigorated furthermore, he says.

I was impressed that Lieutenant General Edward Rice replied to every question sincerely. The USFJ Commander also said that it was a good opportunity to know interest of everyone at the forum. It was a very good opportunity for me to participate in mutual interaction between the guest speaker and distinguished attendants.





Note: This blog post reflects my personal view points, and not those of the ACCJ and the USFJ. The author is entirely responsible for everything mentioned in this post.


Photo: US Forces in Japan

NEA Webcast on How Art Works in the US Economy

The National Endowment for the Arts Presents
a Live Webcast of its
Cultural Workforce Forum on
Friday, November 20, 2009



Debate has raged for decades on how art and culture contributes to America's economy. Some of us, myself included, think the emphasis on the economic impact of the arts misses its real role in society, but that is an argument for another day.

In our WalMart economy, run by the bean counters, everything of importance is reduced to a commodity in the United States, and that is just the way it is. Once again we go through the exercise of being forced to consider the arts from an economic standpoint, despite the fact that the same arguments can be made by the Army, the makers of SUV's and even the chemicals that go into Twinkies.

So it comes as no surprise that the National Endowment for the Arts has scheduled a conference that is all about the arts and the economy. One can only hope that something new, something compelling might be dredged up. Failing that, perhaps the organizers can get Congress to listen. Maybe we would be better off simply hiring lobbyists. Still, one can hope for that breakthrough moment at the conference.

Though that is unlikely as no real artists will take part in the discussion.

"You can't expect the government to give money to artists. Our trillions are needed to support the bankers, GM executives, mortgage derivative scam artists and fraudulent insurance company executives."
From the NEA press announcement, we find that on Friday, November 20, 2009, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) will present a live webcast on www.arts.gov of a forum about America's artists and other cultural workers who are part of this country's real economy. Academics, foundation professionals, and service organization representatives will come together to discuss improving the collection and reporting of statistics about arts and cultural workers, and to develop future research agendas and approaches.

9:00 a.m.
Opening Remarks and introductions
Joan Shigekawa, NEA Senior Deputy Chairman and Sunil Iyengar, NEA Director of Research & Analysis


9:30
Panel One: What We Know About Artists and How We Know It
NEA Research on Artists in the Workforce
Tom Bradshaw, NEA Research Officer
Artist Labor Markets
Greg Wassall, associate professor, Department of Economics, Northeastern University
Artist Careers
Joan Jeffri, director, Research Center for Arts and Culture, Teachers College, Columbia University
Artist Research: Union Perspectives
David Cohen, executive director, Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO


11:00
Panel Two: Putting the Research to Work
Cultural Vitality: Investing in Creativity
Maria Rosario Jackson, senior research associate, The Urban Institute
Artists and the Economic Recession
Judilee Reed, executive director, Leveraging Investments in Creativity (LINC)
Teaching Artists Research Project
Nick Rabkin, Teaching Artists Research Project, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago
Strategic National Arts Alumni Project
Steven Tepper, associate director, the Curb Center for Art, Enterprise, and Public Policy, Vanderbilt University


1:20
Panel Three: Widening the Lens to Capture Other Cultural Workers
Artists in the Greater Cultural Economy
Ann Markusen, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota
Creative Class: Who's in, Who's out?
Tom Bradshaw, NEA Research Officer
American Community Survey: An Emerging Data Set
Jennifer Day, assistant division chief, Employment Characteristics of the Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, United States Census Bureau


2:20
Comments and questions from panel participants


3:00
Discussion: Summary and Recommendations for Future Research
Moderated by Sunil Iyengar and Tom Bradshaw
Lead discussants: Holly Sidford, president, Helicon Collaborative and Paul DiMaggio, professor, Department of Sociology, Princeton University


4:30
Adjournment


In addition to the above presenters, the following respondents will participate in the NEA Cultural Workforce Forum:

Randy Cohen, vice president of local arts advancement, Americans for the Arts

Deirdre Gaquin, consultant

Angela Han, director of research, National Assembly of State Arts Agencies

Ruby Lerner, president, Creative Capital Foundation

Judilee Reed, executive director, Leveraging Investments in Creativity (LINC)

Carrie Sandahl, associate professor, Department of Disability and Human Development, University of Illinois at Chicago

Mary Jo Waits, director, Social, Economic & Workforce Programs Division, National Governors Association

An archive of the event will be available on www.arts.gov the week following the forum.

