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.
Monday, July 11, 2005
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.
Monday, July 4, 2005
The 4th of July: America stands at the crossroads now.
It is the Independence Day of the United States of America today. At present, the United States is fighting the war on terror and struggling for global democracy. I would like to argue the following points.
1. Nation still divided
To my regret, America has not healed the division yet. It is true that the current administration faces many challenges to manage Iraq. Middle East democratization has just started, and not necessarily made sufficient progress. However, it is not rational to pull out the US-lead forces from Iraq quickly. Liberals does not show the blueprint after the withdrawal. Leaving Iraq when the job is half-done makes it extremely dangerous throughout the Middle East. Party politics is a part of democracy, but the whole nation must be firmly united in case of emergency like this. Liberals need to indicate persuasive alternatives. Otherwise, things get worse.
Also, it is quite unusual that the Senate still delays to approve the nomination of the ambassador to the United Nations. In this term, critical issues, like arms control, Iran, and North Korea, will be discussed at the Security Council. Without the ambassador, the United States will fail to take leadership and act quickly in case of emergency. Liberals may not like John Bolton, but wrong ambassador is better than no ambassador.
Right or wrong, conservatives show us the design of leading America and the world. Liberals need to propose alternatives.
2. Perception gap between the USA and the allies
The United States is extremely sensitive to the threat of terrorism and WMD proliferation, this is not necessarily the case with its allies. Such a perception gap makes the rift between the United States and the allies greater. Continental Europeans is getting more reluctant to commit themselves to the war on terror. With a single bomb explosion, the Spanish chose leftist Zapatero, and withdrew its troops from Iraq. The Japanese confront Asian xenophobia.
The United States may be forced to pursue a go it alone policy, if this trend continues. Fortunately, Tony Blair, America’s staunchest ally, has been re-elected. It is time for the United States and its allies to narrow the perception gap. Do it, before it gets too late.
3. The Country of Good Hope
Despite these problems, the United States is the country of good hope. In the article, “In Search of pro-Americanism” (Foreign Policy, July/August 2005), Anne Applebaum, columnist of the Washington Post, mentions that those moving their status upwards tend to be pro-American, while establishments and lower class tend to be anti-American. In other words, the United States has the global constituents of highly motivated, vigorous, and prospective people. They are the most crucial actors to move the world towards good direction.
Americans must be firmly united, regardless of ideological differences, in order to defeat terrorists and rogue states. Perception gap between their allies must be filled. It is the Independence Day, and a good chance for both Americans and global citizens to think of the future. The United States will continue to be the country of good hope, if it manages this historical turning point successfully.
1. Nation still divided
To my regret, America has not healed the division yet. It is true that the current administration faces many challenges to manage Iraq. Middle East democratization has just started, and not necessarily made sufficient progress. However, it is not rational to pull out the US-lead forces from Iraq quickly. Liberals does not show the blueprint after the withdrawal. Leaving Iraq when the job is half-done makes it extremely dangerous throughout the Middle East. Party politics is a part of democracy, but the whole nation must be firmly united in case of emergency like this. Liberals need to indicate persuasive alternatives. Otherwise, things get worse.
Also, it is quite unusual that the Senate still delays to approve the nomination of the ambassador to the United Nations. In this term, critical issues, like arms control, Iran, and North Korea, will be discussed at the Security Council. Without the ambassador, the United States will fail to take leadership and act quickly in case of emergency. Liberals may not like John Bolton, but wrong ambassador is better than no ambassador.
Right or wrong, conservatives show us the design of leading America and the world. Liberals need to propose alternatives.
2. Perception gap between the USA and the allies
The United States is extremely sensitive to the threat of terrorism and WMD proliferation, this is not necessarily the case with its allies. Such a perception gap makes the rift between the United States and the allies greater. Continental Europeans is getting more reluctant to commit themselves to the war on terror. With a single bomb explosion, the Spanish chose leftist Zapatero, and withdrew its troops from Iraq. The Japanese confront Asian xenophobia.
The United States may be forced to pursue a go it alone policy, if this trend continues. Fortunately, Tony Blair, America’s staunchest ally, has been re-elected. It is time for the United States and its allies to narrow the perception gap. Do it, before it gets too late.
3. The Country of Good Hope
Despite these problems, the United States is the country of good hope. In the article, “In Search of pro-Americanism” (Foreign Policy, July/August 2005), Anne Applebaum, columnist of the Washington Post, mentions that those moving their status upwards tend to be pro-American, while establishments and lower class tend to be anti-American. In other words, the United States has the global constituents of highly motivated, vigorous, and prospective people. They are the most crucial actors to move the world towards good direction.
