World history has been repeating conflicts among nations. Interactions in the economy, culture, social activities and so forth have not prevented wars and bloodsheds by themselves. Regarding the “peaceful rise” of China, dovish opinion leaders argue that interdependence in the economy and tourism will ease tensions with the West. However, history dose not support the idea that human interactions stop clashes among nations and civilizations. Once strategic interests are threatened, or fundamental values are defied, every nation confronts each other.
To begin with, I would like to talk of Britain and Germany before the World War Ⅰ. Despite intensifying rivalries in colonial geopolitics and manufacturing, both great powers were very friendly from late 19th century to early 20th century. Queen Victoria herself was a German descendant. Prince Consort Albert came from the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld in Germany. Some of her children, including Princess Royal Victoria, married German princes and princess.
Quite interestingly, when Cecil Rhodes founded the Rhodes Scholarship with his fortune through successful business and political career in South Africa, he granted students from Germany, along with British colonies and dominions and the United States, to study at Oxford University. Germany is the only non-English speaking country among them. This implies that a British imperialist Rhodes envisioned close Anglo-German ties for a stable and prosperous world order in those days.
Unfortunately, Kaiser Wilhelm Ⅱ ruined such beautiful interdependence, because his expansionist policy was excessively provocative to threaten the vital interests of the British Empire. When Kaiser invaded Belgium, British Prime Minister Herbert Henry Asquith had no other choice but fight against Germany in World War Ⅰ.
Economic interdependence did not stop the Pearl Harbor attack. When the Pacific War broke out, Japan imported key natural resource such as oil, rubber, tin and scrapped iron from the United States and British and Dutch colonies in South East Asia. Also, the United States was the primary export market for Japanese silk and other textile industries. A war with America was fatal to the Japanese economy. Despite this, Japan fought against the United States, as the military regime in Tokyo thought strategic gap with Washington on the issue of Manchuria and China would not be filled. Even though the Babe Ruth baseball exhibition in 1934 nurtured temporary friendship and eased the tension between Japan and the United States ("Year Of The Babe"; Sports Illustrated; November 14, 1955) , it did not stop the war 7 years later.
When we talk of current challengers such as China, Russia, Islamic terrorists, and rogue states, it is a wishful thinking that we assume interdependence can tame them. Post Cold War holidays from history fed these monsters. Particularly, China exploits our liberal world order, in order to maximize survival chances of autocratic leaders. In other words, their codes of conducts are completely different from ours. Do you still expect interdependence to tame them, without building up military deterrence and strengthening security partnership with allies? Learn lessons from history.
Showing posts with label Global Issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global Issues. Show all posts
Friday, January 7, 2011
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
The Clash between the West and Emerging Economies
The media and business societies talk about emerging economies these days, because they see new market opportunities in those countries, which should not be missed. But are emerging economies really the hope for the future? Contrary to myopic commercialism, they pose critical challenges to liberal world order of the global political economy. Developed nations face severe competitions against cheap labor rivals. Some of emerging economies defy Western-led liberal system to defend their autocracy.
Emerging economies consist of BRICs, ASEAN, South Korea, Mexico, South Africa, and so forth. They are not uniformly the same. Some are democratic and pro-West, while others advocate completely new world order, as expressed in China’s “peaceful rise”.
Among rising economies, the most important group is BRICs, because they have political aspirations for greater influence, based on their economic prosperity. While Russia and China explore “leading” position through challenging the West, India pursues the rise through strategic partnership with the United States. Brazil may have tried to meddle Iran and the global community in cooperation with Turkey, but it does not challenge American preeminence. Therefore, we have to pay special attention to China and Russia.
When I attended a policy round table on APEC by the Japan Forum on International Relations on October 15, I mentioned three problems of political environment in China. I wonder why so many businessmen explore market opportunities in this country, without solid assurance for economic freedom for foreign business. First, China is notorious for currency manipulation to win global competition unfairly. Second, human rights problems are serious risks. In the Senkaku dispute, the Chinese authority has no hesitation for retaliatory arrests of Japanese businessmen working for Fujita Construction Company. Third, due to information control by the Communist Party, Google has withdrawn from China.
Remember that Western great powers refused Meiji Japan’s request to improve the “unequal treaty” in the 19th century, because Japanese legal system was not well arranged, which could have led to human rights abuse to Europeans and Americans in Japan. Only when Meiji Japan persuaded Western great powers that it had become “civilized” enough, did they accept Japanese request for equal partnership. For foreign business, political environment in current China is more dreadful than Tokugawa and early Meiji Japan.
While advocates for mutual dependence insist that engagement with China and Russia will tame them regardless of their regimes, they make use of our liberal world order to exploit us. Chinese capitalists buy strategic industries in America, Europe, and Japan to pirate the knowledge and to dominate the world economy, in close cooperation with the Communist Party. Russian oligarchs buy luxurious condominiums in South Kensington, which made it easier for FSB agents to lurk in London to assassinate Alexander Litvinenko. Through close cooperation between authoritarian government and privileged business, both countries make money for military build-up, which will ultimately pose threats to free nations. During the bubble economy, Japanese bid for the Rockefeller Center in New York annoyed Americans. It is understandable that people hate such a Shylockian behavior, but it was no threat at all as “no one can take the Rockefeller Center to anywhere”. But Chinese and Russian capitalists openly defy Western liberal capitalism.
In addition to regime and great power rivalries, nationalism is another problem. In the 1990s, South East Asian nations advocated “Asian values” to legitimize their paternalistic authoritarianism of the state over citizens. Booming economy in those days strengthened their confidence, which led them to defy Western preeminence. Only when hit by the Asian financial crisis, did they stop claiming Asian values against Western liberalism.
As to economic aspects, competitive advantage of cheap labor is not the only problem when we talk of emerging nations. Stephen King, chief economist of HSBC, warns that competition for scare resource will be intensified between the West and emerging nations. With the rise of living standard and the demand, emerging economies will increase more influence on price setting of natural resource. While globalization makes world economy overall grow, cheap labor subcontracts with emerging economies erodes consumer confidence in the West. Though free market is expected to be a built-in-stabilizer to avoid resource conflict as seen in World War Ⅱ, autocrats in Russia and China simply want higher growth through capitalist economy, while strengthening their political positions by manipulating the market (“Stephen King on scarce resources”; The Economist Online; October 13, 2010). Actually, China announced to reduce export of rare earth materials when the Senkaku conflict with Japan broke out this October.
The most critical problem with the rise of emerging economies is erosion of liberal world order. Ian Bremmer, President of Eurasia Group, and Nouriel Roubini, Professor of Economics at the Stern Business School of New York University, raise serious concerns that the world is changing from unipolar hegemonic stability to nonpolar irresponsible instability (“Paradise Lost: Why Fallen Markets Will Never Be the Same”; Institutional Investor; September 2010). Seeing from the theory of hegemonic stability, only a liberalist nation can provide the global public goods of liberal world order. The hegemonic state may have to share responsibility with other powerful stakeholders as Britain explored “bi-gemonic” stability with America during the interwar period. However, burden sharing states must be free nations, and just simply being powerful is not enough. Britain never thought of sharing hegemonic responsibilities with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. None of current emerging economies are well qualified to share responsibilities with the United States, Europe, and Japan, and there is no wonder why G20 policy coordination works so poorly.
Of course, we need to respect their aspiration for equal relations with the West. What really matters is the nature of their regimes. Particularly, we need to pay attention to fundamental ideals of their nation building. While the “peaceful rise” of Maoist China is dangerous, the competitive rise of democratic India is peaceful. Since the independence, India has been pursuing economic development in Fabianism, which is the core value of British Labour Party. Therefore, we can welcome the rise of India, but not China.
Myopic businessmen need to see the world from “Country First” viewpoints. It is necessary to evaluate emerging economies who they are. Multinational corporations doing business with dangerous regimes may earn profit for a short term, but in the long run, they will lose. In the past, the Ohira administration of Japan continued the IJPC petro-chemical project with Iran when the United States and European allies imposed economic sanctions against the hostage crisis of the US embassy in Tehran. Business with the rogue regime ended is failure as the Iran-Iraq War broke out.
It is too naïve or Shylockian to regard emerging economies just simply as new market opportunities. They can be economic rivals, security threats, or anything that will destroy our liberal world order. Leaders of America, Europe, and Japan must think again how to deal with emerging economies.
Emerging economies consist of BRICs, ASEAN, South Korea, Mexico, South Africa, and so forth. They are not uniformly the same. Some are democratic and pro-West, while others advocate completely new world order, as expressed in China’s “peaceful rise”.
Among rising economies, the most important group is BRICs, because they have political aspirations for greater influence, based on their economic prosperity. While Russia and China explore “leading” position through challenging the West, India pursues the rise through strategic partnership with the United States. Brazil may have tried to meddle Iran and the global community in cooperation with Turkey, but it does not challenge American preeminence. Therefore, we have to pay special attention to China and Russia.
When I attended a policy round table on APEC by the Japan Forum on International Relations on October 15, I mentioned three problems of political environment in China. I wonder why so many businessmen explore market opportunities in this country, without solid assurance for economic freedom for foreign business. First, China is notorious for currency manipulation to win global competition unfairly. Second, human rights problems are serious risks. In the Senkaku dispute, the Chinese authority has no hesitation for retaliatory arrests of Japanese businessmen working for Fujita Construction Company. Third, due to information control by the Communist Party, Google has withdrawn from China.
Remember that Western great powers refused Meiji Japan’s request to improve the “unequal treaty” in the 19th century, because Japanese legal system was not well arranged, which could have led to human rights abuse to Europeans and Americans in Japan. Only when Meiji Japan persuaded Western great powers that it had become “civilized” enough, did they accept Japanese request for equal partnership. For foreign business, political environment in current China is more dreadful than Tokugawa and early Meiji Japan.
While advocates for mutual dependence insist that engagement with China and Russia will tame them regardless of their regimes, they make use of our liberal world order to exploit us. Chinese capitalists buy strategic industries in America, Europe, and Japan to pirate the knowledge and to dominate the world economy, in close cooperation with the Communist Party. Russian oligarchs buy luxurious condominiums in South Kensington, which made it easier for FSB agents to lurk in London to assassinate Alexander Litvinenko. Through close cooperation between authoritarian government and privileged business, both countries make money for military build-up, which will ultimately pose threats to free nations. During the bubble economy, Japanese bid for the Rockefeller Center in New York annoyed Americans. It is understandable that people hate such a Shylockian behavior, but it was no threat at all as “no one can take the Rockefeller Center to anywhere”. But Chinese and Russian capitalists openly defy Western liberal capitalism.