A Commentary by a Top CFR Analyst on Iran

Currently, the P5+1 (United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany) nuclear negotiation with Iran is in progress. I would like to talk of the Iran problem further in detail in forthcoming posts. In this post, I would like to review an interview to Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, on November 11. Takeyh insists that the Iran issue needs broader approaches, beyond focusing on nonproliferation.

This interview is valuable, because Takeyh points out that Iranian foreign policy is defined by domestic politics, rather than identifying its national interests on the global stage. Therefore, he says that the United States and other stakeholders take broad ranged issues into account, and not simply focus on nuclear negotiations.

This is critical to discuss Western approaches to Iran in a political turbulence since the presidential election this June. The Vienna talk in this October may be a progress in nonproliferation negotiation, but Takeyh says that domestic politics makes Iranian attitude erratic and unpredictable. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may suggest counterproposals to the P5+1, but they are not necessarily based on well-defined national interests. Therefore, I have to say that economic incentives for the theocratic regime regarding uranium enrichment do not necessarily work.

Instead of focusing entirely on nuclear issues, Takeyh comments that the P5+1 find common goals with Iran in broader issues like Iraq, Gulf security, and the Middle East peace process. An agreement with Iran in other issues will help advance nuclear talks, according to him. I agree to this point, because these security issues are closely intertwined with Iran’s nuclear ambition. Also, I would like to mention that Libya abandoned the nuclear project because Khadafy needs Western help to curb domestic threats of Islamic radicals.

As Takehy mentions influence of domestic politics on Iran’s attitude to nuclear negotiations, it is logical to use the Cold War tactics to pressure Iran for human rights issues. The Obama administration was too cautious to blame Iran for the repression associated with the presidential election this year.

Ray Takeyh suggests helpful guidelines to deal with Iran in such a brief interview. Iran has been one of the most critical threats since the fall of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Therefore, I would like to talk of Iran furthermore in forthcoming posts.

It appears that the Obama administration hesitates to provoke Iran on other issues, and focus entirely on nuclear negotiations. But such a low risk diplomacy is no pain and no gain.

A Nation of Misled TV Addicts

Television's main purpose is to keep you watching the commercials.
The latest Nielsen statistics are out. The average American household is exposed to 2.75 hours of commercials per day, out of a 8 hours, 21 minutes in front of a television.

That's pretty scary considering that in 1991, the first year Nielson did such a survey, the typical home only spent 1 hour, 50 minutes in front of the boob tube.

This increase in viewing may be due to a tight economy with frugal households trying to save money by not going out. Of course, it is a bit of a false economy since tv was once free, and these days most people pay for tv - still with commercials - through cable or satellite.

These services average $71.00 a month. It is quite a rise from $43.00 in 2005.

TV is a black hole into which billions of dollars are sucked out of the economy for products we could live without.
Young people can not believe that television was actually free in its first few decades of existence, and that the amount of commercials have almost doubled since its inception.

It is the cable channels like AMC with "Mad Men" and FX's "Damages" that are getting the additional eyeballs for content that is surprisingly good compared to the reality and talk shows the networks have increasingly used to fill their time slots.

Interestingly, prime time television growth is flat, while the off peak times is where the audience is growing. This could be because of the increasing number of people who are surviving with part time jobs, or are out of work.

TV depresses brain function and creativity.

The brain waves seen during hypnosis are quite similar to those measured in people watching television. Television advertisers have seized on this effect of television and brain function for their television commercials. When people watch most television programs, they are quite suggestible. Thus a claim made in favor of a specific product, on some level, causes the person watching television to be more apt to believe it.


The net effect of all this television watching has been a seismic shift in how American's view life, work and buy products. It has also changed the way we elect our officials and view the democratic process, most of which has coarsened both public discourse and interpersonal behavior.

Television is a mixed blessing. But that is a story for another day.

