Global American Discourse

Obama’s New Strategy Shall not Help Asia, but Lowers America’s Global Commitment

2012-01-21T01:04:00.017+09:00

The Obama administration has announced that the United States will shift its defense focus to the Asia Pacific region from the Middle East, while cutting the scale of armed forces. This is utterly ridiculous. Certainly, the threat of China is growing rapidly. However, its expansionism advances not only eastward but westward as well. China can fill the vacuum of power in the Middle East through Iran and Pakistan, after US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. We must remember that none of Asian economies assume continual high growth without stability in the Middle East. They import oil from there. Also, Chinese influence prevails in Central Asia through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Therefore, it is utterly naïve for Asia Pacific people to praise Obama’s pivot to Asia. Moreover, as I argued in a previous post, defense spending cut poses severe constraints to the F-35 joint strike fighter project. The Obama administration’s mess with F-35 can inflict negative impacts on the allies. From these perspectives, I would like to comment global security strategy of the Obama administration critically.

For an over view of this issue, let me mention a forum entitled "Maintaining America's Global Responsibilities in an Age of Austerity" moderated by Robert Kagan at the Foreign Policy Initiative last December. Among leading guest speakers, Senator John McCain talked about key problems of US defense and budget. In the above video, Senator McCain articulates that political leaders must convince American voters to pay for state of the art arsenals like air craft carriers and stealth fighters. On the other hand, McCain points out that lack of competition in defense industry make research and development price costly. Also, he mentioned that military personnel costs be cut to reduce waste spending and keep US forces well armed. Regarding Chinese expansionism in the South China Sea, which is the focal issue of East Asian security, McCain denounces it a violation of free navigation. As to the Middle East, the Arab Spring can prevail anywhere in the world, including China, Russia, other repressive regimes, and even the United States itself as witnessed in the Occupiers. McCain asserts that the United States must endorse those political transitions. While the United States faces security challenges around the world, McCain is concerned with the rise of isolationism in the presidential election because voters are preoccupied with domestic economy. Senator McCain makes it clear that it is presidential leadership that can promote understandings of US foreign policy requirements and necessity of global commitment among voters. The problem today is European allies are less involved in global security, and even Britain is cutting defense as shown in the Strategic and Defence and Security Review in 2010. On the other hand, rising and increasingly nationalist states in the rest of the world claim great power rivalries against the West. Finally McCain urges presidential candidates to discuss more on foreign policy, since no other nations can play the role of providing global public goods as America does.

The United States needs to strengthen its presence in Asia, while facing new political challenges in the Middle East. Kurt Campbell, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, told Asia strategy in such global environment in the above video. The problem is whether the United States can sustain military presence in this region, in view of drastic defense cuts. Campbell says that US defense focus needs to shift from current ground operation against terrorists to naval and air force rivalries in the Asia Pacific region. For Asia Pacific nations, strong relations with the United States will be helpful to cope with China whether they confront Chinese threat or pursue good economic ties with Beijing. While stressing interdependence between the United Sates and China, Campbell also mentions that human rights and political liberalization are critical issues of bilateral clash as geopolitical rivalry in the South China Sea is.

Having watched both videos to understand an overview, let me talk about defense budget at first. The Budget Control Act last August and the failure of super committee agreement last November pose critical restraints to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. The United States faces various global challenges including China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Islamic terrorists, and so forth. Also, drastic spending cut will curtail advanced weapons programs like stealth fighters. On the Republican side, Mitt Romney raises critical concerns with Obama’s proposed reduction in military personnel and arsenals (“Defense Secretary Panetta faces tough choices on national security in 2012”; Washington Post; January 3, 2012). In view of such defense debates, President Barack Obama announced new defense strategy at the beginning of this year. The rise of China is its primary focus, as Panetta said the United States was a traditional Pacific power. However, Iran is the most immediate threat currently, in face of nuclear proliferation and tensions around the Strait of Hormuz. Experts talk of nuclear arms reduction in order to streamline the defense and avoid further cut in conventional forces (“Obama unveiling strategy for slimmed-down military”; Boston Globe; January 5, 2012). On the Hill, Obama’s new defense strategy exacerbates partisan split on national security since the Iraq War. A key issue like defense and the budget needs a national consensus. Republicans must demand the White House to modify the strategy at the congress to defend the interest of the Unites States and the allies around the globe (“Obama military strategy: Is it bipartisan enough?”; Christian Science Monitor; January 5, 2012).

The problem is whether the United States can pick and choose its defense focus. Remember that America faces multiple threats around the globe. Among key regions, the most problematic one in the new Obama strategy is the Middle East. The War on Terror has not completed, and Arab nations need more American involvement. To begin with, I would like to mention a comment by Jamie Fly, Executive Director at the Foreign Policy Initiative. President Obama ruined his achievement to kill Osama bin Laden last May, as he announced withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan before successfully nullifying extremists that threaten stability in both countries. Obama is too reckless to retreat from the Middle East when Arab nations are in the midst of political transition and American presence is required in the region (“Did the leader of the free world actually lead?”; Shadow Government; December 30, 2011). Is 2011 a missed opportunity for American leadership in the Middle East? Though security challenges in East Asia cannot be underscored in view of China and North Korea, Buck McKeon, Republican Member of the House of Representatives, comments “It’s baffling that, in this fiscal environment, the President would be talking about a pivot to Asia before our work is done in the Middle East.” Congressman McKeon also points out that there is no guarantee that a smaller armed force can act more flexible and agile to cope with various global crisis from Libya to Japan (“America’s new defense strategy: a Q&A with House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon”; AEI Interview; January 5, 2012). In addition, Russia is building up nuclear capabilities. At the end of the last year, President Dmitry Medvedev announced to deploy long awaited Bulava SLBM (“Bulava missile ready to deploy”; RIA Novosti; December 27, 2011). Furthermore, Russia plans 11 ICBM test this year (“Russia Schedules 11 ICBM Tests for 2012”; Global Security Newswire; January 5, 2012). The New START has not reset US-Russian relations. Now, Russia articulates its position to challenge US hegemony while the Obama administration cuts the size of US forces.