In addition to regime and great power rivalries, nationalism is another problem. In the 1990s, South East Asian nations advocated “Asian values” to legitimize their paternalistic authoritarianism of the state over citizens. Booming economy in those days strengthened their confidence, which led them to defy Western preeminence. Only when hit by the Asian financial crisis, did they stop claiming Asian values against Western liberalism.
As to economic aspects, competitive advantage of cheap labor is not the only problem when we talk of emerging nations. Stephen King, chief economist of HSBC, warns that competition for scare resource will be intensified between the West and emerging nations. With the rise of living standard and the demand, emerging economies will increase more influence on price setting of natural resource. While globalization makes world economy overall grow, cheap labor subcontracts with emerging economies erodes consumer confidence in the West. Though free market is expected to be a built-in-stabilizer to avoid resource conflict as seen in World War Ⅱ, autocrats in Russia and China simply want higher growth through capitalist economy, while strengthening their political positions by manipulating the market (“Stephen King on scarce resources”; The Economist Online; October 13, 2010). Actually, China announced to reduce export of rare earth materials when the Senkaku conflict with Japan broke out this October.
The most critical problem with the rise of emerging economies is erosion of liberal world order. Ian Bremmer, President of Eurasia Group, and Nouriel Roubini, Professor of Economics at the Stern Business School of New York University, raise serious concerns that the world is changing from unipolar hegemonic stability to nonpolar irresponsible instability (“Paradise Lost: Why Fallen Markets Will Never Be the Same”; Institutional Investor; September 2010). Seeing from the theory of hegemonic stability, only a liberalist nation can provide the global public goods of liberal world order. The hegemonic state may have to share responsibility with other powerful stakeholders as Britain explored “bi-gemonic” stability with America during the interwar period. However, burden sharing states must be free nations, and just simply being powerful is not enough. Britain never thought of sharing hegemonic responsibilities with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. None of current emerging economies are well qualified to share responsibilities with the United States, Europe, and Japan, and there is no wonder why G20 policy coordination works so poorly.
Of course, we need to respect their aspiration for equal relations with the West. What really matters is the nature of their regimes. Particularly, we need to pay attention to fundamental ideals of their nation building. While the “peaceful rise” of Maoist China is dangerous, the competitive rise of democratic India is peaceful. Since the independence, India has been pursuing economic development in Fabianism, which is the core value of British Labour Party. Therefore, we can welcome the rise of India, but not China.
Myopic businessmen need to see the world from “Country First” viewpoints. It is necessary to evaluate emerging economies who they are. Multinational corporations doing business with dangerous regimes may earn profit for a short term, but in the long run, they will lose. In the past, the Ohira administration of Japan continued the IJPC petro-chemical project with Iran when the United States and European allies imposed economic sanctions against the hostage crisis of the US embassy in Tehran. Business with the rogue regime ended is failure as the Iran-Iraq War broke out.
It is too naïve or Shylockian to regard emerging economies just simply as new market opportunities. They can be economic rivals, security threats, or anything that will destroy our liberal world order. Leaders of America, Europe, and Japan must think again how to deal with emerging economies.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Hurdles for a Nuclear Free World
Has global security started to move toward a nuclear free world this year? Based on the Prague speech, President Barack Obama hosted the 1st Nuclear Security Summit in Washington on April 12 and 13. Also, Ambassador John Roos attended the Atomic Bomb Memorial Ceremony in Hiroshima on August 6 as the first US representative in history. Those actions are impressive, but it is a long way to go to achieve this goal, because old geopolitics has reemerged in the post Cold War era, and rogue states are pursuing nuclear development projects.
First, let me talk about fundamental points regarding the idea of a nuclear free world. This is not original to Barack Obama. It was senior American politicians, including Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Former Secretary of State George Schultz, Former Secretary of Defense William Perry, and Former Senator Sam Nunn that presented theoretical foundations for a world without nuclear weapons in the Wall Street Journal in 2007. In the article, bipartisan leaders insist that policymakers change Cold War mindset of MAD as nuclear deterrence is becoming decreasingly effective due to the challenge of rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and the emergence of non-state actors like terrorist groups. The four leaders argued just from realist viewpoints, and never remarked something controversial, like a highlighted phrase in the Prague speech, “As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act.”
Regarding this phrase, George Perkovich, Vice President at the Carnegie Endowment points out that Obama articulated to maintain nuclear deterrence to defend the United States and free allies as long as nuclear threats continue to exist (“The Obama Nuclear Agenda: One Year after Prague”; Carnegie Policy Outlook; March 31, 2010).
The most critical hurdle for a nuclear free world is old geopolitical rivalries posed by Russia and China. Russia wants to maintain its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union. As to China, Gordon Chang says, “Beijing’s ruthlessly pragmatic leaders see our failure to press human rights as a sign that we think we are weak. And if they think we are weak, they see little reason to cooperate. So promoting human rights is protecting American security."
While the Obama administration explores a win-win deal with Russia, conservatives are concerned with new START because Kremlin simply wants to achieve nuclear parity with the United States. Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton criticizes Obama’s obsession with arms reduction and says, “The positions of the United States and Russia are not parallel, and roughly equivalent warhead limits impair Washington far more than Moscow." I agree with Bolton that the United States must defend allies around the globe, but Russia does not have to.
Quite importantly, neither Russia nor China share concerns with the West regarding nuclear proliferation to rogue states and terrorist groups. Russia sold S300 surface to air missiles to Iran. In addition, Kremlin decided to supply uranium to Iran’s first nuclear reactor in Bushehr, though the United States worries that Iran will interpret this as a signal of tolerance to its nuclear ambition (“Russian nuclear agency says Iran's first nuclear plant will start getting fuel next week”; FOX News; August 13, 2010). China still endorses the repressive regime in North Korea, simply because the Beijing government worries confusions associated with the collapse of the Pyongyang dictatorship, rather than nuclear proliferation. Stark gaps are found on nuclear terrorism. As Liz Cheney mentioned in the debate with Former Secretary of State Colin Powell this February, American policymakers are keenly aware of terrorist acquisition of WMDs, from conservative to liberal. Until Russians and Chinese face further serious attacks by radical Muslims of Chechnya and Uighur respectively, they may not assume common understandings on nuclear terrorism with the United States.
Also, it has become apparent that China does not respect the Obama initiative. In June, China proposed to sell nuclear reactors to Pakistan, despite the fear of intensified nuclear rivalries with India. Beijing Communists assume “If America can bend the rules for India, then China can break them for Pakistan” (“Nuclear proliferation in South Asia: The power of nightmares”; Economist; June 24, 2010). In theory, such a geopolitical game will happen. However, China was more cautious to avoid provoking America during the Bush era. Applying a phrase by an Iraq veteran Captain Pete Hegseth, founder of Vets for Freedom, I would like to say “China sees Obama as weak.”
Henry Sokolski, Executive Director at the Nonproliferaion Education Center, points out that even if America reaches a model nuclear deal with developing courtiers, other nuclear suppliers ruin nonproliferation efforts by Washington. Regarding the nuclear cooperation deal with the United Arab Emirates finalized by the Obama administration, Sokolski says that the UAE chose South Korean facilities because of lower price and looser nonproliferation requirements than those of the United States (“Nuclear Nonproliferation Games”; National Review Online; August 5, 2010). In other words, the Obama administration failed to bind the UAE, and simply lost business opportunity with this country. It is not lofty ideals cited by Barack Obama but commercial interests that have significant influences on nonproliferation efforts.
President Obama may have taken some impressive actions for a nuclear free world, but his initiative is not respected among major nuclear powers and possible proliferators. As long as they see America weak, none of nuclear elimination initiatives will make any progress. Particularly, autocratic regimes pursue interests of their leaders, not global peace. Yes, a nuclear free world is much safer. To achieve this goal, the United States must impress its strength, rather than hinting America's moralistic drawbacks that Obama mentioned in the Prague speech.
First, let me talk about fundamental points regarding the idea of a nuclear free world. This is not original to Barack Obama. It was senior American politicians, including Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Former Secretary of State George Schultz, Former Secretary of Defense William Perry, and Former Senator Sam Nunn that presented theoretical foundations for a world without nuclear weapons in the Wall Street Journal in 2007. In the article, bipartisan leaders insist that policymakers change Cold War mindset of MAD as nuclear deterrence is becoming decreasingly effective due to the challenge of rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and the emergence of non-state actors like terrorist groups. The four leaders argued just from realist viewpoints, and never remarked something controversial, like a highlighted phrase in the Prague speech, “As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act.”
Regarding this phrase, George Perkovich, Vice President at the Carnegie Endowment points out that Obama articulated to maintain nuclear deterrence to defend the United States and free allies as long as nuclear threats continue to exist (“The Obama Nuclear Agenda: One Year after Prague”; Carnegie Policy Outlook; March 31, 2010).
The most critical hurdle for a nuclear free world is old geopolitical rivalries posed by Russia and China. Russia wants to maintain its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union. As to China, Gordon Chang says, “Beijing’s ruthlessly pragmatic leaders see our failure to press human rights as a sign that we think we are weak. And if they think we are weak, they see little reason to cooperate. So promoting human rights is protecting American security."
While the Obama administration explores a win-win deal with Russia, conservatives are concerned with new START because Kremlin simply wants to achieve nuclear parity with the United States. Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton criticizes Obama’s obsession with arms reduction and says, “The positions of the United States and Russia are not parallel, and roughly equivalent warhead limits impair Washington far more than Moscow." I agree with Bolton that the United States must defend allies around the globe, but Russia does not have to.
Quite importantly, neither Russia nor China share concerns with the West regarding nuclear proliferation to rogue states and terrorist groups. Russia sold S300 surface to air missiles to Iran. In addition, Kremlin decided to supply uranium to Iran’s first nuclear reactor in Bushehr, though the United States worries that Iran will interpret this as a signal of tolerance to its nuclear ambition (“Russian nuclear agency says Iran's first nuclear plant will start getting fuel next week”; FOX News; August 13, 2010). China still endorses the repressive regime in North Korea, simply because the Beijing government worries confusions associated with the collapse of the Pyongyang dictatorship, rather than nuclear proliferation. Stark gaps are found on nuclear terrorism. As Liz Cheney mentioned in the debate with Former Secretary of State Colin Powell this February, American policymakers are keenly aware of terrorist acquisition of WMDs, from conservative to liberal. Until Russians and Chinese face further serious attacks by radical Muslims of Chechnya and Uighur respectively, they may not assume common understandings on nuclear terrorism with the United States.