Americans must be firmly united, regardless of ideological differences, in order to defeat terrorists and rogue states. Perception gap between their allies must be filled. It is the Independence Day, and a good chance for both Americans and global citizens to think of the future. The United States will continue to be the country of good hope, if it manages this historical turning point successfully.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
European integration, that's terrible!
This picture is taken from the International Herald Tribune, June 23. (Also, from the Baltimore Sun, June 4)
See the monster. People are scared of the constitution, drafted by ENA bound bureaucrats.
This is the era of "The Case for Democracy." Elitists should understand it.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Reza Pahlavi comments on the Iranian election
Reza Pahlavi, former crown prince of Iran, comments critically on the presidential election in Iran. Just listen to the interview on the following web sites.
ＣＮＮ June16
ＴＶ３, Spain June 16
(Part 1)
(Part 2)
ＣＮＮ June16
ＴＶ３, Spain June 16
(Part 1)
(Part 2)
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Misunderstandings on America and the Middle East
Conspiracy theorists associate everything bad in the Middle East with America’s ambition. But their viewpoints are dubious. I would like to correct these misunderstandings.
1. The United States had a honeymoon period with Saddam Hussein in the past.
Absolutely not.
During the Iran-Iraq War, the Reagan administration tried to use Iraq a buffer against the theocratic regime in Iran. However, it was very cautious. Baathist ideology is a combination of radical pan-Arab nationalism and socialism. This is hardly acceptable to the United States.
During the Cold War, Saddam Hussein was one of the most pro-Soviet leaders in the Arab world. The Iraqi forces in those days were armed with Soviet and French made weapons. It was Valéry Giscard d’Estaing who aided Iraq build a nuclear power plant, even though Saddam Hussein was suspected of his ambition to make a nuclear bomb.
2. Everything bad in the Middle East results from the Palestine problem.
Completely wrong.
Most of the problems are rooted in the Arabs themselves. Arab states fight against Arab states. Iraq invaded Kuwait, and Syria invaded Lebanon. Also, Arabs have clashes between modernization and tradition. Ethnic minorities, like Kurds, Barbers, and Turkmen are severely oppressed. These troubles are not related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Read the article “A World without Israel” by Joseph Joffe in Foreign Policy in January 2005. It is utterly wrong to blame America and Israel. You will understand it very well.
3. The United States should not have sponsored Afghan guerrillas. They caused the 9-11.
No way.
It is ridiculous. The United States should have allowed the Soviets to expand their influence throughout the Persian Gulf area and the Indian subcontinent? It is true that Islamic radicals have become the most serious threat to the United States and Free World. However, I have to remind you that the rise of such radicals dates from the Iranian Revolution. The Carter administration was excessively dovish against Shiite riots. Saddam Hussein would have never invaded an Iran, under the Pahlavi dynasty or pro-Western strong man. The loss of Iran has been critical to the Middle East security. People hardly criticize such a wimp foreign policy, although Islamic fundamentalists have been one of the most serious threats since then.
4. Middle East democracy is a plot driven by Bush, neocons, Jewish lobby, and oil industries, in order to maximize their business interest.
Are you kidding?
Whether liberal or conservative, it is American national interest to spread a stable democracy throughout the Middle East. Their disagreements lie only in the method to achieve this goal. The Iraqi National Congress, lead by Ahmad Chalabi, has been sponsored by the United States since the Clinton era. Moreover, non-partisan and liberal think tanks have been engaged in numerous researches on Middle East democratization.
It is America’s national project, and completely off the point to denounce Bush, neocons, Jewish lobby, and oil business.
Left-wingers and conspiracy theorists distort the public opinion. We need to have a balanced viewpoint.
1. The United States had a honeymoon period with Saddam Hussein in the past.
Absolutely not.
During the Iran-Iraq War, the Reagan administration tried to use Iraq a buffer against the theocratic regime in Iran. However, it was very cautious. Baathist ideology is a combination of radical pan-Arab nationalism and socialism. This is hardly acceptable to the United States.
During the Cold War, Saddam Hussein was one of the most pro-Soviet leaders in the Arab world. The Iraqi forces in those days were armed with Soviet and French made weapons. It was Valéry Giscard d’Estaing who aided Iraq build a nuclear power plant, even though Saddam Hussein was suspected of his ambition to make a nuclear bomb.
2. Everything bad in the Middle East results from the Palestine problem.
Completely wrong.
Most of the problems are rooted in the Arabs themselves. Arab states fight against Arab states. Iraq invaded Kuwait, and Syria invaded Lebanon. Also, Arabs have clashes between modernization and tradition. Ethnic minorities, like Kurds, Barbers, and Turkmen are severely oppressed. These troubles are not related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Read the article “A World without Israel” by Joseph Joffe in Foreign Policy in January 2005. It is utterly wrong to blame America and Israel. You will understand it very well.