Thomas Pynchon and Inherent Vice

A fascination with the hot cars of their day.
Writer Thomas Pynchon is fascinating, and not just because we grew up on opposite shores of Long Island. He was a North Shore beat guy, me a South Shore clamdigger a few years younger, but with aspirations. His writing tends towards offbeat themes: oddball names, sophomoric humor, illicit drug use and paranoia.

Pynchon in a rare photo from his younger days.
He was Hunter Thompson before Rolling Stone was a magazine. And he was gonzo before Charles Giuliano coined the word. He holds the same fascination for me as did Jean Shepherd whose storytelling abilities are almost cinematic. The ability to draw word pictures and conjure up mental images is a special gift that not every writer masters. Pynchon does this with a sparing use of words, not volumes of them.

His latest book, released this past summer is Inherent Vice and the video below gives you a good taste of his work. The voice over is allegedly done by the reclusive Pynchon himself.

The Role of Vice President Biden to Control Damages in the Obama Foreign Policy

Vice President Joseph Biden seems to have the special role in foreign policy of the Obama administration. President Barack Obama has launched new diplomatic campaigns to improve relations with adversaries and challengers to America, such as Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, and so forth. Some US allies claim serious concerns with such appeasement. Vice President Biden tries to soothe such worries when he visited Ukraine and Georgia in July, and Poland and Czech in October. Is Joseph Biden playing a supplementary role to Barack Obama?

As I mentioned in a previous post, Russia Today commented that the United States would not sacrifice the reset relation with Russia for the sake of Ukraine and Georgia while Biden was on a trip to both countries. They used a word, pecking order, to emphasize that President Obama’s visit to Russia was more important than Vice President Biden’s visit to Ukraine and Georgia.

As if suggesting that Russia saw America weak, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev denounced pro-Western Yushchenko administration to impose pressure on Ukraine. Obama may be popular among doves across the world, but his soft line stances and apologism to the American hegemony make loyal allies that face the threat of gigantic adversaries like Russia and China critically worried. For allies such as Poland and Czech, Barack Obama looks too naïve and inexperienced to deal with consummate challengers. Therefore, Joseph Biden is expected to placate their concerns.

Prior to Biden’s visit to Eastern Europe in October, Ewa Blaszynscaya, Research Analyst at the Center European Policy Analysis, insisted that the Polish government use this opportunity to reemphasize Polish contribution to NATO forces in Afghanistan, and urge Biden to reconsider the Missile Defense issue, on her blog affiliated with the Warsaw Business Journal (“Vice President Biden’s Poland visit more than just damage control”; CEE Policy Watch; 20 October 2009).

Though the missile shield was scaled down, the Obama administration showed their willingness for continual commitment to New Europe. Vice President Joseph Biden talked with Polish President Lech Kaczyński and Prime Minister Donald Tusk longer than scheduled to soothe their concerns. It was a damage control to President Obama’s clumsy announcement that the United States would withdraw the Missile Defense System from Poland and Czech. However, the opposition criticizes the agreement a hoax as no timetable to implement the alternative plan was shown (“Biden does damage control”; Warsaw Business Journal; 26 October 2009).

Biden did the same damage control diplomacy to talk with Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer. While Czech contribution to the Afghan War was praised, both sides did not agree how to implement the new plan: whether NATO based or bilateral (“Biden reassures ČR of defense role”; Prague Post; October 28 2009). Furthermore, former Czech President Vaclav Havel criticized Obama for rejecting to meet Dalai Lama, even though Biden explained it “logically” (“Havel: US foreign policy aware of threats”; Prague Daily Monitor; 26 October 2009).