Also, it has become apparent that China does not respect the Obama initiative. In June, China proposed to sell nuclear reactors to Pakistan, despite the fear of intensified nuclear rivalries with India. Beijing Communists assume “If America can bend the rules for India, then China can break them for Pakistan” (“Nuclear proliferation in South Asia: The power of nightmares”; Economist; June 24, 2010). In theory, such a geopolitical game will happen. However, China was more cautious to avoid provoking America during the Bush era. Applying a phrase by an Iraq veteran Captain Pete Hegseth, founder of Vets for Freedom, I would like to say “China sees Obama as weak.”
Henry Sokolski, Executive Director at the Nonproliferaion Education Center, points out that even if America reaches a model nuclear deal with developing courtiers, other nuclear suppliers ruin nonproliferation efforts by Washington. Regarding the nuclear cooperation deal with the United Arab Emirates finalized by the Obama administration, Sokolski says that the UAE chose South Korean facilities because of lower price and looser nonproliferation requirements than those of the United States (“Nuclear Nonproliferation Games”; National Review Online; August 5, 2010). In other words, the Obama administration failed to bind the UAE, and simply lost business opportunity with this country. It is not lofty ideals cited by Barack Obama but commercial interests that have significant influences on nonproliferation efforts.
President Obama may have taken some impressive actions for a nuclear free world, but his initiative is not respected among major nuclear powers and possible proliferators. As long as they see America weak, none of nuclear elimination initiatives will make any progress. Particularly, autocratic regimes pursue interests of their leaders, not global peace. Yes, a nuclear free world is much safer. To achieve this goal, the United States must impress its strength, rather than hinting America's moralistic drawbacks that Obama mentioned in the Prague speech.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
A Critical Review of an Overgrown Summit
Shortly after the Toyako Summit in 2008, I asked some questions about the Summit, because it has diverged from the foundation ideal by Valery Giscard d’Estaing. Originally, it was a conference of free discussions among leaders of top industrialized democracies without bureaucratic interference. Today, the Summit has become overgrown, and a tremendous amount of money and manpower is spent for conference preparation and security. In face of vehement criticism by global left wingers, the Summit has expanded from G8 to G20 to include rising economies in Asia, Africa and Latin America. However, I have a critical concern that an expanded Summit makes it increasingly difficult to reach a binding consensus. Also, a large scale international meeting imposes substantial burden on the host city. Even though current Summit includes members of the South, it does not soothe leftist vandalism, and citizens living in the host city are imperiled with violence. Therefore, it is necessary to make the Summit more coherent, more efficient, and smaller.
During the Muskoka G8 and the Toronto G20 Summit this June, a Canadian journalist James Travers said that G20 act beyond the premier forum for global economic cooperation and launch common strategic initiatives for world security. As he argues, “managing 21st century risks such as terrorism, climate change, poverty and financial chaos, requires coordinated communal responses.” That means, G20 assumes more legitimacy over G8 to manage the world economy. But, it also implies that the bigger does not necessarily mean the better (“Will bigger club make for better planet?”; Toronto Star; June 26, 2010).
In the following video by Russia Today on June 25, Ella Kokotis of the G8 Research Group at the University of Toronto says that there is a division of roles between G8 and G 20. G8 focuses on political security like nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran, African development, and climate change. On the other hand, G20 focuses on governance of the world economy.
It may be necessary to include rising economies to manage the world economy since the financial crisis. The problem is, they have relational power to make others accept their demands, but not structural power to manage diversified and complicated global issues. They cannot use their influence to make the system of global politics. An expanded Summit can make this annual event a Summit for the Summit. In order to make it more coherent, more efficient, and smaller, I would suggest that the annual Summit be restricted to either G7 or G8 (I agree with Senator John McCain and Senator Joseph Lieberman that Russia’s membership for G8 is questionable.), while hosting G20 Summit on ad hoc basis. This will reduce the burden to the host city and bureaucratic interference to the conference. Whether expanded or restricted, leftist complainers will complain.
During the Muskoka G8 and the Toronto G20 Summit this June, a Canadian journalist James Travers said that G20 act beyond the premier forum for global economic cooperation and launch common strategic initiatives for world security. As he argues, “managing 21st century risks such as terrorism, climate change, poverty and financial chaos, requires coordinated communal responses.” That means, G20 assumes more legitimacy over G8 to manage the world economy. But, it also implies that the bigger does not necessarily mean the better (“Will bigger club make for better planet?”; Toronto Star; June 26, 2010).
In the following video by Russia Today on June 25, Ella Kokotis of the G8 Research Group at the University of Toronto says that there is a division of roles between G8 and G 20. G8 focuses on political security like nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran, African development, and climate change. On the other hand, G20 focuses on governance of the world economy.
It may be necessary to include rising economies to manage the world economy since the financial crisis. The problem is, they have relational power to make others accept their demands, but not structural power to manage diversified and complicated global issues. They cannot use their influence to make the system of global politics. An expanded Summit can make this annual event a Summit for the Summit. In order to make it more coherent, more efficient, and smaller, I would suggest that the annual Summit be restricted to either G7 or G8 (I agree with Senator John McCain and Senator Joseph Lieberman that Russia’s membership for G8 is questionable.), while hosting G20 Summit on ad hoc basis. This will reduce the burden to the host city and bureaucratic interference to the conference. Whether expanded or restricted, leftist complainers will complain.
Monday, January 4, 2010
New Year Question: Capitalism at Crossroads
Happy New Year! According to Oriental Zodiac, it is a Year of the Tiger this year. As I said in the last post, this year will begin turbulently. At the beginning of this year, I would like to ask the following questions on global capitalism: one is capitalism and ethics, and the other is transition to capitalism and free society.
First, let me talk of moral aspects of capitalism. Due to growing socio-economic inequality and the global economic crisis in early 21st century, the global public opinion is critical to greedy capitalists. Some businessmen like Mikhail Khodorkovsky of Russia and Takafumi Horie of Japan are so arrogant to say “Only those who made money are winners of life.” But this sort of greed based profit chasing is not the real value of modern capitalism.
It is Jean Calvin who founded the moral base of capitalism. Throughout the history, merchants were not respected. Until the modern era, aristocrats, warlords, and priests dominated the society, and they showed apparent contempt for profit seeking merchants. From Europe, the Islam world, India, China, and Japan, merchants ranked lower positions in their social hierarchy. Plato gave high priority philosophy to be the leader of the state, and disdained commerce.
When Jean Calvin advocated the doctrine of predestination and devotion to the job given by the god, commercial activities have become a service to the god and the whole public. They are no longer pursuits of selfish greed. Modern capitalism owes much to this moral foundation, which led to bourgeois revolutions to overthrow aristocratic regimes. Adam Smith explained the mechanism of market system, based on Calvinism ethics. Jean Calvin is the real father of modern capitalism.
Some businessmen like Horie and Khodorkovsky may be bright enough to make big money in their business, but did not understand ethics of modern capitalism. Horie may be an alumnus of Tokyo University, but anyway, he is just a drop out. There is nothing strange that he dismissed this, and spent huge amount of money to enjoy going on the razzle-dazzle with popular entertainers. In any case, present day capitalists often forget Calvinist ethics.
Policymakers around the world focus extensively on technical approaches to fix capitalism mechanism, but those measures will be hardly of any help without solid foundation of Calvinist moral values.
The second question is transition to capitalism. Last autumn, the 20th anniversary ceremony for the fall of the Berlin Wall was held. However, some nations in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union face difficulties in the post communist era. Some new members of the European Union, like Romania, face hardships to catch up with the European standard in terms of economy, development, and transparency. Prospective applicants like Ukraine fail to meet the European level of anti-corruption measures, which deter their EU membership. Moreover, anti-Western cult nationalism is rampant in Russia and China.
Capitalism today stands at crossroads. Moral foundation by Jean Calvin must be reevaluated. In addition, nations under transition need more attention. Otherwise, cult nationalism will turn them back to old authoritarian regimes.
Photo: Liger the Super Tiger! Cross breeding makes him much larger and more powerful than his parents. Happy New Tiger Year!
First, let me talk of moral aspects of capitalism. Due to growing socio-economic inequality and the global economic crisis in early 21st century, the global public opinion is critical to greedy capitalists. Some businessmen like Mikhail Khodorkovsky of Russia and Takafumi Horie of Japan are so arrogant to say “Only those who made money are winners of life.” But this sort of greed based profit chasing is not the real value of modern capitalism.
It is Jean Calvin who founded the moral base of capitalism. Throughout the history, merchants were not respected. Until the modern era, aristocrats, warlords, and priests dominated the society, and they showed apparent contempt for profit seeking merchants. From Europe, the Islam world, India, China, and Japan, merchants ranked lower positions in their social hierarchy. Plato gave high priority philosophy to be the leader of the state, and disdained commerce.
When Jean Calvin advocated the doctrine of predestination and devotion to the job given by the god, commercial activities have become a service to the god and the whole public. They are no longer pursuits of selfish greed. Modern capitalism owes much to this moral foundation, which led to bourgeois revolutions to overthrow aristocratic regimes. Adam Smith explained the mechanism of market system, based on Calvinism ethics. Jean Calvin is the real father of modern capitalism.
Some businessmen like Horie and Khodorkovsky may be bright enough to make big money in their business, but did not understand ethics of modern capitalism. Horie may be an alumnus of Tokyo University, but anyway, he is just a drop out. There is nothing strange that he dismissed this, and spent huge amount of money to enjoy going on the razzle-dazzle with popular entertainers. In any case, present day capitalists often forget Calvinist ethics.
Policymakers around the world focus extensively on technical approaches to fix capitalism mechanism, but those measures will be hardly of any help without solid foundation of Calvinist moral values.
The second question is transition to capitalism. Last autumn, the 20th anniversary ceremony for the fall of the Berlin Wall was held. However, some nations in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union face difficulties in the post communist era. Some new members of the European Union, like Romania, face hardships to catch up with the European standard in terms of economy, development, and transparency. Prospective applicants like Ukraine fail to meet the European level of anti-corruption measures, which deter their EU membership. Moreover, anti-Western cult nationalism is rampant in Russia and China.
Capitalism today stands at crossroads. Moral foundation by Jean Calvin must be reevaluated. In addition, nations under transition need more attention. Otherwise, cult nationalism will turn them back to old authoritarian regimes.
