As I mentioned in the previous post, NHK TV Program "Japan at the Crossroads": Reconsider the Pacifist Constitution, a program on Japan’s pacifist constitution will be aired tomorrow. I am invited to the studio as a representative of the public. One of my Japanese blog friends, Earl of Alamein, will come to the studio. He and I will be an axis of pro-change, pro-American, and pro-postwar regime change. Both of us will present forward-looking and completely different viewpoints from those of retrospective rightists and leftists.
For my advocacy activity, I have been keeping in touch with Albion, currently an MBA student at the University of Denver. I appreciate his help very much. However, I have not seen most of the friends on the blog. I understand their attractive personality and intelligence, although some of them misidentify Shocker (an organization of super villains in Japanese SF hero series, Kamen Rider). Yes, he is too liberal.
It will be a great opportunity to see Earl of Alamein. See you on the program tomorrow!
Monday, August 13, 2007
Friday, August 10, 2007
Democrats Need to Act beyond Defeatism on Iraq
In this post, I am going to talk about an article, entitled “Perceptions on Iraq War Are Starting to Shift” in Creators Syndicate on August 6, written by Michael Barone, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Barone criticizes some Democratic senators and representatives defeatists, and questions their election strategy to make use of hardships in Iraq for their advantage. Let me review the article.
When Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, both Senior Fellows at the Brookings Institution, contributed an article “Stability in Iraq: A War We Just Might Win” to the New York Times on July 30, antiwar Democrats in Congress were perplexed. O’Hanlon and Pollack criticized “the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq” before, but they admit progress in defeating insurgents there.
Democrats have been attacking the Bush administration, because the administration failed in adjusting itself to changing realities in Iraq. Barone says that the battle against Al Qaeda suicide bomber has changed into full-fledged sectarian warfare. President Bush and his staff decided a surge as advised by Frederick Kagan, Resident Scholar at AEI. Since then, reality has changed positively to US forces.
Michael Barone mentions a freshman Representative Nancy Boyda of Kansas, who has just won the seat in the last midterm election as an example of defeatist Democrat. She has been making use of mishandling of Iraq to denounce the Bush administration. But she was upset when retired General Jack Keane described positive developments in Iraq at the congressional hearing.
As public opinion shifts in accordance with war progress, Barone points out Democrats’ dilemma to choose between solid supporters who want quick retreat and the majority who want victory.
I would like mention another article on defeatists, "’Orderly Humiliation’ and ‘The New Strategy in Iraq’" in Weekly Standard on July 12. In this joint essay with Frederick Kagan and Kimberly Kagan, Director of the Institute for the Study of War, AEI Resident Fellow Thomas Donnelly talks of the axis composed of Democrat Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton, Republican Senator Richard Lugar, and a new Washington think tank, named the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). Officially, CNAS was launched on July 27, with keynote addresses by Hilary Clinton and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. Both Senators are vocal critics to the Bush administration’s Iraq policy.
According to Donnelly, CNAS is expected to provide intellectual support for 2008 Clinton campaign. This think tank recommends early withdrawal from Iraq, and full-fledged talk with influential neighbors to Iraq, notably, Iran and Syria. Thomas Donnelly criticizes such arguments, and insists that American withdrawal will not increase leverage on Iraqi factions and simply allow threats posed by Iran and Syria grow bigger.
I recommend both AEI articles to understand interconnection between Iraq issues and political developments toward 2008 presidential election. Things are unpredictable. Interactions between politicians and think tanks need more attention. Also, it is worth watching how such axes ―― whether pro or con to the war ―― manage to adjust themselves to the reality, as things associated with the war change rapidly.
When Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, both Senior Fellows at the Brookings Institution, contributed an article “Stability in Iraq: A War We Just Might Win” to the New York Times on July 30, antiwar Democrats in Congress were perplexed. O’Hanlon and Pollack criticized “the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq” before, but they admit progress in defeating insurgents there.
Democrats have been attacking the Bush administration, because the administration failed in adjusting itself to changing realities in Iraq. Barone says that the battle against Al Qaeda suicide bomber has changed into full-fledged sectarian warfare. President Bush and his staff decided a surge as advised by Frederick Kagan, Resident Scholar at AEI. Since then, reality has changed positively to US forces.
Michael Barone mentions a freshman Representative Nancy Boyda of Kansas, who has just won the seat in the last midterm election as an example of defeatist Democrat. She has been making use of mishandling of Iraq to denounce the Bush administration. But she was upset when retired General Jack Keane described positive developments in Iraq at the congressional hearing.
As public opinion shifts in accordance with war progress, Barone points out Democrats’ dilemma to choose between solid supporters who want quick retreat and the majority who want victory.
I would like mention another article on defeatists, "’Orderly Humiliation’ and ‘The New Strategy in Iraq’" in Weekly Standard on July 12. In this joint essay with Frederick Kagan and Kimberly Kagan, Director of the Institute for the Study of War, AEI Resident Fellow Thomas Donnelly talks of the axis composed of Democrat Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton, Republican Senator Richard Lugar, and a new Washington think tank, named the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). Officially, CNAS was launched on July 27, with keynote addresses by Hilary Clinton and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. Both Senators are vocal critics to the Bush administration’s Iraq policy.
According to Donnelly, CNAS is expected to provide intellectual support for 2008 Clinton campaign. This think tank recommends early withdrawal from Iraq, and full-fledged talk with influential neighbors to Iraq, notably, Iran and Syria. Thomas Donnelly criticizes such arguments, and insists that American withdrawal will not increase leverage on Iraqi factions and simply allow threats posed by Iran and Syria grow bigger.
I recommend both AEI articles to understand interconnection between Iraq issues and political developments toward 2008 presidential election. Things are unpredictable. Interactions between politicians and think tanks need more attention. Also, it is worth watching how such axes ―― whether pro or con to the war ―― manage to adjust themselves to the reality, as things associated with the war change rapidly.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Why Do Europeans and Japanese Quibble over American Hyperpuissance?