Artemy Kalinovsky, Fellow at the London School of Economics, says Joseph Biden is the best choice to soothe Central European allies. Biden has a brilliant career to endorse NATO expansion to Eastern Europe during the 1990s, and he has extensive personal contacts in this region. However, both Poland and Czech will be discouraged, if Biden fails to meet their expectation. As Kalinovsky says, “In the end, the Obama administration might learn that, as with domestic politics, it is impossible to be friends with everybody.” (“The Man for the Job in 'New Europe'?”; National Journal; October 20, 2009)

Obama was premature to express his hope of reconciliation with challengers and adversaries at one of the most sensitive time, which has raised serious concerns among loyal allies. As both the Warsaw Business Journal and the Prague Post pointed out, President Obama did not give sufficient consideration to the provocative remark by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin at the 70th anniversary of the Soviet-German invasion to Poland. Putin’s pro-Stalin speech chilled the spine of people across Central and Eastern Europe. Also, Biden did not tell detailed information about the alternative missile interceptor SM3. Joseph Biden needs to do more to complete his damage control mission and restore trust among allies of New Europe.

Obama cannot heal all stakeholders. The Prague and the Cairo Speeches were hailed, but he needs to face savage reality of global power games. The Vice President will play a vital role to take care of concerns from US allies, just as a manager of the customer service center does. In any case, the role of Joseph Biden in the Obama foreign policy is beyond New Europe and Former Soviet nations. Vice President Biden has substantial jobs to do in the Obama administration for America to fulfill the role of the global superpower.

The Incredible Tracey Moffatt is a God

Tracey Moffatt, "Marie Curie, Under the Sign of Scorpio", 2005, archival pigment ink on acid-free rag paper, 17 x 23 inches

Artist. Feminist. Human Being. Her words and work use the artifice of culture and get to the sinew that connects life with death. Spend twenty minutes with her via these videos and you may follow her work for the rest of your life. Tracey Moffatt may be Australian and part aboriginal by birth, but her creative gift belongs to the world.

First, a short interview with her about her latest project at The Brooklyn Museum.


Twenty years ago, she created this short experimental film that is about the relationship between an aboriginal daughter and her white mother. The daughter cares for her mother as she approaches death in a film shot entirely in her own created visual environment. It is easy to see this film as at least partially autobiographical, and yet its wordlessness brings to mind the simplicity of Beckett, the desolate world of Sam Shepherd and even the early experimental films of Kenneth Anger.

Her film Night Cries: A Rural Tragedy is in two parts.





The Brooklyn Museum has an extensive collection of her work.

Can Lord Barry Heal the Japanese Bitter Ones upon His November Visit to Japan?

Secretary Robert Gates talked with bitter ones of new DPJ (Democratic Party of Japan) government in Tokyo to discuss security deals, including issues of US bases in Okinawa, North Korean nuclear threat, and Japanese contribution to the Afghan War.

It is an irony that Japanese voters were inspired with “Hope of the Change” by a Democrat President Barack Obama, which led to the victory of Japanese Democrat to overturn conservative LDP (Liberal Democratic Party) rule for 50 years this summer. However, the Obama administration faces “bitter” remarks by his fellow Democrats across the Pacific. Under the name of “equal US-Japanese relations”, the Hatoyama administration expresses that they are not willing to provide vital assistances for the coalition fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The cabinet rejects to continue fuelling for the allied force navies in the Indian Ocean. Also, the DPJ government even declares to overturn the Okinawa base deal agreed between the Bush administration and the LDP cabinet. As Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama insists on founding a controversial East Asian Community, the American side takes the above mentioned rejects very seriously.

While Japanese liberals and leftists are critical to America’s role as the superpower and the alliance of free nations, they welcome the well known apologist speeches in Prague and Cairo. At the Atomic bomb Memorial Day on August 6, Hiroshima’s Social Democrat Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba used a word the “Obamajority” to show his heartfelt support for the denuclearization speech by Barack Obama. Currently, the Social Democratic Party joins the coalition cabinet led by DPJ. Even far left and the most anti-American politician Kazuo Shii, Secretary General of the Communist Party, praised Obama for the Prague Speech, while he opposes fuelling for the Afghan War vehemently. This is contradictory to his hail to Obama on denuclearization.

The Washington Post raises a serious concern in “U.S. pressures Japan on military package” on October 22, 2009.

For a U.S. administration burdened with challenges in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea and China, troubles with its closest ally in Asia constitute a new complication.

A senior State Department official said the United States had "grown comfortable" thinking about Japan as a constant in U.S. relations in Asia. It no longer is, he said, adding that "the hardest thing right now is not China, it's Japan."