Photo: Liger the Super Tiger! Cross breeding makes him much larger and more powerful than his parents. Happy New Tiger Year!
Monday, May 18, 2009
Is Green Intervention Capitalism or Socialism?: The Case of British Superbike
Currently, I am on the Green Transportation team of the Green Market Forum at the American Chambers of Commerce. As environmental awareness grows, some governments consider green interventions to enhance competitiveness of their countries in the global market. US President Barack Obama launches his idea of the Green New Deal to overturn the Bush administration’s policy. Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso is also keen on keeping up with green trends in America and Europe. But is this capitalism or socialism?
The case of British electric superbike will give us a clue to this question. Britain has developed an electric racing bike named TTX01 through its governmental organization UKTI (UK Trade & Investment) and a professional group called the IET (Institution of Engineering and Technology). This breakthrough technology paves the way to diversify electric vehicles. “Electric vehicles are seen as crucial in reducing carbon emissions from the UK's transport sector, which accounts for around one-quarter of the UK's total emissions” (“World's fastest all-electric motorbike unveiled at show”; Guardian; 27 November 2008). In addition, this motorbike is lighter than similar-sized conventional one (“Look Out for the TTX01 Electric GP Motorbike”; Electric Bikee; 7 February 2009), and it hardly makes noise (“125mph electric bike ready to burn rubber”; Guardian; 28 November 2008).
According to TTXGP, a consortium founded by UKTI and the IET, this motorcycle will compete in the race in the Isle of Man on June 12 this year.
UKTI was founded in 1997 under the Blair administration. Its mission is to enhance the competitiveness of companies in the UK through overseas trade and investments; and attract a continuing high level of quality foreign direct investment. Tony Blair is a centrist who believes in the market economy, but not laissez faire capitalism. The superbike project is pursued with Blairite economic and environmental policy.
Diehard conservatives in the United States may say a project like this is socialistic. However, this is not completely socialist, because the government sponsors research and development, but not the race itself.
Remember! All Soviet athletes in the past were Ivan Drago type of élites who enjoyed generous sponsorship and privileges offered by the Red Government. But there are no Ivan Drago monsters in this race.
TTXGP project has extensive policy implications to capitalism in the era of environmentalism and anti-neoliberalism. Tony Blair explored the Third Way when he was the prime minister, and Gordon Brown succeeds this. Barack Obama may explore governmental interventions something similar to this project. Will he turn America into socialism, or show the model case for government-business partnerships?
The case of British electric superbike will give us a clue to this question. Britain has developed an electric racing bike named TTX01 through its governmental organization UKTI (UK Trade & Investment) and a professional group called the IET (Institution of Engineering and Technology). This breakthrough technology paves the way to diversify electric vehicles. “Electric vehicles are seen as crucial in reducing carbon emissions from the UK's transport sector, which accounts for around one-quarter of the UK's total emissions” (“World's fastest all-electric motorbike unveiled at show”; Guardian; 27 November 2008). In addition, this motorbike is lighter than similar-sized conventional one (“Look Out for the TTX01 Electric GP Motorbike”; Electric Bikee; 7 February 2009), and it hardly makes noise (“125mph electric bike ready to burn rubber”; Guardian; 28 November 2008).
According to TTXGP, a consortium founded by UKTI and the IET, this motorcycle will compete in the race in the Isle of Man on June 12 this year.
UKTI was founded in 1997 under the Blair administration. Its mission is to enhance the competitiveness of companies in the UK through overseas trade and investments; and attract a continuing high level of quality foreign direct investment. Tony Blair is a centrist who believes in the market economy, but not laissez faire capitalism. The superbike project is pursued with Blairite economic and environmental policy.
Diehard conservatives in the United States may say a project like this is socialistic. However, this is not completely socialist, because the government sponsors research and development, but not the race itself.
Remember! All Soviet athletes in the past were Ivan Drago type of élites who enjoyed generous sponsorship and privileges offered by the Red Government. But there are no Ivan Drago monsters in this race.
TTXGP project has extensive policy implications to capitalism in the era of environmentalism and anti-neoliberalism. Tony Blair explored the Third Way when he was the prime minister, and Gordon Brown succeeds this. Barack Obama may explore governmental interventions something similar to this project. Will he turn America into socialism, or show the model case for government-business partnerships?
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Secretary of Defense Gates Speaks on Nuclear Weapons in This Century
Secretary of State Robert Gates gave a lecture, entitled “Nuclear Weapons and Deterrence in the 21st Century” at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, on October 28. Though Gates serves the Bush administration currently, he is one of the candidates for the Secretary of Defense in the next administration of President-Elect Barack Obama (“Who's in the running for Obama administration jobs”; AP; November 20, 2008). Whether appointed or not, his viewpoints on nuclear non-proliferation represent vital bipartisan agendas for the United States. Therefore, it is worth watching the video of this event (see this link).
Secretary Gates talked on intertwined domestic and international challenges to US nuclear policy. Also, the Secretary spelled out the relationship between aging US nuclear infrastructure and credibility of deterrence.
To begin with, Secretary Gates outlined post Cold War nuclear strategy of the United States. Having cut outdated arsenals like B1 bombers and stopped nuclear tests unilaterally during the Clinton era, the United States reviewed strategic posture under the Bush administration. Gates says that it is necessary to reduce reliance on nuclear deterrence, and increase capability for non-nuclear deterrence and responses to potential threats. The reviewed posture consists of the following triad.
(1) Strike capabilities, both nuclear deterrence and conventional attack capabilities
(2) Defense capabilities including ballistic missile defense
(3) Infrastructures to support (1) and (2)
Though security environment has changed in view of 9-11, grave nuclear threats are posed by resurgent powers like Russia and China, and rogue states like Iran and North Korea.
Though Gates is concerned with nuclear modernization by Russia and China, and its implications to security of the Free World, he does not regard them as adversaries to us. To my regret, he has not articulated why Russia and China are not adversaries. Certainly, the United States needs to cooperate with Russia in order to cut a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons in both countries. Economic ties with China are growing important. Still, both Russia and China are challenging our liberal democracy, and such ambitious powers are strengthening nuclear capabilities. I feel his attitude to both powers somewhat soft.
Quite importantly, Secretary Gates pointed out the problem of aging nuclear weapon systems of US forces. The media rarely mention such a critically dismissible issue. He says, “No one has designed a new nuclear weapon in the United States since the 1980s, and no one has built a new one since the early 1990s.” This is a serious issue to keep US nuclear deterrence trustworthy. Nuclear weapon engineers are retiring and current stockpile of nuclear arsenals need to extend their life span. The Secretary says that the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy work together to “reduce aging stockpiles by balancing the risk between a smaller number of warheads and an industrial complex that could produce new weapons if the need arose.”
At the Q & A session, Secretary Gates stressed vital interest of defending US allies in Europe and the Pacific region.
The most focused issue at the Q & A session was the missile defense issue. Secretary Gates said anti-ballistic missiles in Europe were against Iran, not Russia. He explained American efforts to form credibility and security building measures with Russia. Though Gates did not mention missile defense in Asia at this event, we can infer that what he has in his mind is North Korea, not Russia and China. However, I wonder what Secretary Gates thinks of possible conflict over the Taiwan Strait. Any intimidation by China on the Strait will endanger sea lane security to Japan and South Korea, vital allies to the United States in the Far East.
I do not agree everything with Secretary Gates regarding Russia and China. Also, it is a pity that Gates did not talk sufficiently on North Korea. However, I am pleased to hear Secretary of Defense Robert Gates quote Theodore Roosevelt, and said “It would be a fatal thing to leave ourselves unarmed against the despotisms and barbarisms of the world.” This lecture is very helpful to understand America’s agenda on global non-proliferation. I hope President-Elect Barack Obama, the very icon of global leftists, understand the quotation very well, whether he appoints Robert Gates to the Secretary of Defense or not.
Secretary Gates talked on intertwined domestic and international challenges to US nuclear policy. Also, the Secretary spelled out the relationship between aging US nuclear infrastructure and credibility of deterrence.
To begin with, Secretary Gates outlined post Cold War nuclear strategy of the United States. Having cut outdated arsenals like B1 bombers and stopped nuclear tests unilaterally during the Clinton era, the United States reviewed strategic posture under the Bush administration. Gates says that it is necessary to reduce reliance on nuclear deterrence, and increase capability for non-nuclear deterrence and responses to potential threats. The reviewed posture consists of the following triad.
(1) Strike capabilities, both nuclear deterrence and conventional attack capabilities
(2) Defense capabilities including ballistic missile defense
(3) Infrastructures to support (1) and (2)
Though security environment has changed in view of 9-11, grave nuclear threats are posed by resurgent powers like Russia and China, and rogue states like Iran and North Korea.
Though Gates is concerned with nuclear modernization by Russia and China, and its implications to security of the Free World, he does not regard them as adversaries to us. To my regret, he has not articulated why Russia and China are not adversaries. Certainly, the United States needs to cooperate with Russia in order to cut a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons in both countries. Economic ties with China are growing important. Still, both Russia and China are challenging our liberal democracy, and such ambitious powers are strengthening nuclear capabilities. I feel his attitude to both powers somewhat soft.
Quite importantly, Secretary Gates pointed out the problem of aging nuclear weapon systems of US forces. The media rarely mention such a critically dismissible issue. He says, “No one has designed a new nuclear weapon in the United States since the 1980s, and no one has built a new one since the early 1990s.” This is a serious issue to keep US nuclear deterrence trustworthy. Nuclear weapon engineers are retiring and current stockpile of nuclear arsenals need to extend their life span. The Secretary says that the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy work together to “reduce aging stockpiles by balancing the risk between a smaller number of warheads and an industrial complex that could produce new weapons if the need arose.”
At the Q & A session, Secretary Gates stressed vital interest of defending US allies in Europe and the Pacific region.
The most focused issue at the Q & A session was the missile defense issue. Secretary Gates said anti-ballistic missiles in Europe were against Iran, not Russia. He explained American efforts to form credibility and security building measures with Russia. Though Gates did not mention missile defense in Asia at this event, we can infer that what he has in his mind is North Korea, not Russia and China. However, I wonder what Secretary Gates thinks of possible conflict over the Taiwan Strait. Any intimidation by China on the Strait will endanger sea lane security to Japan and South Korea, vital allies to the United States in the Far East.