There is no doubt that sound relationship between the United States and major democratic allies is the key to world peace and prosperity. However, both Europeans and Japanese are somewhat skeptic to American hegemony, despite their heavy dependence on it. In order to find clues to understand European and Japanese quibble over Pax Americana, I read “Of Paradise and Power” by Robert Kagan again. Though it was published before the Iraq War, this book still provides deep insights on the relation between the United States and key democratic allies.
In terms of history, the United States is quite distinct from Europe and Japan from the following points. Since the earliest days of the colonial era, America has been pursuing ever lasting expansion. Its sphere of influence has expanded from the Wild West to Europe and Asia. After the Cold War, American influence spread furthermore to Eastern Europe, and Central Asia. On the other hand, Europeans and Japanese have experienced rapid shrinkage of their spheres after World War Ⅱ. Europeans withdrew from their colonial empires, and Japanese threw away the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere.
In addition, Americans genuinely believe in universality of their national foundation ideals. Therefore, Americans are confident in their missionary spirit, while Europeans and Japanese are self critical to their behavior in the past. Neither Vietnam nor Iraq can erode this self-confidence.
Above two points bring about stark gaps between America and its European and Japanese allies. Such innocently genuine confidence is envy for Japanese conservatives who resent hysterically to Congressman Mike Honda’s resolution on Korean comfort women during the wartime. The Japanese are more retrospective and more oriented toward their ethnic uniqueness. Nor, do Europeans share this sort of unadulterated creed, although they have common backgrounds in political foundation and civilization.
Only Britain has some close mindset because of their “liberal imperialist” tradition. But the British are more self critical to their imperialism in the 19th century. As Former Prime Minister Tony Blair remarked in his public speech, British leaders avoid using this word. They prefer to use “liberal interventionism” instead, so as not to impress arrogant and high handed image to the global community.
Kagan says that this historical and psychological difference is reinforced by power gap in the post Cold War era. American military power is by far the strongest in the world. Due to this power gap, both Europe and Japan are preoccupied with their neighborhood, rather than global security. Terrorists and rogue states attack “America first”, and therefore, Europeans and Japanese are more tolerant to these threats. As a result, the relationship between the United States and its allies has become that of sheriff and saloon master.
In this book, Robert Kagan talks of philosophical foundation of postmodern Europe. The fundamental idea of European integration in the postwar ear is rejection of modern Europe under power politics. According to a British diplomat Robert Cooper, postmodern European order rests on Kantian ideals, notably, the rejection of force and self-enforced rules of behavior. Ironically Kantian Europe can enjoy their peace and prosperity under the hegemony of Hobbesian America, whose willingness to use military power keep Europeans safe from challengers like Russia, rogue states, and dangerous non-state actors.
I would say Japanese are more retrospective than Europeans, and trying to restore cultural tradition while pursuing greater influence and dignity on the global stage. But this aspiration cannot be achieved without American support. Ultra conservatives in Japan feel disgusted with American influence on Japanese politics, culture, and lifestyle. However, Japan can act on the global stage only with close partnership with the sole superpower. Nor, can Japan deal with threats posed by China and North Korea without alliance with the United States.
Despite such dependence and free ride, both Europeans and Japanese are reluctant to accept American hyper puissance. Robert Kagan points out that Europeans were not so much worried of threats posed by Saddam Hussein, but the consequence of unilateral and extralegal action by the United States to attack Iraq. If unsuccessful, this would destabilize the Middle East. If successful, this would ruin Kantian ideals of “postmodern” Europe. Retrospective Japanese share this sentiment to some extent, and are annoyed with macho Americans continue to “impose” their values on Japanese people.
One of the key issues of this blog is sound alliance across the Atlantic and the Pacific. It is necessary to understand why America causes uneasy sentiments among European and Japanese people. Neither of them shares Americans’ indulgence to unadulterated expansionism and the Manifest Destiny. For further understanding of the relationship between the United States and its allies, I recommend “Of Paradise and Power”, as this book has implications to US foreign policy, even though American leaders are turning toward multilateralism on Iran and North Korea. Can Europeans and Japanese really get along with power oriented America?
In terms of history, the United States is quite distinct from Europe and Japan from the following points. Since the earliest days of the colonial era, America has been pursuing ever lasting expansion. Its sphere of influence has expanded from the Wild West to Europe and Asia. After the Cold War, American influence spread furthermore to Eastern Europe, and Central Asia. On the other hand, Europeans and Japanese have experienced rapid shrinkage of their spheres after World War Ⅱ. Europeans withdrew from their colonial empires, and Japanese threw away the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere.
In addition, Americans genuinely believe in universality of their national foundation ideals. Therefore, Americans are confident in their missionary spirit, while Europeans and Japanese are self critical to their behavior in the past. Neither Vietnam nor Iraq can erode this self-confidence.
Above two points bring about stark gaps between America and its European and Japanese allies. Such innocently genuine confidence is envy for Japanese conservatives who resent hysterically to Congressman Mike Honda’s resolution on Korean comfort women during the wartime. The Japanese are more retrospective and more oriented toward their ethnic uniqueness. Nor, do Europeans share this sort of unadulterated creed, although they have common backgrounds in political foundation and civilization.
Only Britain has some close mindset because of their “liberal imperialist” tradition. But the British are more self critical to their imperialism in the 19th century. As Former Prime Minister Tony Blair remarked in his public speech, British leaders avoid using this word. They prefer to use “liberal interventionism” instead, so as not to impress arrogant and high handed image to the global community.
Kagan says that this historical and psychological difference is reinforced by power gap in the post Cold War era. American military power is by far the strongest in the world. Due to this power gap, both Europe and Japan are preoccupied with their neighborhood, rather than global security. Terrorists and rogue states attack “America first”, and therefore, Europeans and Japanese are more tolerant to these threats. As a result, the relationship between the United States and its allies has become that of sheriff and saloon master.