3. The United States should not have sponsored Afghan guerrillas. They caused the 9-11.
No way.
It is ridiculous. The United States should have allowed the Soviets to expand their influence throughout the Persian Gulf area and the Indian subcontinent? It is true that Islamic radicals have become the most serious threat to the United States and Free World. However, I have to remind you that the rise of such radicals dates from the Iranian Revolution. The Carter administration was excessively dovish against Shiite riots. Saddam Hussein would have never invaded an Iran, under the Pahlavi dynasty or pro-Western strong man. The loss of Iran has been critical to the Middle East security. People hardly criticize such a wimp foreign policy, although Islamic fundamentalists have been one of the most serious threats since then.
4. Middle East democracy is a plot driven by Bush, neocons, Jewish lobby, and oil industries, in order to maximize their business interest.
Are you kidding?
Whether liberal or conservative, it is American national interest to spread a stable democracy throughout the Middle East. Their disagreements lie only in the method to achieve this goal. The Iraqi National Congress, lead by Ahmad Chalabi, has been sponsored by the United States since the Clinton era. Moreover, non-partisan and liberal think tanks have been engaged in numerous researches on Middle East democratization.
It is America’s national project, and completely off the point to denounce Bush, neocons, Jewish lobby, and oil business.
Left-wingers and conspiracy theorists distort the public opinion. We need to have a balanced viewpoint.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
NATO is Europe! Who cares EU constitution?
People talk too much about EU constitution, but it does not matter so much. NATO plays the most important role to decide the future of Europe, and the EU is the secondary actor. In other words, Europe must be open and Atlanticist. Today, European integration has expanded eastward. Also, Turkey is expected to join the EU in the future. However, I have to remind you that European integration is not entirely dependent on the Continental initiative. The United States has been endorsing this movement since the end of World War II. When the Cold War ended, NATO embraced “New Europe” and Turkey much earlier than the EU did. In view of these facts, we understand that European integration is a trans-Atlantic endeavor from the beginning. Expanded Europe is not homogeneous. It is not a good choice to impose a single constitution to the whole area of the Union, and interfere in the national sovereignty. NATO does not intervene in national politics. Furthermore, it is a friend in need to its member states, in case of crisis. Therefore, people do not have to worry so much about the ratification of EU constitution.
It is also important to notice substantial changes in the balance of power in Europe. The French referendum on May 29 voted against the constitution. As Charles Grant, Director of the Centre for European Reform, argues in his article in Foreign Affairs, there are two categories of states in Europe: core members like France and Germany, and peripheral members such as Britain, Poland, the Nordic, and the Baltic. In an expanded Europe, the influence of the Franco-German alliance will erode. The “non” vote will undermine French leadership in Europe furthermore. In addition, peripheral members enjoy buoyant economy these days, while core economies are stagnant. In a circumstance like this, initiatives by France, Germany, and Brussels bureaucrats are outdated.
Finally, it is necessary to understand why people voted against the constitution. First, people are scared of losing their national identity. Second, there is a clash between liberal expansionists and social integrationists. Finally, and the most importantly, European citizens distrust the constitution drafted by ENA bound elitists like Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, and Jaques Chirac. Also, people are skeptic to Brussels interference in national security and economy. This is an era of grassroots democracy, and people are getting increasingly antagonistic to bureaucratic rule all over the world.
From these points, EU constitution was destined to be rejected. However, it does not matter. NATO is Europe.
It is also important to notice substantial changes in the balance of power in Europe. The French referendum on May 29 voted against the constitution. As Charles Grant, Director of the Centre for European Reform, argues in his article in Foreign Affairs, there are two categories of states in Europe: core members like France and Germany, and peripheral members such as Britain, Poland, the Nordic, and the Baltic. In an expanded Europe, the influence of the Franco-German alliance will erode. The “non” vote will undermine French leadership in Europe furthermore. In addition, peripheral members enjoy buoyant economy these days, while core economies are stagnant. In a circumstance like this, initiatives by France, Germany, and Brussels bureaucrats are outdated.
Finally, it is necessary to understand why people voted against the constitution. First, people are scared of losing their national identity. Second, there is a clash between liberal expansionists and social integrationists. Finally, and the most importantly, European citizens distrust the constitution drafted by ENA bound elitists like Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, and Jaques Chirac. Also, people are skeptic to Brussels interference in national security and economy. This is an era of grassroots democracy, and people are getting increasingly antagonistic to bureaucratic rule all over the world.
From these points, EU constitution was destined to be rejected. However, it does not matter. NATO is Europe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)