I do not agree everything with Secretary Gates regarding Russia and China. Also, it is a pity that Gates did not talk sufficiently on North Korea. However, I am pleased to hear Secretary of Defense Robert Gates quote Theodore Roosevelt, and said “It would be a fatal thing to leave ourselves unarmed against the despotisms and barbarisms of the world.” This lecture is very helpful to understand America’s agenda on global non-proliferation. I hope President-Elect Barack Obama, the very icon of global leftists, understand the quotation very well, whether he appoints Robert Gates to the Secretary of Defense or not.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Is This Democracy, or Idiocracy?: US Election and Its Implication across the Globe
Senator Barack Obama has achieved an impressive victory in the presidential election, supported by youngsters who have been uninterested in politics so seriously until recently. In other words, it is those who were not politically oriented that is changing the world today. This is not the only phenomenon in the United States but worldwide.
In Japan, Prime Minister-then Junichiro Koizumi marked a landslide victory in September 2005, thanks to enthusiastic support by those who were moved with TV show politics. In Russia, people chose Dmitri Medvedev for the president in March 2008, because they applauded Vladimir Putin’s image as a strong leader. In both cases, politics was driven by young voters who are poorly aware of their national agendas.
Should we call this sort of new populism as real democracy or barbaric idiocracy? In the context of history, it is necessary to observe whether this populism evolve into a new age democracy like the rise of civil society in the 17th and the 18th century, or into a turmoil of idiocracy.
The rise of civic power became noticeable at the Rio Summit on global warming in 1994. ICBL was awarded Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 thanks to cooperation by the web of global citizens of willing.
It is the Afghan War in response to 9-11 terrorist attack when left wingers across the world mobilized “ordinary citizens” to anti-war rallies for the first time. Those “ordinary citizens” are not the sort of people keenly aware of politics. Having enjoyed some success in mobilizing laymen to the rally, leftists organized enormous scale protest movements against the Iraq War. Global democracy has turned into global idiocracy.
We have to bear in mind that it is continual blow to the Bush administration by the global “civic”, or more precisely, “idiotic” society that has influenced the attitude of the media in the United States and abroad. This had led to the rise of Barack Obama.
In the Financial Times, Clive Crook points out that biased attitude of the media has brought substantial advantages to Obama (“How McCain lost the centrist vote”; Financial Times; October 26, 2008). But even Crook is biased. He says that the Obama side did not make fatal mistakes while the McCain side made some errors. Actually, Barack Obama’s ineptness was revealed when he met with General David Petraeus in Iraq. The Media did not question Obama’s competence as the Commander in Chief on this critical occasion. Japanese journalist Yoshihisa Komori casts doubt on strange attitude of the media (“Major media discuss this election from completely Democrat-biased viewpoints”; Stage-kaze Hatsu; November 4, 2008).
In the US presidential election, Senator John McCain won support by top national security experts such as Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Retired General Norman Schwarzkopf, and Carnegie Endowment Senior Associate Robert Kagan. Also, a good citizen like Joe the Plumber was with McCain. On the other hand, Senator Barack Obama was boosted by voters whose political judgement is questionable, like Lindsay Lohan (This Hollywood star is notorious for wanton behavior.) and youngsters of marijuana junkies. In other words, Obama won the election, thanks to bête noire of the American public.
As Former US Vice President Albert Gore argues, the rise of civic power, from the Rio Summit to the Obama phenomenon could not have happened without the web (“Gore sees transformative power of Web in politics”; Computer World; November 7, 2008). Internet politics can pose both positive and negative impacts. Will the Obama phenomenon trigger another rise of civil power, or another rise of idiocracy? This must be understood from global context.
In Japan, Prime Minister-then Junichiro Koizumi marked a landslide victory in September 2005, thanks to enthusiastic support by those who were moved with TV show politics. In Russia, people chose Dmitri Medvedev for the president in March 2008, because they applauded Vladimir Putin’s image as a strong leader. In both cases, politics was driven by young voters who are poorly aware of their national agendas.
Should we call this sort of new populism as real democracy or barbaric idiocracy? In the context of history, it is necessary to observe whether this populism evolve into a new age democracy like the rise of civil society in the 17th and the 18th century, or into a turmoil of idiocracy.
The rise of civic power became noticeable at the Rio Summit on global warming in 1994. ICBL was awarded Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 thanks to cooperation by the web of global citizens of willing.
It is the Afghan War in response to 9-11 terrorist attack when left wingers across the world mobilized “ordinary citizens” to anti-war rallies for the first time. Those “ordinary citizens” are not the sort of people keenly aware of politics. Having enjoyed some success in mobilizing laymen to the rally, leftists organized enormous scale protest movements against the Iraq War. Global democracy has turned into global idiocracy.
We have to bear in mind that it is continual blow to the Bush administration by the global “civic”, or more precisely, “idiotic” society that has influenced the attitude of the media in the United States and abroad. This had led to the rise of Barack Obama.
In the Financial Times, Clive Crook points out that biased attitude of the media has brought substantial advantages to Obama (“How McCain lost the centrist vote”; Financial Times; October 26, 2008). But even Crook is biased. He says that the Obama side did not make fatal mistakes while the McCain side made some errors. Actually, Barack Obama’s ineptness was revealed when he met with General David Petraeus in Iraq. The Media did not question Obama’s competence as the Commander in Chief on this critical occasion. Japanese journalist Yoshihisa Komori casts doubt on strange attitude of the media (“Major media discuss this election from completely Democrat-biased viewpoints”; Stage-kaze Hatsu; November 4, 2008).
In the US presidential election, Senator John McCain won support by top national security experts such as Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Retired General Norman Schwarzkopf, and Carnegie Endowment Senior Associate Robert Kagan. Also, a good citizen like Joe the Plumber was with McCain. On the other hand, Senator Barack Obama was boosted by voters whose political judgement is questionable, like Lindsay Lohan (This Hollywood star is notorious for wanton behavior.) and youngsters of marijuana junkies. In other words, Obama won the election, thanks to bête noire of the American public.
As Former US Vice President Albert Gore argues, the rise of civic power, from the Rio Summit to the Obama phenomenon could not have happened without the web (“Gore sees transformative power of Web in politics”; Computer World; November 7, 2008). Internet politics can pose both positive and negative impacts. Will the Obama phenomenon trigger another rise of civil power, or another rise of idiocracy? This must be understood from global context.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
The Internet’s Effect on Japanese Politics and Election
I attended a forum, entitled “Symposium on Internet Election” on July 20, held at the Tokyo Yaesu Hall, by Tokyo Station. I was invited by Nihon Blog Mura, which is a cyber space community of Japanese bloggers.
Although I expected that global civil advocacy would be discussed as well in this symposium, agendas were mostly on Japanese domestic politics. Nevertheless, since election is one of basic components of democracy, this is an important issue for one who publishes a political blog and has contributed political articles to printed media. Even though I do not have strong expertise in the election, it is worth to attend this forum.
This symposium was very small, and there were less than 100 people except guest speakers and event staff. The primary agenda was the potential of the Internet as a breakthrough to improve current Japanese election regulations which hinders candidates from sending their policy messages to voters.
First, Takeshi Kimura, President of Financial Corporation which is an investment advisory company gave a lecture. Kimura commented that Japanese elites in politics, business, and bureaucracy, are reluctant to change current election system, because they do not welcome the rise of new type of leaders who can draw voters’ attention with their policy visions. Furthermore, he said deregulation of election campaign on the Internet will be headway toward transforming Japan into a real civic democracy from an old society dependent on bureaucratic guidance.
Most importantly, Kimura pointed out that Japanese political establishments are reluctant to provide inconvenient information for voters, because they want to “keep the people ignorant” just as medieval feudal lords did. Takeshi Kimura’s viewpoints mostly overlap those written in “The Enigma of Japanese Power” by Karel van Wolferen, a well known Dutch expert on Japanese politics. As Kimura faces outmoded bureaucratic regulation in financial industry, his arguments are driven by demand for change which is much more exigent than that of Wolferen.
Norihiko Fukuda, legislator of Kanagawa Prefecture, spoke the next, and he insisted that the Internet promotes massive flow of information from candidates to voters.
After two brief lectures, a panel discussion was held. This was moderated by Hideki Hirano, a president of a cyber media company. Panelists were Ken Takeuchi and Motohiko Tokuriki, both presidents of internet business companies, and Daigo Sato, a representative of an NPO to assist political internship programs.
Although the lecture and the panel were worthy, it is a pity that they focused entirely on one way communications from candidates to voters in their discussion about the Internet and election. However, I would argue that two way communications mutually done between candidates and voters, are also important.
Actually, a blogger like I send political advocacy messages. I raised my hand in the Q and A session, but other attendants had chances to ask.
As it was a small symposium, I wish attendants had some chances for mutual contacts. In that case, a good opportunity like this forum will be of much help for people at the forum. Just listening to lectures and panel discussions is not enough.
Nevertheless, I believe an event like this be organized frequently.
Although I expected that global civil advocacy would be discussed as well in this symposium, agendas were mostly on Japanese domestic politics. Nevertheless, since election is one of basic components of democracy, this is an important issue for one who publishes a political blog and has contributed political articles to printed media. Even though I do not have strong expertise in the election, it is worth to attend this forum.
This symposium was very small, and there were less than 100 people except guest speakers and event staff. The primary agenda was the potential of the Internet as a breakthrough to improve current Japanese election regulations which hinders candidates from sending their policy messages to voters.
First, Takeshi Kimura, President of Financial Corporation which is an investment advisory company gave a lecture. Kimura commented that Japanese elites in politics, business, and bureaucracy, are reluctant to change current election system, because they do not welcome the rise of new type of leaders who can draw voters’ attention with their policy visions. Furthermore, he said deregulation of election campaign on the Internet will be headway toward transforming Japan into a real civic democracy from an old society dependent on bureaucratic guidance.
Most importantly, Kimura pointed out that Japanese political establishments are reluctant to provide inconvenient information for voters, because they want to “keep the people ignorant” just as medieval feudal lords did. Takeshi Kimura’s viewpoints mostly overlap those written in “The Enigma of Japanese Power” by Karel van Wolferen, a well known Dutch expert on Japanese politics. As Kimura faces outmoded bureaucratic regulation in financial industry, his arguments are driven by demand for change which is much more exigent than that of Wolferen.
Norihiko Fukuda, legislator of Kanagawa Prefecture, spoke the next, and he insisted that the Internet promotes massive flow of information from candidates to voters.
After two brief lectures, a panel discussion was held. This was moderated by Hideki Hirano, a president of a cyber media company. Panelists were Ken Takeuchi and Motohiko Tokuriki, both presidents of internet business companies, and Daigo Sato, a representative of an NPO to assist political internship programs.