In this book, Robert Kagan talks of philosophical foundation of postmodern Europe. The fundamental idea of European integration in the postwar ear is rejection of modern Europe under power politics. According to a British diplomat Robert Cooper, postmodern European order rests on Kantian ideals, notably, the rejection of force and self-enforced rules of behavior. Ironically Kantian Europe can enjoy their peace and prosperity under the hegemony of Hobbesian America, whose willingness to use military power keep Europeans safe from challengers like Russia, rogue states, and dangerous non-state actors.
I would say Japanese are more retrospective than Europeans, and trying to restore cultural tradition while pursuing greater influence and dignity on the global stage. But this aspiration cannot be achieved without American support. Ultra conservatives in Japan feel disgusted with American influence on Japanese politics, culture, and lifestyle. However, Japan can act on the global stage only with close partnership with the sole superpower. Nor, can Japan deal with threats posed by China and North Korea without alliance with the United States.
Despite such dependence and free ride, both Europeans and Japanese are reluctant to accept American hyper puissance. Robert Kagan points out that Europeans were not so much worried of threats posed by Saddam Hussein, but the consequence of unilateral and extralegal action by the United States to attack Iraq. If unsuccessful, this would destabilize the Middle East. If successful, this would ruin Kantian ideals of “postmodern” Europe. Retrospective Japanese share this sentiment to some extent, and are annoyed with macho Americans continue to “impose” their values on Japanese people.
One of the key issues of this blog is sound alliance across the Atlantic and the Pacific. It is necessary to understand why America causes uneasy sentiments among European and Japanese people. Neither of them shares Americans’ indulgence to unadulterated expansionism and the Manifest Destiny. For further understanding of the relationship between the United States and its allies, I recommend “Of Paradise and Power”, as this book has implications to US foreign policy, even though American leaders are turning toward multilateralism on Iran and North Korea. Can Europeans and Japanese really get along with power oriented America?
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Is Middle East Democratization a Neocon Plot?
As debates on Iraq get intensified, some war opponents argue that the idea of Middle East democratization is a plot by neoconservatives and oil industry. Apparently, this is wrong. Regardless of pro or con to the Iraq War, American policymakers have been exploring to promote democracy in the Middle East. Not only neocons but also liberals, centrists, and other ideological sects, are working hard for this endeavor. Furthermore, Europeans are tackling for this issue, either with Americans or by themselves.
Nor does this idea symbolize American belligerence. People are liable to associate Middle East democratization with the War on terror and the Iraq War. Certainly, defeating terrorists and dictators constitutes an important agenda in this policy. However, policymakers discuss non-military aspects, such as political freedom, socio-economic equality, gender, education, development, civil society, and empowerment as well. Quite often, the media and experts dismiss this point, whether deliberately or unintentionally.
Therefore, it is utterly wrong to label the endeavor for Middle East democracy to be a neocon driven unilateralist plot. Let me review some policy researches related to this issue, conducted on both sides of the Atlantic.
Centrist analysts are not totally in agreement with the Bush administration’s plan for regime change in Iraq. Thomas Carothers, Director of the Democracy and Rule of Law Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has been conducting researches for promoting democracy in the Middle East, although he is critical to the plan for regime change in Iraq. Just before the Iraq War, he published a policy brief, entitled “Democratic Mirage in the Middle East” in October 2002. In this essay, he criticized the idea of quick promotion of democracy throughout the Middle East, simply by overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Despite this, he welcomes American commitment to Middle East democracy after the post Cold War. Carothers laments meager involvement by the Unites States during the Cold War to spread democracy in the Middle East. Thomas Carothers endorses modest and long term commitment, rather than quick and domino effect changes.
The media and our grassroots focus on non-Arab nations like Iran and Afghanistan, and Arab nations, including Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine. The Arab Reform Bulletin, published by the Carnegie Endowment presents policy recommendation and analysis on democratization throughout the Arab world. In the most recent Bulletin, published in this July, Moataz El Fegiery, Program Director at the Cairo Institute of Human Rights Studies, analyze governmental repression to freedom of opinion and expression in the Arab world. Dina Bishara, Assistant Editor of the Bulletin, advocates that the United States refrain from providing aid to specific parties in Arab nations.
Center for American Progress, an anti-Bush liberal think tank, has also been publishing articles on Middle East democratization. Mara Rudman, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress concludes the United States needs to make sure its investment in democracy whoever runs Palestine, in “Vote Reaffirms Need for America to Invest in Democracy” (Forward, February 6, 2006). On December 20, 2005, the Center held an event to discuss the next step to support democracy in Iraq after the first election since the fall of Saddam Hussein.
Europeans are no less enthusiastic to Middle East democracy initiatives than Americans. The Arab Reform Initiative was launched on December 27, 2005, is constituted by top institutions from Europe and the Arab world. This consortium explores policy researches to promote democratic reform by Arab, European, and American partners. It is noteworthy that continental think tanks join this initiative. Despite the rift before the Iraq War, Europeans pursue common agendas with Americans.
In Iran, civil societies grow without relying substantially on Western governments and NGOs. Blog talks are popular, although the authority arrested some bloggers. Progressive journalists and bloggers in Iran establish an online community in English, called Persian Journal. With strong civil movements, Ex-Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi advocates a Ukrainian style Orange Revolution, instead of war, in order to achieve regime change. Lionel Beehner, Staff Writer at CFR.org, insists that the US government should promote dialogues between Iranian and Western civil societies and business communities, but not directly involved in these interactions. Iranians see campaigns sponsored by the US government negatively, Beehner says.
It is no use to bash neoconservatives and oil business. Rather, I would recommend further understanding regarding the genesis of Middle East democratization initiatives. Even before 9-11 attacks, policymakers in America talked about Middle East reform. As I mentioned in a previous post, “Pro or Con on American Attack against Iraq before the War”, invasion to Iraq has been a crucial agenda since the Clinton era. This is beyond party politics. Promotion of democracy is the key agenda in American foreign policy. This is beyond the Iraq debate at the Hill. Also, the end of the Cold War has changed the notion of security. Civil society based approaches are becoming increasingly important, whether attacking the target or not. The United States used force in Iraq, but not in Ukraine. Middle East democratization is a vital step toward world peace.