Secretary Gates demanded Japanese Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa to abide by the agreement during the LDP era. Tensions between the United States and the DPJ has been intensified. Can President Obama heal relations with Japan when he visits there in November? As shown in Joseph Biden’s visit to Europe, the Obama administration may have some divisions of roles. Vice President Biden soothes concerns with appease to Russia when he visited Ukraine and Georgia in July, and Poland and Czech this month. For Japan, Secretary Gates pushes for American national interests, and President Obama may use his popularity to heal the trans-Pacific tension.

But I would like to quote a comment by Artemy Kalinovsky, Fellow at the London School of Economics, saying that, “In the end, the Obama administration might learn that, as with domestic politics, it is impossible to be friends with everybody” (“The Man For The Job In 'New Europe'?”; National Journal Blog; October 20, 2009).

Since the presidential election, "All Hail the Messiah" phenomena have been widespread in Japan, as well as in the United States and Europe. However, it is time that President Obama began to act as the leader of the superpower. The President of the United States is not a movie star, and he must push vital interests of our free nations, whether loved or hated. The President should never show appeasing attitude to Japanese Democrats as he did in his visit to Russia this July. President Obama must send a severe warning signal to the DPJ administration, in order to stop dangerous Asianism in Japan. Otherwise, Japan may repeat the same mistake of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere during World War Ⅱ. Absolutely no! Japan should be at the heart of the Western alliance. Japanese people must never forget this progressive spirit since the Meiji Revolution.

President Barack Obama must be bold, and never court Japanese liberals and leftists who plot to decouple US-Japanese ties. Please don’t heal everyone, and keep in mind the phrase “with us, or against us” to strengthen the unity of free nations.

A Warning Flash to US Counterterrorist Policy

There is a shocking news report that terrorist organizations are developing new recruitment network, and an increasing number of Americans and Europeans join Al Qaeda and Taliban to fight against US led coalition. Until quite recently, fighters were mostly self-motivated volunteers who came all the way to Afghanistan and Pakistan by themselves. But today, Al Qaeda stations their own agents in Europe to recruit jihadists.

Analysts say that CIA campaigns to kill Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders and missile attacks by NATO forces are effective in general, but as long as terrorists can relocate their bases to Pakistan, those measures are not complete (“Flow of terrorist recruits increasing”; Washington Post; October 19, 2009).

In order to deal with the threat mentioned in this article, much more strict surveillance against potential terrorists is necessary. However, liberals on both sides of the Atlantic denounce wire tapping during the Bush era. But think again. Terrorists find new ways to pursue their jihad against free citizens. We, free nations, are at war. Read the article in the Washington Post thoroughly to understand what a dreadful threat they pose to the global community.

The Berkshires - Chicago Connection

In seeking out diversions, people fall into predictable patterns. There is a great deal of traffic between Boston, New York and the Berkshires. Tanglewood has its roots in Boston's Symphony Hall, and the Willliamstown Theatre Festival in Manhattan's theater scene. But there are other circuits, too.

Not nearly as well travelled, but still significant is the Chicago-Berkshires loop, bringing players from the Windy City's Goodman Theatre now running the hilarious musical, Animal Crackers, and Steepenwolf (currently running Fake and The House on Mango Street) to the resident companies along Route 7: Berkshire Theatre Festival, Barrington Stage Company, Shakespeare & Company, and Williamstown Theatre Festival.


The only train service in the Berkshires is the Lake Shore Limited which runs between Boston and Chicago, stopping at the Intermodal Center in Pittsfield along the way. And for a limited time, you can save 40% on tickets.

Here's the deal: travel with a friend on the Lake Shore Limited and save 40% on the companion rail fare. Whether you want to travel from Boston, New York, Chicago or anywhere in between, take advantage of this limited-time offer to plan your next trip.

Watch the seasons change from your train window as you travel along the shorelines of the Great Lakes and through the Berkshire mountains. Relax in your spacious seat or grab a bite to eat in the dining car — you'll enjoy the journey as much as the destination. Call 1-800-USA-RAIL (1-800-872-7245) or visit Amtrak online.