Although the lecture and the panel were worthy, it is a pity that they focused entirely on one way communications from candidates to voters in their discussion about the Internet and election. However, I would argue that two way communications mutually done between candidates and voters, are also important.
Actually, a blogger like I send political advocacy messages. I raised my hand in the Q and A session, but other attendants had chances to ask.
As it was a small symposium, I wish attendants had some chances for mutual contacts. In that case, a good opportunity like this forum will be of much help for people at the forum. Just listening to lectures and panel discussions is not enough.
Nevertheless, I believe an event like this be organized frequently.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Question: Must the Summit Address Solid Action Plans?
The Lake Toya Summit was held from July 7 to 9 by Lake Toya in Hokkaido, Japan. Beautiful summer days in a sub frigid forest resort had become extremely tumultuous. In reply to bitter criticism to the Summit by anti-globalism activists, I would like to ask the following questions and explore answers for them.
1. Is it a must to address solid action plans at the Summit?
Let me review the history of the Summit. In face of the Nixon Shock and the Oil Crisis in the 1970s, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, then-President of France, proposed a top-level conference to manage the global economy, which led to the first Summit at the Chateau de Rambouillet in the suburbs of Paris in November 1975.
The original purpose of the Summit is a candid discussion of global policy in an at-home atmosphere among major industrialized democracies. Therefore, the top leader meetings have not been result-oriented. In this respect, the Summit is similar to the Commonwealth Meeting.
Just after Soviet invasion to Afghanistan, Margaret Thatcher, then-Prime Minister of Britain, and Indira Gandhi, then-Prime Minister of India, expressed completely opposite viewpoints on Soviet threat each other, but the discussion was very friendly.
Anti-globalists and environmentalists criticize the Final Declaration resulting from compromise of major powers. But I would argue that obsession with results will inactivate candid discussion. I would rather remind them of antithetical but friendly discussions between Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi.
The Summit is a forum of candid discussion, not a conference to “produce” a treaty. You understand what I say, if you see this link.
2. Is it necessary to expand the membership?
Absolutely not! Fundamental concept of the Summit is a straight talk among top leaders without bureaucratic interference and out of daily hustle and bustle. This is one of the reasons why most of the Summit conferences have been held in silent villages rather than in capitals and big cities.
As I mentioned in Question 1, a forum of candid discussion on global policy in an at-home atmosphere should be held among like minded nations.
Also, in many cases, remote resorts are not well-prepared to accommodate a huge number of guests from all over the world. Moreover, substantial amount of preparation will be imposed for the conference, once Summit membership expands. This is no longer a forum of frank and at-home atmosphere.
3. Is the Summit a Conspiracy Club as anti-globalists remark?
Thorough examination of Question 1 and 2 will tell you that their assumptions are apparently wrong. Unlike their persistent advocacy, the Summit is not the place of decision making, but a forum of straight talk among like-minded members. Actually, anti-globalists are fond of blaming any intergovernmental conferences. Remember what happened at the WTO meeting in Seattle in 1999. Anti-global leftists devastated the street, because the Seattle Conference was a “conspiracy” session among major industrialized nations and multinational corporations.
But remember, lefties! The Summit has never “produced” any treaties. All declarations have been non-binding.
Consequently, the Summit should be a membership of like minded nations. There is nothing wrong with this idea. Obsession with results and expansion of membership will increase substantial burden to the host city, and they are likely to lead to massive bureaucratic intervention.
Above all, it is important to reconfirm the real objective of the Summit. It should be a small and constructive forum of industrialized democracies to discuss global affairs. If necessary, world leaders can organize ad hoc meetings to include developing nations. Distortion from the foundation spirit will ruin the Summit.
1. Is it a must to address solid action plans at the Summit?
Let me review the history of the Summit. In face of the Nixon Shock and the Oil Crisis in the 1970s, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, then-President of France, proposed a top-level conference to manage the global economy, which led to the first Summit at the Chateau de Rambouillet in the suburbs of Paris in November 1975.
The original purpose of the Summit is a candid discussion of global policy in an at-home atmosphere among major industrialized democracies. Therefore, the top leader meetings have not been result-oriented. In this respect, the Summit is similar to the Commonwealth Meeting.
Just after Soviet invasion to Afghanistan, Margaret Thatcher, then-Prime Minister of Britain, and Indira Gandhi, then-Prime Minister of India, expressed completely opposite viewpoints on Soviet threat each other, but the discussion was very friendly.
Anti-globalists and environmentalists criticize the Final Declaration resulting from compromise of major powers. But I would argue that obsession with results will inactivate candid discussion. I would rather remind them of antithetical but friendly discussions between Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi.
The Summit is a forum of candid discussion, not a conference to “produce” a treaty. You understand what I say, if you see this link.
2. Is it necessary to expand the membership?
Absolutely not! Fundamental concept of the Summit is a straight talk among top leaders without bureaucratic interference and out of daily hustle and bustle. This is one of the reasons why most of the Summit conferences have been held in silent villages rather than in capitals and big cities.
As I mentioned in Question 1, a forum of candid discussion on global policy in an at-home atmosphere should be held among like minded nations.
Also, in many cases, remote resorts are not well-prepared to accommodate a huge number of guests from all over the world. Moreover, substantial amount of preparation will be imposed for the conference, once Summit membership expands. This is no longer a forum of frank and at-home atmosphere.
3. Is the Summit a Conspiracy Club as anti-globalists remark?
Thorough examination of Question 1 and 2 will tell you that their assumptions are apparently wrong. Unlike their persistent advocacy, the Summit is not the place of decision making, but a forum of straight talk among like-minded members. Actually, anti-globalists are fond of blaming any intergovernmental conferences. Remember what happened at the WTO meeting in Seattle in 1999. Anti-global leftists devastated the street, because the Seattle Conference was a “conspiracy” session among major industrialized nations and multinational corporations.
But remember, lefties! The Summit has never “produced” any treaties. All declarations have been non-binding.
Consequently, the Summit should be a membership of like minded nations. There is nothing wrong with this idea. Obsession with results and expansion of membership will increase substantial burden to the host city, and they are likely to lead to massive bureaucratic intervention.
Above all, it is important to reconfirm the real objective of the Summit. It should be a small and constructive forum of industrialized democracies to discuss global affairs. If necessary, world leaders can organize ad hoc meetings to include developing nations. Distortion from the foundation spirit will ruin the Summit.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Green Conservatism
Here in Japan, people enjoy spring holidays, called the Golden Week from late April to early May. It is the best season to see beautiful green and wildlife in Japan. Therefore, I am talking of a green essay by Former US Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. He has contributed an article, entitled “We Can Have Green Conservatism--And We Should” to Human Events.
Generally speaking, environmentalism has been regarded as an agenda of liberals and leftists. Although many environmental groups do not assume ideological missions, liberals and leftists use them as machines against “pro-business” conservatives. But is conservatism really antagonistic to environmentalism?
In his essay, Newt Gingrich, currently Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, questions “For the last 36 years, I have watched the pro-regulation, pro-litigation, pro-taxation liberals label themselves as the only Americans who care about the environment.” Gingrich criticizes liberal environmentalism radical, hysterical, and inaccurate. Liberals depend on litigation and taxes too much, while conservatives simply reject these measures, which lead people to label conservatism anti-environment. Gingrich says he wants to change this, and insists that environmentalism be pro-freedom and pro-market.
He mentions Former Vice President Albert Gore, and explains why conservatives are defensive on environment.
For example, former Vice President Al Gore suggests that global warming is so bad that we could have a 20-foot rise in the oceans in the near future. No responsible scientist anywhere believes that to be true. But if the debate becomes, "Al Gore cares about the earth, and we're against Al Gore," we end up in a defensive position where the average American could end up perceiving conservatives as always being negative about the environment.
According to Gingrich, they key to green conservatism is energy independence from dangerous dictators and development of clean energy. He says that environmentalism should be founded on science, entrepreneurship, and free market, instead of lawyers, bureaucrats, regulation, and taxation.
In Britain, Tory leader David Cameron adopts a green logo to symbolize his party’s commitment to the environment and social equality. As I mention in the previous post, “Europe as a Critical Focus”, David Frum, Resident Fellow at the AEI, criticizes this. But whether Cameron’s conservatism is right or wrong, it is a good idea to show that conservatives are not simple-minded pro-business but care about the environment as much as leftists do.
Conservatism can get along with green activism. It is critical to economic development by mega-projects such as gigantic dams. The Green Revolution in the 1960s was based on liberal ideas of big government, which caused serious consequences to the environment. Environmentalists criticize this project bitterly.
Today, conservatism is regarded anti-green. This is a worrisome trend. Capitalism in the 19th century was ruthless to working class, and indifferent to growing social gaps between the rich and the poor. This led to the rise of Marxism, but capitalism overcame this crisis through adjusting itself to a welfare state. Conservatism needs to deal with environmental issues like this way.
Remember that Theodore Roosevelt is the first green president in American history. Conservatism can be green. It is essential that conservatives address their own environmental agenda for the future.
Generally speaking, environmentalism has been regarded as an agenda of liberals and leftists. Although many environmental groups do not assume ideological missions, liberals and leftists use them as machines against “pro-business” conservatives. But is conservatism really antagonistic to environmentalism?
In his essay, Newt Gingrich, currently Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, questions “For the last 36 years, I have watched the pro-regulation, pro-litigation, pro-taxation liberals label themselves as the only Americans who care about the environment.” Gingrich criticizes liberal environmentalism radical, hysterical, and inaccurate. Liberals depend on litigation and taxes too much, while conservatives simply reject these measures, which lead people to label conservatism anti-environment. Gingrich says he wants to change this, and insists that environmentalism be pro-freedom and pro-market.
He mentions Former Vice President Albert Gore, and explains why conservatives are defensive on environment.
For example, former Vice President Al Gore suggests that global warming is so bad that we could have a 20-foot rise in the oceans in the near future. No responsible scientist anywhere believes that to be true. But if the debate becomes, "Al Gore cares about the earth, and we're against Al Gore," we end up in a defensive position where the average American could end up perceiving conservatives as always being negative about the environment.
According to Gingrich, they key to green conservatism is energy independence from dangerous dictators and development of clean energy. He says that environmentalism should be founded on science, entrepreneurship, and free market, instead of lawyers, bureaucrats, regulation, and taxation.