Middle East reform is a critical agenda not only for neocons but also for liberals, Europeans, and Middle Eastern citizens.
Nor does this idea symbolize American belligerence. People are liable to associate Middle East democratization with the War on terror and the Iraq War. Certainly, defeating terrorists and dictators constitutes an important agenda in this policy. However, policymakers discuss non-military aspects, such as political freedom, socio-economic equality, gender, education, development, civil society, and empowerment as well. Quite often, the media and experts dismiss this point, whether deliberately or unintentionally.
Therefore, it is utterly wrong to label the endeavor for Middle East democracy to be a neocon driven unilateralist plot. Let me review some policy researches related to this issue, conducted on both sides of the Atlantic.
Centrist analysts are not totally in agreement with the Bush administration’s plan for regime change in Iraq. Thomas Carothers, Director of the Democracy and Rule of Law Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has been conducting researches for promoting democracy in the Middle East, although he is critical to the plan for regime change in Iraq. Just before the Iraq War, he published a policy brief, entitled “Democratic Mirage in the Middle East” in October 2002. In this essay, he criticized the idea of quick promotion of democracy throughout the Middle East, simply by overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Despite this, he welcomes American commitment to Middle East democracy after the post Cold War. Carothers laments meager involvement by the Unites States during the Cold War to spread democracy in the Middle East. Thomas Carothers endorses modest and long term commitment, rather than quick and domino effect changes.
The media and our grassroots focus on non-Arab nations like Iran and Afghanistan, and Arab nations, including Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine. The Arab Reform Bulletin, published by the Carnegie Endowment presents policy recommendation and analysis on democratization throughout the Arab world. In the most recent Bulletin, published in this July, Moataz El Fegiery, Program Director at the Cairo Institute of Human Rights Studies, analyze governmental repression to freedom of opinion and expression in the Arab world. Dina Bishara, Assistant Editor of the Bulletin, advocates that the United States refrain from providing aid to specific parties in Arab nations.
Center for American Progress, an anti-Bush liberal think tank, has also been publishing articles on Middle East democratization. Mara Rudman, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress concludes the United States needs to make sure its investment in democracy whoever runs Palestine, in “Vote Reaffirms Need for America to Invest in Democracy” (Forward, February 6, 2006). On December 20, 2005, the Center held an event to discuss the next step to support democracy in Iraq after the first election since the fall of Saddam Hussein.
Europeans are no less enthusiastic to Middle East democracy initiatives than Americans. The Arab Reform Initiative was launched on December 27, 2005, is constituted by top institutions from Europe and the Arab world. This consortium explores policy researches to promote democratic reform by Arab, European, and American partners. It is noteworthy that continental think tanks join this initiative. Despite the rift before the Iraq War, Europeans pursue common agendas with Americans.
In Iran, civil societies grow without relying substantially on Western governments and NGOs. Blog talks are popular, although the authority arrested some bloggers. Progressive journalists and bloggers in Iran establish an online community in English, called Persian Journal. With strong civil movements, Ex-Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi advocates a Ukrainian style Orange Revolution, instead of war, in order to achieve regime change. Lionel Beehner, Staff Writer at CFR.org, insists that the US government should promote dialogues between Iranian and Western civil societies and business communities, but not directly involved in these interactions. Iranians see campaigns sponsored by the US government negatively, Beehner says.
It is no use to bash neoconservatives and oil business. Rather, I would recommend further understanding regarding the genesis of Middle East democratization initiatives. Even before 9-11 attacks, policymakers in America talked about Middle East reform. As I mentioned in a previous post, “Pro or Con on American Attack against Iraq before the War”, invasion to Iraq has been a crucial agenda since the Clinton era. This is beyond party politics. Promotion of democracy is the key agenda in American foreign policy. This is beyond the Iraq debate at the Hill. Also, the end of the Cold War has changed the notion of security. Civil society based approaches are becoming increasingly important, whether attacking the target or not. The United States used force in Iraq, but not in Ukraine. Middle East democratization is a vital step toward world peace.
Middle East reform is a critical agenda not only for neocons but also for liberals, Europeans, and Middle Eastern citizens.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Warning Flashes between Japan and America: Comfort Women and Atomic Bomb
Currently, Japan reconsiders postwar pacifism, and steps toward more active role in the world. As stated in twice-published Armitage Report, the United States is willing to accommodate Japan’s aspiration for becoming a “normal country”, being able to use power and join collective security arrangements with other US allies. However, recent recommendation on Korean comfort women at US House and a remark on atomic bomb by Japanese Defense Minister Akio Kyuma have outburst hidden sentiment among Japanese people regarding World War Ⅱ. I am afraid trend like this will have some negative impacts on the US-Japanese strategic partnership.
As Japan is exploring self assertive foreign policy, revisionism rises moderately. Generally speaking, Japanese people accept liberal democracy after the war. Actually, prewar Japanese public explored their own freedom during the Taisho Democracy. However, some Japanese, particularly conservatives feel that Japanese behavior during the war is criticized unfairly. They regard it is time that Japan restored its honor in the world. Disputes on wartime history between Japan and Asian neighbors, notably China and both Korea, illustrates this emotion. Now, similar disputes are coming up between Japan and the United States, the most important alliance in the Asia-Pacific region.
The Comfort Women agenda was submitted to the Foreign Relations Committee at the House by Democratic Congressman Mike Honda. As broadly known, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Japanese conservative argued that the Japanese military did not impose Korean women to provide sex service for their soldiers. In the eyes of American, or more broadly, Western policymakers, it appeared as if Japanese leaders had been defending wartime fascism.
Apparently, Japanese leaders were reckless to provoke negative feelings among the American public. It is necessary to re-emphasize that Japan and Germany are the crown jewel of US-led regime change, and this endeavor is in the process of prevailing in the Middle East. Not only American neoconservatives, but also liberals and Europeans are conducting researches for Middle East democracy. Therefore, Japanese leaders should not give misunderstandings to the global community that they believe in fascist ideology.
On the other hand, I regret that the US House did not give sufficient consideration to the consequence of this vote to the state-to-state relationship. Members of the House of Representatives tend to be much closer to the electorate than the executive branch, and there is no doubt that Asian minority lobbies exerted strong influence on them. But whoever says anything, Japan and the United States are not supposed to bicker on World War Ⅱ. The strategic partnership between both countries should focus on post Cold War security, and this is the policy priority.
Japanese public response to Defense Minister Kyuma’s comment on atomic bomb attack to Hiroshima and Nagasaki has illustrated hidden sentiments to the United States. When Kyuma said that the United States could not help dropping the bomb, in order to finish the war quickly and stop Soviet expansion in the Far East, Japanese media and bloggers were outraged. His remark sounded like he thought light of atomic bomb victims, they said. As history disputes with Asians are becoming serious, Japanese grassroots, from conservatives to centrists, are beginning to insist that Allied Forces’ behavior must be questioned severely as much as that of Japanese Forces’.
Certainly, Kyuma was too careless to provoke anti-nuclear public opinion. However, there is no reason for Japanese media and citizens to demand him to resign simply because he made a mistake. In 1950s or 1960s, he could have stayed in the cabinet. During the era of rapid reconstruction, America had been the role model for the Japanese public. It is well-known that quality control system, which contributed to Japan’s postwar economic miracle, was imported from the United States. Japanese learned to become more American than Americans through importing management skills and technologies. But hysteric response to Kyuma’s remark indicates that this sentiment is changing. Interactions between Japan and the United States could turn more delicate than they were in the past.
In my view, two cases are extremely odd. Why does Japan have to quarrel with the United States over World War Ⅱ? The Cold War has gone. We are in the era of new kind of threats. Of course, American lawmakers should focus more on state-to-state strategic interests rather than accommodating requests from Asian minority lobby. However, the most problematic are Japanese revisionists. They do not understand how the history of Japan and the word is evolving. More seriously, their quibble on wartime history undermines Japan’s position in the world. In any case, it is no use to waste much energy for problems in the past. The rise of revisionism in Japan is a serious concern, and I am afraid that this might turn history backward. Americans should not provoke this sentiment by questioning Japan’s wartime policy too much in depth. But more importantly, Japanese rightists must understand that Japan’s pride lies in its status as a role model of regime change. Don’t forget this!
As Japan is exploring self assertive foreign policy, revisionism rises moderately. Generally speaking, Japanese people accept liberal democracy after the war. Actually, prewar Japanese public explored their own freedom during the Taisho Democracy. However, some Japanese, particularly conservatives feel that Japanese behavior during the war is criticized unfairly. They regard it is time that Japan restored its honor in the world. Disputes on wartime history between Japan and Asian neighbors, notably China and both Korea, illustrates this emotion. Now, similar disputes are coming up between Japan and the United States, the most important alliance in the Asia-Pacific region.
The Comfort Women agenda was submitted to the Foreign Relations Committee at the House by Democratic Congressman Mike Honda. As broadly known, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Japanese conservative argued that the Japanese military did not impose Korean women to provide sex service for their soldiers. In the eyes of American, or more broadly, Western policymakers, it appeared as if Japanese leaders had been defending wartime fascism.
Apparently, Japanese leaders were reckless to provoke negative feelings among the American public. It is necessary to re-emphasize that Japan and Germany are the crown jewel of US-led regime change, and this endeavor is in the process of prevailing in the Middle East. Not only American neoconservatives, but also liberals and Europeans are conducting researches for Middle East democracy. Therefore, Japanese leaders should not give misunderstandings to the global community that they believe in fascist ideology.
On the other hand, I regret that the US House did not give sufficient consideration to the consequence of this vote to the state-to-state relationship. Members of the House of Representatives tend to be much closer to the electorate than the executive branch, and there is no doubt that Asian minority lobbies exerted strong influence on them. But whoever says anything, Japan and the United States are not supposed to bicker on World War Ⅱ. The strategic partnership between both countries should focus on post Cold War security, and this is the policy priority.
Japanese public response to Defense Minister Kyuma’s comment on atomic bomb attack to Hiroshima and Nagasaki has illustrated hidden sentiments to the United States. When Kyuma said that the United States could not help dropping the bomb, in order to finish the war quickly and stop Soviet expansion in the Far East, Japanese media and bloggers were outraged. His remark sounded like he thought light of atomic bomb victims, they said. As history disputes with Asians are becoming serious, Japanese grassroots, from conservatives to centrists, are beginning to insist that Allied Forces’ behavior must be questioned severely as much as that of Japanese Forces’.
Certainly, Kyuma was too careless to provoke anti-nuclear public opinion. However, there is no reason for Japanese media and citizens to demand him to resign simply because he made a mistake. In 1950s or 1960s, he could have stayed in the cabinet. During the era of rapid reconstruction, America had been the role model for the Japanese public. It is well-known that quality control system, which contributed to Japan’s postwar economic miracle, was imported from the United States. Japanese learned to become more American than Americans through importing management skills and technologies. But hysteric response to Kyuma’s remark indicates that this sentiment is changing. Interactions between Japan and the United States could turn more delicate than they were in the past.
In my view, two cases are extremely odd. Why does Japan have to quarrel with the United States over World War Ⅱ? The Cold War has gone. We are in the era of new kind of threats. Of course, American lawmakers should focus more on state-to-state strategic interests rather than accommodating requests from Asian minority lobby. However, the most problematic are Japanese revisionists. They do not understand how the history of Japan and the word is evolving. More seriously, their quibble on wartime history undermines Japan’s position in the world. In any case, it is no use to waste much energy for problems in the past. The rise of revisionism in Japan is a serious concern, and I am afraid that this might turn history backward. Americans should not provoke this sentiment by questioning Japan’s wartime policy too much in depth. But more importantly, Japanese rightists must understand that Japan’s pride lies in its status as a role model of regime change. Don’t forget this!