In Britain, Tory leader David Cameron adopts a green logo to symbolize his party’s commitment to the environment and social equality. As I mention in the previous post, “Europe as a Critical Focus”, David Frum, Resident Fellow at the AEI, criticizes this. But whether Cameron’s conservatism is right or wrong, it is a good idea to show that conservatives are not simple-minded pro-business but care about the environment as much as leftists do.
Conservatism can get along with green activism. It is critical to economic development by mega-projects such as gigantic dams. The Green Revolution in the 1960s was based on liberal ideas of big government, which caused serious consequences to the environment. Environmentalists criticize this project bitterly.
Today, conservatism is regarded anti-green. This is a worrisome trend. Capitalism in the 19th century was ruthless to working class, and indifferent to growing social gaps between the rich and the poor. This led to the rise of Marxism, but capitalism overcame this crisis through adjusting itself to a welfare state. Conservatism needs to deal with environmental issues like this way.
Remember that Theodore Roosevelt is the first green president in American history. Conservatism can be green. It is essential that conservatives address their own environmental agenda for the future.
Wednesday, May 3, 2006
Attention to Darfur
These days, people talk about Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran. But don’t miss Africa, particularly Darfur. The Atlantic Review and My Newz’n Ideas publishes special issues of Darfur campaigns on both sides of the Atlantic.
An extensive campaign to stop genocide and save residents was held in front of the White House on April 30.
You can join the movement through Bloggers for Darfur and Million Voices for Darfur.
Tony Blair, Paul Wolfovitz, and now, Junichiro Koizumi is getting involved in Africa. You can’t miss it!
An extensive campaign to stop genocide and save residents was held in front of the White House on April 30.
You can join the movement through Bloggers for Darfur and Million Voices for Darfur.
Tony Blair, Paul Wolfovitz, and now, Junichiro Koizumi is getting involved in Africa. You can’t miss it!
Friday, September 30, 2005
The State of Ballistic Missile Proliferation
This map indicates the state of ballistic missiles in 6 countries of proliferation concern. They possess ballistic missiles flying over 1,000 km. The ranges of missiles are shown in circle.
Among 6 countries of concern, India, Pakistan, and Israel already have nuclear bombs. Iran and North Korea are suspected.
North Korea’s Taepo Dong II is expected to reach Alaska. But no test has been done.
Saudi Arabia imported CSS-2 from China in 1987. Saudi has no nuclear weapons.
Source: Non-Proliferation Project, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Friday, August 12, 2005
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Policy Implications
This 8-6 and 8-9 were 60th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki days. People discuss whether nuclear attacks to both cities were right or wrong. Regarding this pro-con debate, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists takes up a special edition in July/August 2005 issue. Essays by Pervez Hoodbhoy, Thomas Donnelly, and Robert L. Gallucci, are available on the web. Was it necessary to drop atomic bombs to end the war earlier? This debate is never-ending. However, it is important to learn lessons for the future.
When should the policymaker make the final decision to use nuclear weapons? Are there any ways to avoid nuclear attacks during the war? I am asking these questions because Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombing might have been unnecessary. More importantly, nuclear deterrence is getting less reliable in the post Cold War era. During the Cold War, nuclear diplomacy had been Russo-American bipolar, and the Big 5 oligopolized nuclear weapons. However, these weapons have been proliferating today. Even non-state actors like terrorist organizations may acquire nuclear bombs. In order to face these threats, the United States is developing smaller and more practical nuclear weapons. In a situation like this, American and other Big 5 policymakers may be more tempted to preliminary nuclear attacks against rogue states and terrorist bases. Speaking of the final decision for nuclear attack, let’s think again Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
People in the latter days can analyze critically on Harry Truman’s decision to use atomic bombs to end the war earlier. But wait. Did the president have enough information about Japan? It was not a TV war these days. No one got real time information as we do today. Also, Japanese leaders in those days did not hold press conferences with the Western media. In fact, Japanese government was exploring to make a deal with the allied forces to end the war. The entire Japanese nation was completely damaged and exhausted. But there was no ways for US leaders to know about it. In addition, I have to mention wartime psychology. Japanese soldiers seemed so fearless that the war appeared something endless to the allied forces. In such a circumstance, Truman had no choice but use atomic bombs. It was not a TV war today.
On the other hand, people overestimate the effect of atomic bomb to end the war quickly. It is one of the reasons why Japan decided to surrender. But don’t miss the following points. First, under the fascist regime, the government controls the information. They can hide the facts. Also, so many Japanese people believed that the divine and sacred emperor was invincible. In a case like this, the “shock and awe” strategy doesn’t work.
Remember. Japanese leaders were exploring to end the war. It was 8-15 when Hirohito declared ceasefire, just a week from 8-6 and 8-9. It is too quick.
There is no denying that nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki played some role to end the war. But don’t overestimate its effect. Through further analysis of Hiroshima-Nagasaki, we can learn more lessons for the future.
When should the policymaker make the final decision to use nuclear weapons? Are there any ways to avoid nuclear attacks during the war? I am asking these questions because Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombing might have been unnecessary. More importantly, nuclear deterrence is getting less reliable in the post Cold War era. During the Cold War, nuclear diplomacy had been Russo-American bipolar, and the Big 5 oligopolized nuclear weapons. However, these weapons have been proliferating today. Even non-state actors like terrorist organizations may acquire nuclear bombs. In order to face these threats, the United States is developing smaller and more practical nuclear weapons. In a situation like this, American and other Big 5 policymakers may be more tempted to preliminary nuclear attacks against rogue states and terrorist bases. Speaking of the final decision for nuclear attack, let’s think again Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
People in the latter days can analyze critically on Harry Truman’s decision to use atomic bombs to end the war earlier. But wait. Did the president have enough information about Japan? It was not a TV war these days. No one got real time information as we do today. Also, Japanese leaders in those days did not hold press conferences with the Western media. In fact, Japanese government was exploring to make a deal with the allied forces to end the war. The entire Japanese nation was completely damaged and exhausted. But there was no ways for US leaders to know about it. In addition, I have to mention wartime psychology. Japanese soldiers seemed so fearless that the war appeared something endless to the allied forces. In such a circumstance, Truman had no choice but use atomic bombs. It was not a TV war today.
On the other hand, people overestimate the effect of atomic bomb to end the war quickly. It is one of the reasons why Japan decided to surrender. But don’t miss the following points. First, under the fascist regime, the government controls the information. They can hide the facts. Also, so many Japanese people believed that the divine and sacred emperor was invincible. In a case like this, the “shock and awe” strategy doesn’t work.
Remember. Japanese leaders were exploring to end the war. It was 8-15 when Hirohito declared ceasefire, just a week from 8-6 and 8-9. It is too quick.
There is no denying that nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki played some role to end the war. But don’t overestimate its effect. Through further analysis of Hiroshima-Nagasaki, we can learn more lessons for the future.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Blog Review: Interested in Africa?
Africa was one of the main subjects at the Gleneagles summit this summer. I would like to introduce an interesting blog published by Jackaranda, a retired lady in Perthshire, Scotland. This is around Edinburgh, and quite close to Gleneagles. She spent much of her life in Africa in her youth.
In her blog, “News-Views-Thoughts-Photos-Animals”, she talks of news, reports, and some comments on Africa and wildliefe. Currently, terrorism, underdevelopment, and environment pose serious challenge to the global community. These problems are deeply associated with repressive regimes.
One of the most oppressive government know in Africa is Zimbabwe. President Robert Mugabe maintains his dictatorship since the independence in 1980. He impoverishes his country, canes white citizens, and tortures wild animals. On her blog site, Jackaranda shows a letter from Cathy Buckler, well-known writer on Zimbabwe.
For those whose interest is on terrorism and Middle East democracy, she writes some posts of North African issues. Countries like Egypt and Algeria are key focuses.
Finally, I would like to mention wildlife. Environmental groups and activists tend to pay much attention to multinational corporations. However, the most devastating factor to the ecology is corrupted despot. In Zimbabwe, for example, Mugabe encourages starved people to kill wild animals for food. It is his economic policy that starves his people.
Jackaranda presents news and her viewpoints on African affairs in her blog. Once you read her posts, you will understand her deep love to Africa, and wholehearted affection to the wildlife.
In her blog, “News-Views-Thoughts-Photos-Animals”, she talks of news, reports, and some comments on Africa and wildliefe. Currently, terrorism, underdevelopment, and environment pose serious challenge to the global community. These problems are deeply associated with repressive regimes.
One of the most oppressive government know in Africa is Zimbabwe. President Robert Mugabe maintains his dictatorship since the independence in 1980. He impoverishes his country, canes white citizens, and tortures wild animals. On her blog site, Jackaranda shows a letter from Cathy Buckler, well-known writer on Zimbabwe.
For those whose interest is on terrorism and Middle East democracy, she writes some posts of North African issues. Countries like Egypt and Algeria are key focuses.
Finally, I would like to mention wildlife. Environmental groups and activists tend to pay much attention to multinational corporations. However, the most devastating factor to the ecology is corrupted despot. In Zimbabwe, for example, Mugabe encourages starved people to kill wild animals for food. It is his economic policy that starves his people.
Jackaranda presents news and her viewpoints on African affairs in her blog. Once you read her posts, you will understand her deep love to Africa, and wholehearted affection to the wildlife.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Love and Hatred in International Politics (2): Solutions
In this century, emotional aspects have become increasingly important. Unlike realist and idealist points, there is no rational solution to manage love and hatred. However, something can be done through the following perspectives.
(1) Consensus building:
I would like to quote the following parts from Henry Kissinger’s article “Realist vs. idealist” in the International Herald Tribune.
The implementation of the freedom agenda needs to relate the values of the democratic tradition to the historic possibilities of other societies.
We must avoid the danger that a policy focused on our domestic perceptions may generate reactions in other societies rallying around patriotism and leading to a coalition of the resentful against attempts at perceived American hegemony.
A strategy to implement the vision of the freedom agenda needs consensus building, both domestically and internationally. That will be the test as to whether we are seizing the opportunity for systemic change or participating in an episode.
(2) Divide the counterpart:
The West must find truly reliable leaders in the Islamic world to prevail democratic values. To my regret, the media took up condemnation by Tony Blair and George W. Bush in the London terrorist attack. It is also important to pay more attention to anger against this terrorism among Islamic leaders of common sense. Otherwise, global citizens will regard it as a conflict between the Anglo-American alliance and the Islamic world.