Thursday, July 12, 2007
NHK TV Program "Japan at the Crossroads": Reconsider the Pacifist Constitution
In the forthcoming NHK (Nihon Hoso Kyokai or Japan Broadcasting Corporation; Japanese BBC) TV series of “Japan at the Crossroads” on August 15, a forum on the pacifist constitution will be held. They want participation in to this debate from various backgrounds, and more replies to their questionnaire. This is why I received an e-mail from the director of NHK to ask my opinio0n about the forthcoming program on the pacifist constitution. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe considers changing this constitution, in order to shed the postwar mindset, and regain national dignity of Japanese people. According to the director, NHK project team found this blog through net surfing.
I met the director at NHK Broadcasting Center in Shibuya, Tokyo on Monday this week. Prior to this appointment, I replied to the questionnaire through the net, and I had to write a lot to answer every question. As readers expect, I am pro-change, or more precisely, I think the pacifist clause should be abolished completely.
There are 10 questions in the questionnaire. Among them, we talked a lot about my answer to question 2, regarding historical role of Article 9, and why I evaluate it positively. I commented as the following.
The pacifist clause of Article 9 played a crucial role to screen out fascism and punish wartime militarism. But no punishments are eternal. Just as an ex-criminal who has completed one’s prison term and is spending one’s life as a good citizen, should be accepted to the society, Japan which has established a reputation as one of top industrialized democracies, is eligible to restore the right of national defense.
In question 6, I agree with the use of force when Japanese troops are sent overseas to join multinational operations from the following reason.
International politics is a Hobbesian world dominated by the rule of power. It is not a Kantian world dominated by the rule of reason and law. Constitution defines human rights and governmental structure, but not national security policy. It is no use to bind necessary actions of the state with constitution which does not go with the reality of international politics. No one can accept one’s country destroyed simply because leaders abide by the constitution blindly.
Japan has done well to rebuild the nation through regime change, and I insisted that Japan get involved actively with global regime change in the next phase. In my view, abolition of Article 9 is a certificate to assure Japan’s position as a member of chief executive of the Western industrialized democracies.
Also, I mentioned Japan’s national foundation through “Dastu A Nyu Oh” (get out of Asian backwardness and join civilized Western nation club) and modernization since the Opium War. Particularly, I am disappointed with Japanese conservatives who do not take pride in the evolution from coercive enlightenment in the Meiji era to the Taisho Democracy driven by grassroots initiatives.
We talked about broad range of global and national security issues, including US-Japanese relations, Chinese and North Korean threats, “blind followership” to the United States, commitment to global democracy, and so forth. Some of them are not necessarily related to Japanese constitution, but very important to think of Japanese and world security.
We talked over 2 hours, and it was a very good time to discuss wide ranges of issues in detail. I do not even remember some parts of the discussion, and the director asked tough questions occasionally. He says that NHK wants to talk with as many people as possible regarding the pacifist clause. They look for some citizens who can participate in the live forum when they broadcast the program.
I shall appreciate your reply to NHK questionnaire from this link. Let’s watch the program, and think of the future of Japanese security.
I met the director at NHK Broadcasting Center in Shibuya, Tokyo on Monday this week. Prior to this appointment, I replied to the questionnaire through the net, and I had to write a lot to answer every question. As readers expect, I am pro-change, or more precisely, I think the pacifist clause should be abolished completely.
There are 10 questions in the questionnaire. Among them, we talked a lot about my answer to question 2, regarding historical role of Article 9, and why I evaluate it positively. I commented as the following.
The pacifist clause of Article 9 played a crucial role to screen out fascism and punish wartime militarism. But no punishments are eternal. Just as an ex-criminal who has completed one’s prison term and is spending one’s life as a good citizen, should be accepted to the society, Japan which has established a reputation as one of top industrialized democracies, is eligible to restore the right of national defense.
In question 6, I agree with the use of force when Japanese troops are sent overseas to join multinational operations from the following reason.
International politics is a Hobbesian world dominated by the rule of power. It is not a Kantian world dominated by the rule of reason and law. Constitution defines human rights and governmental structure, but not national security policy. It is no use to bind necessary actions of the state with constitution which does not go with the reality of international politics. No one can accept one’s country destroyed simply because leaders abide by the constitution blindly.
Japan has done well to rebuild the nation through regime change, and I insisted that Japan get involved actively with global regime change in the next phase. In my view, abolition of Article 9 is a certificate to assure Japan’s position as a member of chief executive of the Western industrialized democracies.
Also, I mentioned Japan’s national foundation through “Dastu A Nyu Oh” (get out of Asian backwardness and join civilized Western nation club) and modernization since the Opium War. Particularly, I am disappointed with Japanese conservatives who do not take pride in the evolution from coercive enlightenment in the Meiji era to the Taisho Democracy driven by grassroots initiatives.
We talked about broad range of global and national security issues, including US-Japanese relations, Chinese and North Korean threats, “blind followership” to the United States, commitment to global democracy, and so forth. Some of them are not necessarily related to Japanese constitution, but very important to think of Japanese and world security.
We talked over 2 hours, and it was a very good time to discuss wide ranges of issues in detail. I do not even remember some parts of the discussion, and the director asked tough questions occasionally. He says that NHK wants to talk with as many people as possible regarding the pacifist clause. They look for some citizens who can participate in the live forum when they broadcast the program.
I shall appreciate your reply to NHK questionnaire from this link. Let’s watch the program, and think of the future of Japanese security.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
A Review of the Economist’s Assessment on American Hegemony
It is the Independence Day today. I would like to talk about the Economist’s review on challenges to American leadership in the world and the consequence of the Iraq War to US foreign policy. I mention two articles in June 28 issue. Despite bitter fights with insurgents in Iraq, American primacy has not been eroded. Among rivals, China will pose the most critical challenge to American supremacy.