In order to manage the hatred, Japan needs to find good friends in Chinese and Korean citizens. For example, in South Korea, pro-American internationalists share common values and understandings of the world with Japan. Therefore, it is necessary for Japan to establish good relations with them. This will be the first step towards weakening anti-Japan voices in Asia. Start it now Japan! Otherwise, Asian adversary to Japan never ends.
(3) More effort for good image:
In the era of emotionalism, more effort to improve the image of the nation is necessary. More mutual understandings to the grassroots level are getting increasingly important.
Above all, love and hatred is playing more and more greater role in international politics. This is an unprecedented challenge to us, because there are no rational solutions to this problem. Long-term perspectives are required to tackle this issue.
(1) Consensus building:
I would like to quote the following parts from Henry Kissinger’s article “Realist vs. idealist” in the International Herald Tribune.
The implementation of the freedom agenda needs to relate the values of the democratic tradition to the historic possibilities of other societies.
We must avoid the danger that a policy focused on our domestic perceptions may generate reactions in other societies rallying around patriotism and leading to a coalition of the resentful against attempts at perceived American hegemony.
A strategy to implement the vision of the freedom agenda needs consensus building, both domestically and internationally. That will be the test as to whether we are seizing the opportunity for systemic change or participating in an episode.
(2) Divide the counterpart:
The West must find truly reliable leaders in the Islamic world to prevail democratic values. To my regret, the media took up condemnation by Tony Blair and George W. Bush in the London terrorist attack. It is also important to pay more attention to anger against this terrorism among Islamic leaders of common sense. Otherwise, global citizens will regard it as a conflict between the Anglo-American alliance and the Islamic world.
In order to manage the hatred, Japan needs to find good friends in Chinese and Korean citizens. For example, in South Korea, pro-American internationalists share common values and understandings of the world with Japan. Therefore, it is necessary for Japan to establish good relations with them. This will be the first step towards weakening anti-Japan voices in Asia. Start it now Japan! Otherwise, Asian adversary to Japan never ends.
(3) More effort for good image:
In the era of emotionalism, more effort to improve the image of the nation is necessary. More mutual understandings to the grassroots level are getting increasingly important.
Above all, love and hatred is playing more and more greater role in international politics. This is an unprecedented challenge to us, because there are no rational solutions to this problem. Long-term perspectives are required to tackle this issue.
Love and Hatred in International Politics (1): A Review of Hatred
The 7-7 terrorism in London has impressed us that emotionalism plays a substantial role in international politics. We have been arguing world affairs through realist and idealist perspectives. Whether we talk about state actors, or non-state actors, like corporations, pressure groups, NGOs, and civil societies, we tend to focus on values and the balance of power. But people do not so much attention to emotional aspects. Terrorists and rioters’ behavior is based on love and hatred, which makes it quite unpredictable. When people act on realism and idealism, we can understand their way of thinking through rational expectation. But this is no use to understand behavior based on emotionalism. While the role of love and hatred plays increasingly important role in international politics, this sentiment is not necessarily well grounded. Hereafter, I would like to discuss anti-Americanism, the West-Islam clash, anti-Japan sentiment in Asia, and European integration.
Anti-Americanism Worldwide
Regarding emotionalist aspects in international politics, pro-Americanism and anti-Americanism is the most frequently discussed issue. Anti-Americanism can be found throughout the world, but can they explain clearly why they hate America? It is quite doubtful. Most of them are jealous of overwhelming power of the Unites States. In Europe and Japan, many people participated in anti-American demonstrations during the Iraq War. Most of the participants were not keenly interested in world affairs. They diverted their daily frustrations, simply by denouncing American hegemony. They enjoyed the event as a kind of picnic. It is leftist organizations with sufficient money and networks, which mobilized so many people to their events.
While anti-Americans use conspiracy theory, it is not well grounded. Just read my article on June 22. You will understand it very well. Most of these conspiracy theorists are leftists who lost their ideological foundation after the Cold War. They develop finesse theories, but what they have in mind is emotional hatred to the global power. Simply, they blame America for everything bad around the world.
As to America’s image to global citizens, people talk about the latest research by the PEW center. In the aftermath of this research, Anne Applebaum, columnist of the Washington Post, writes an interesting article in the latest edition of Foreign Policy, titled “ In Search of pro-Americanism.” This article shows differences in the pattern of anti-Americanism in developed and developing countries.
In developed countries, pro-Americans are self-made men. They are not well-educated, but moving their social position upwards through hard work. On the other hand, Anti-Americans in developed countries are establishments with good educational backgrounds. Typical anti-Americans are ENA (École Nationale d’Administration) graduate elitist bureaucrats in France.
In developing countries, pro-Americans are highly educated yuppies working for Western companies, and anti-Americans are marginalized people in the rural area.
In both cases, those who admire vitality and macho dynamism tend to be pro-American. On the other hand, those who feel their vested interests are threatened, or those who are marginalized in the global economy, are likely to be anti-American.
Islam vs. the West
Currently, Islamic terrorists are the most critical threat to the West. Anti-Western elites agitate the poor to stand up for terrorism. Most of the Islamic fighters are educated at madrasa (Islamic mission school). They recite the Koran at the school. Since the text of Koran is written in classical Arabic, students do not necessarily understand it well. They are brainwashed easily. Some Moslems, such as Pakistanis and Afghans, are more likely to be brainwashed, because they are not native speakers of Arabic. As a result, they are driven to violence, without understanding Islamic thoughts and international politics. Terrorists, who attacked New York, Washington DC, and London, have no realist and idealist perspectives. They hate the West. Nothing else in their mind.
Anti-Japan Sentiment in Asia
Asians’ hatred to Japan has been a serious problem since the end of World War II. It is difficult to evaluate how much Japanese apology is enough for Asians. Asians themselves may not know. The world is moving towards the new order of the post-Cold War era. However, in East Asia, Japanese aggression during the World War II is still critical diplomatic issue. Whether Asians’ case is right or wrong, it is quite odd that Japanese and Asians still argue criminal behavior in the past. China and South Korea complain the content of history text books used in Japan. They insist that those textbooks must explain Japanese misconducts to Asian people during the World War II much more in detail.
However, it turned out that China and Korea exaggerate Japanese war crime in their school textbooks. It is not clear why they attack Japan so much. Above all, they satisfy their jingoistic pride, simply by blaming Japanese behavior in the past. They may use some sort of fineness theory, but I think this is their underlying sentiment. Just as the case of Islamic terrorists, their motivation is based on poorly grounded hatred. Quite often, such hatred leads them to violence against Japan.
European Integration
Love and hatred does not necessarily cause adversary sentiment and violence. People in Europe rejected EU constitution, because they were scared that their social and cultural tradition would be destroyed by Brussels bureaucrats. This sentiment is illustrated very well in the cartoon of this blog on June 27. One civil society organization in London, called the Democracy Movement, raises the case against EU constitution. However, they do not oppose further integration itself.
Anti-Americanism Worldwide
Regarding emotionalist aspects in international politics, pro-Americanism and anti-Americanism is the most frequently discussed issue. Anti-Americanism can be found throughout the world, but can they explain clearly why they hate America? It is quite doubtful. Most of them are jealous of overwhelming power of the Unites States. In Europe and Japan, many people participated in anti-American demonstrations during the Iraq War. Most of the participants were not keenly interested in world affairs. They diverted their daily frustrations, simply by denouncing American hegemony. They enjoyed the event as a kind of picnic. It is leftist organizations with sufficient money and networks, which mobilized so many people to their events.
While anti-Americans use conspiracy theory, it is not well grounded. Just read my article on June 22. You will understand it very well. Most of these conspiracy theorists are leftists who lost their ideological foundation after the Cold War. They develop finesse theories, but what they have in mind is emotional hatred to the global power. Simply, they blame America for everything bad around the world.
As to America’s image to global citizens, people talk about the latest research by the PEW center. In the aftermath of this research, Anne Applebaum, columnist of the Washington Post, writes an interesting article in the latest edition of Foreign Policy, titled “ In Search of pro-Americanism.” This article shows differences in the pattern of anti-Americanism in developed and developing countries.
In developed countries, pro-Americans are self-made men. They are not well-educated, but moving their social position upwards through hard work. On the other hand, Anti-Americans in developed countries are establishments with good educational backgrounds. Typical anti-Americans are ENA (École Nationale d’Administration) graduate elitist bureaucrats in France.
In developing countries, pro-Americans are highly educated yuppies working for Western companies, and anti-Americans are marginalized people in the rural area.
In both cases, those who admire vitality and macho dynamism tend to be pro-American. On the other hand, those who feel their vested interests are threatened, or those who are marginalized in the global economy, are likely to be anti-American.
Islam vs. the West
Currently, Islamic terrorists are the most critical threat to the West. Anti-Western elites agitate the poor to stand up for terrorism. Most of the Islamic fighters are educated at madrasa (Islamic mission school). They recite the Koran at the school. Since the text of Koran is written in classical Arabic, students do not necessarily understand it well. They are brainwashed easily. Some Moslems, such as Pakistanis and Afghans, are more likely to be brainwashed, because they are not native speakers of Arabic. As a result, they are driven to violence, without understanding Islamic thoughts and international politics. Terrorists, who attacked New York, Washington DC, and London, have no realist and idealist perspectives. They hate the West. Nothing else in their mind.
Anti-Japan Sentiment in Asia
Asians’ hatred to Japan has been a serious problem since the end of World War II. It is difficult to evaluate how much Japanese apology is enough for Asians. Asians themselves may not know. The world is moving towards the new order of the post-Cold War era. However, in East Asia, Japanese aggression during the World War II is still critical diplomatic issue. Whether Asians’ case is right or wrong, it is quite odd that Japanese and Asians still argue criminal behavior in the past. China and South Korea complain the content of history text books used in Japan. They insist that those textbooks must explain Japanese misconducts to Asian people during the World War II much more in detail.
However, it turned out that China and Korea exaggerate Japanese war crime in their school textbooks. It is not clear why they attack Japan so much. Above all, they satisfy their jingoistic pride, simply by blaming Japanese behavior in the past. They may use some sort of fineness theory, but I think this is their underlying sentiment. Just as the case of Islamic terrorists, their motivation is based on poorly grounded hatred. Quite often, such hatred leads them to violence against Japan.
European Integration
Love and hatred does not necessarily cause adversary sentiment and violence. People in Europe rejected EU constitution, because they were scared that their social and cultural tradition would be destroyed by Brussels bureaucrats. This sentiment is illustrated very well in the cartoon of this blog on June 27. One civil society organization in London, called the Democracy Movement, raises the case against EU constitution. However, they do not oppose further integration itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)