In the article of “Still No.1”, the Economist mentions so many disturbances to America’s predominance in the world. Currently, the United States is at war with Islamic radicals in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world. China emerges as a potential rival to American preeminence. Russia is returning toward authoritarian nationalism. North Korea and Iran are defiant to non-proliferation demands.
Also, relations between the United States its allies are turbulent. Kantian Europe and Hobbesian America are often at odds with the way to deal with global threats like terrorists and rogue regimes. Arab allies are reluctant to accept US initiatives for democracy in the Middle East. In addition, I have to mention Japan, which craves for becoming a normal country, is willing to act on its own. Defense Minister Akio Kyuma’s remark to accept US Atomic bomb attack to Hiroshima and Nagasaki has infuriated the Japanese public.
Despite these difficulties, American hard and soft power is not eroding. Hardships in Iraq come from wrong strategies designed by Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as often pointed out. He sent too few troops for the regime change in Iraq. Moreover, he disbanded the Iraqi Army. The Economist is critical to the Bush administration regarding these points, and comments that future American administrations will not repeat the same mistake when they pursue regime change.
On the other hand the Economist refutes Democrats’ viewpoint that President George W. Bush has undermined American supremacy. Iran and North Korea have been antagonistic to the United States for decades. People around the world complain that the spread of American pop culture endangers their identity and traditions. Ironically, due to America’s overwhelming hard power, both its allies and citizens think light of threat they face. Only the United States can prevent Iran and North Korea from committing to adventurism behavior. From Palestine Peace Talks to global warming, the world needs America. As to soft power, the Economist criticizes mistreatment of prisoners at Guantánamo and restriction of immigrants, because they have damaged American ideal of freedom and openness.
Overall, the Economist evaluates America “a stock to buy”, because the Bush administration shifts toward multilateralism. The United States succeeded in bouncing back from Vietnam damages. However buoyant Chinese economy may be, its politics are fragile.
In the other article, “The Hobbled Hegemon”, the Economist assesses American power further in detail by using four charts. Six year war on terror poses more strains to the army and marines, because of longer deployments overseas while shorter dwelling time at home. Andrew Krepinevich, President of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, warns that American forces are like dead “canaries in the mineshaft.” The outgoing military chief, General Peter Pace worries that American response to a series of conflicts, from Korea, Taiwan, Cuba, to Iran, would be slower and bloodier. They are concerned that US forces are too small for sweeping operations. The United States has the most sophisticated high-tech military power, and as shown in Chart 1 and 2, its military budget is by far the largest.
Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Zbignew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor under the Carter administration, warn of American decline. However, strategists wonder whether the Iraq War has damaged American supremacy so much as they say.
Rumsfeld’s idea of speedy, stealthy, and accurate army was inappropriate in Iraq. In his article to Armed Forces Journal, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling denounces this strategy, and compares hardships in Iraq and Vietnam. Currently, the US military is adapting itself to guerrilla warfare in Iraq. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announces the decision to expand ground forces. The air force and navy can deter rogue regimes, but not enough to stop their nuclear programs and overthrowing those governments.
Among America’s rivals, the Economist focuses extensively on China, because Russia and India are not serious challengers. Russia is becoming increasingly authoritarian nationalist, and initiating energy diplomacy. However, Andrew Krepinevich points out Russian oil and gas production is declining. Despite huge possession of nuclear weapons, its conventional forces are ill-equipped to project power globally. India is more willing to become a strategic partner to the United States rather than a challenger. On the other hand, China causes some critical concerns.
At present, China explores regional dominance. However, its defense spending increases rapidly as the economy grows. Quoting GDP forecast by Goldman Sachs in Chart 3, the Economist warns that China could overtake the United States by 2027. Apparently, China is ambitious of rivaling US military supremacy. It develops long range anti-ship missiles against US aircraft carriers, anti-satellite missiles, and so forth. Moreover, I would like to mention that the Chinese government conducts international press conferences in Chinese, instead of English.
Regarding soft power, the Economist comments that the United States could boast success in prevailing its open culture and liberal democracy for two years after toppling Saddam Hussein. American influence spread widely throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. The Orange Revolution in Ukraine was spectacular. However, instability in Iraq undermines American credibility. Multilateralism as shown in negotiations with North Korea and Iran can be one of the ways to manage this difficulty. But more importantly, I quote a comment by one senior marine, “Will America stay strong? Yes. But can it use its power? That's a different question.”
In my view, whether the United States can renew its leadership depends on its relations with allies. The media do not to mention misery that anti Iraq War leaders in Europe, such as Jacques Chirac, Dominique de Villepain, and Gerhard Schröder, failed to exert influence but simply damaged their relationship with America. The transatlantic rift is repairing. Just as it happened in the Iraq War, missile defense highlighted disagreements between the US-UK-New Europe Group and the Franco-German-Old Europe Group. But both groups reached an agreement to deploy anti-nuclear missile systems at NATO defense ministers meeting last time.
Transpacific relations seem more worrisome, and I feel it pity that the Economist does not mention Pacific allies, notably Japan and Australia. Currently, Japan is re-asserting its national identity, and more equal relationship with the United States. Recent outburst against Defense Minister Kyuma’s remark on atomic bomb illustrates deep-rooted sentiments among Japanese people: Americans should repent their wartime deeds as much as Japanese do. Right or wrong, I worry that failure to deal with this emotion might damage US-Japanese relations in the future.
In conclusion, I agree to the comment by Robert Kagan, Senior Associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: “A superpower can lose a war—in Vietnam or in Iraq—without ceasing to be a superpower, so long as the American public continues to support American predominance, and so long as potential challengers inspire more fear than sympathy among their neighbors.” As shown in Chart 4, US defense spending is just 4% of its GDP. This is because Niall Ferguson, Professor of Harvard University, says the United States does not suffer from imperial overstretch.
In the article of “Still No.1”, the Economist mentions so many disturbances to America’s predominance in the world. Currently, the United States is at war with Islamic radicals in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world. China emerges as a potential rival to American preeminence. Russia is returning toward authoritarian nationalism. North Korea and Iran are defiant to non-proliferation demands.
Also, relations between the United States its allies are turbulent. Kantian Europe and Hobbesian America are often at odds with the way to deal with global threats like terrorists and rogue regimes. Arab allies are reluctant to accept US initiatives for democracy in the Middle East. In addition, I have to mention Japan, which craves for becoming a normal country, is willing to act on its own. Defense Minister Akio Kyuma’s remark to accept US Atomic bomb attack to Hiroshima and Nagasaki has infuriated the Japanese public.
Despite these difficulties, American hard and soft power is not eroding. Hardships in Iraq come from wrong strategies designed by Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as often pointed out. He sent too few troops for the regime change in Iraq. Moreover, he disbanded the Iraqi Army. The Economist is critical to the Bush administration regarding these points, and comments that future American administrations will not repeat the same mistake when they pursue regime change.
On the other hand the Economist refutes Democrats’ viewpoint that President George W. Bush has undermined American supremacy. Iran and North Korea have been antagonistic to the United States for decades. People around the world complain that the spread of American pop culture endangers their identity and traditions. Ironically, due to America’s overwhelming hard power, both its allies and citizens think light of threat they face. Only the United States can prevent Iran and North Korea from committing to adventurism behavior. From Palestine Peace Talks to global warming, the world needs America. As to soft power, the Economist criticizes mistreatment of prisoners at Guantánamo and restriction of immigrants, because they have damaged American ideal of freedom and openness.
Overall, the Economist evaluates America “a stock to buy”, because the Bush administration shifts toward multilateralism. The United States succeeded in bouncing back from Vietnam damages. However buoyant Chinese economy may be, its politics are fragile.
In the other article, “The Hobbled Hegemon”, the Economist assesses American power further in detail by using four charts. Six year war on terror poses more strains to the army and marines, because of longer deployments overseas while shorter dwelling time at home. Andrew Krepinevich, President of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, warns that American forces are like dead “canaries in the mineshaft.” The outgoing military chief, General Peter Pace worries that American response to a series of conflicts, from Korea, Taiwan, Cuba, to Iran, would be slower and bloodier. They are concerned that US forces are too small for sweeping operations. The United States has the most sophisticated high-tech military power, and as shown in Chart 1 and 2, its military budget is by far the largest.
Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Zbignew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor under the Carter administration, warn of American decline. However, strategists wonder whether the Iraq War has damaged American supremacy so much as they say.
Rumsfeld’s idea of speedy, stealthy, and accurate army was inappropriate in Iraq. In his article to Armed Forces Journal, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling denounces this strategy, and compares hardships in Iraq and Vietnam. Currently, the US military is adapting itself to guerrilla warfare in Iraq. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announces the decision to expand ground forces. The air force and navy can deter rogue regimes, but not enough to stop their nuclear programs and overthrowing those governments.
Among America’s rivals, the Economist focuses extensively on China, because Russia and India are not serious challengers. Russia is becoming increasingly authoritarian nationalist, and initiating energy diplomacy. However, Andrew Krepinevich points out Russian oil and gas production is declining. Despite huge possession of nuclear weapons, its conventional forces are ill-equipped to project power globally. India is more willing to become a strategic partner to the United States rather than a challenger. On the other hand, China causes some critical concerns.
At present, China explores regional dominance. However, its defense spending increases rapidly as the economy grows. Quoting GDP forecast by Goldman Sachs in Chart 3, the Economist warns that China could overtake the United States by 2027. Apparently, China is ambitious of rivaling US military supremacy. It develops long range anti-ship missiles against US aircraft carriers, anti-satellite missiles, and so forth. Moreover, I would like to mention that the Chinese government conducts international press conferences in Chinese, instead of English.
Regarding soft power, the Economist comments that the United States could boast success in prevailing its open culture and liberal democracy for two years after toppling Saddam Hussein. American influence spread widely throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. The Orange Revolution in Ukraine was spectacular. However, instability in Iraq undermines American credibility. Multilateralism as shown in negotiations with North Korea and Iran can be one of the ways to manage this difficulty. But more importantly, I quote a comment by one senior marine, “Will America stay strong? Yes. But can it use its power? That's a different question.”
In my view, whether the United States can renew its leadership depends on its relations with allies. The media do not to mention misery that anti Iraq War leaders in Europe, such as Jacques Chirac, Dominique de Villepain, and Gerhard Schröder, failed to exert influence but simply damaged their relationship with America. The transatlantic rift is repairing. Just as it happened in the Iraq War, missile defense highlighted disagreements between the US-UK-New Europe Group and the Franco-German-Old Europe Group. But both groups reached an agreement to deploy anti-nuclear missile systems at NATO defense ministers meeting last time.
Transpacific relations seem more worrisome, and I feel it pity that the Economist does not mention Pacific allies, notably Japan and Australia. Currently, Japan is re-asserting its national identity, and more equal relationship with the United States. Recent outburst against Defense Minister Kyuma’s remark on atomic bomb illustrates deep-rooted sentiments among Japanese people: Americans should repent their wartime deeds as much as Japanese do. Right or wrong, I worry that failure to deal with this emotion might damage US-Japanese relations in the future.
In conclusion, I agree to the comment by Robert Kagan, Senior Associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: “A superpower can lose a war—in Vietnam or in Iraq—without ceasing to be a superpower, so long as the American public continues to support American predominance, and so long as potential challengers inspire more fear than sympathy among their neighbors.” As shown in Chart 4, US defense spending is just 4% of its GDP. This is because Niall Ferguson, Professor of Harvard University, says the United States does not suffer from imperial overstretch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)