The most critical decision Obama has made is withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Senator John McCain comments that the United States retreated from Iraq unilaterally. McCain criticizes that the Obama administration has rejected to reassure security and political stability in Iraq that US troop presence could have done. He also points out that US withdrawal will provoke further turmoil in Afghanistan. Afghan leaders may be tempted to appease anti-American neighbors and terrorists, if US security umbrella is not guaranteed. Ultimately, this will embolden US enemies in the region (“John McCain on Iraq: Losing the peace”; AEI Interview; December 22, 2011). As to US role in the Middle East, we should not dismiss Iran. In view of the tension over the Strait of Hormuz, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper urged the global community, even including Russia and China, to act resolutely against Iran because it was the greatest threat to the world (“Iran is the ‘world’s most serious threat to international peace’: Stephen Harper”; National Post; January 5, 2012). It is far from sufficient to manage Iranian threat simply through providing bunker buster bombs to the United Arab Emirates. China can fill the vacuum of power after US pull out. More importantly, the economy of Asian allies depends on oil import from the Middle East. Therefore, the pivot to Asia does not guarantee peace and prosperity in the Asia Pacific region.

Let me mention global reaction to the new Obama strategy. While Obama’s troop cut in the Middle East and Europe raises concerns in those regions, Australia welcomes the pivot to Asia. The idea of cost efficient, small, agile, and flexible armed forces is nothing new. As launched by Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, structural reform of US military has been a key policy agenda in the post Cold War era. The problem is, the Obama administration’s down sizing is too rapid (“World reacts to Obama's new military focus on Asia”; Christian Science Monitor; January 6, 2012). As Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates articulated in his farewell speech, the size of armed forces must be maintained for global operational requirements. Obama’s shift to Asia intensifies alert among Chinese experts, and the South China Sea has become the primary focus of Sino-American geopolitical rivalry (“China stays cool as new US defense strategy targets Asia”; Christian Science Monitor; January 6, 2012).

It is nothing wrong to keep more alert against Chinese expansionism. But　the Obama administration should keep in mind that it is overall strength of US military power that can deter Chinese ambition rather than relative focus on Asia. Certainly, the allies must build up their own defense power as Obama says. However, current mess with the F-35 fighter project reveals that the Obama administration’s defense policy is utterly incoherent. How can allies make their own effort to arm up by themselves, if new stealth fighters are unavailable? More importantly, it seems that President Obama does not understand the fundamental structure of current world politics and the role of the United States. Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, points out that policymakers are preoccupied with new trends such as globalization, the rise of Asia, the decline of the West, the end of ideological rivalries, and so forth. However, he says that most of the key global agendas present days are so familiar for many years. The clash between democracy and autocracy will be intensified, and democracy promotion in the Middle East, North Korea, and Myanmar will be a vital issue this year. Long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may have led to “demilitarizing” psychology of US foreign policy, but Kagan argues that soft power can work under secure protection of hard power. In the war in Libya, allied forces provided security for civilians. He also comments that none of BRICS plus Turkey can provide global public goods, which America and Europe do (“New Year, old problems”; Washington Post; January 6, 2011). Kagan mentions good points. In current financial crisis in Europe, none of rising economies suggest resolutions but simply worry the loss of their export market. The Obama strategy announced at the beginning of this year is too reactive to supposed changes in global politics, which makes it utterly incoherent as shown in the case of F-35. As Senator McCain comments, waste spending must be reviewed critically, before cutting necessary defense arsenals. Obama’s “pivot to Asia” does not bolster American presence in Asia, but simply lowers US influence in global security. Can Republicans on the Hill modify this strategy? How will Obama’s opponents argue the new defense strategy for the presidential election?

Happy New Year!

2012-01-01T18:43:00.001+09:00

T-rex, the Dragon of the Real World

New Year has come. New Global Initiatives with America and Global America Discourse have made noteworthy achievements last year. Through expanding contacts with civic political activists, the organization and the blog have become more widely known.

I hope this is the year for further development of our global interventionist advocacy, like a roar of Tyrannosaurus rex. It is the year of dragon. Happy New Year, every one.

Obama’s Terrible Mess with F-35 and Its Negative Impacts on Allies

2011-12-31T23:27:00.005+09:00

The development of the Joint Strike Fighter F-35 has been delayed substantially due to skyrocketing research spending and contracting defense budget. Also, since this is a multinational project, it must meet diversified demands of international partners. Will F-35 be deployed at the right time? Walter Pincus, Reporter of the Washington Post, discusses some difficulties to advance the F-35 project (“F-35 production a troubling example of Pentagon spending”; Washington Post, December 27, 2011). Let me review his recent article.

At this stage, only 20% of the test of this multi role fighter has been completed. The most advanced stealth technologies are used for this plane, but it is the development of software to control the fighter that poses the most burdensome challenge to the project team. That makes the research cost considerably higher than initially expected. As a result, Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates lowered production of F-35 fighters. On December 15, Senator John McCain criticized the Department of Defense because it promoted the F-35 project to build cost-effective fifth-generation fighter without understanding technological difficulties. McCain calls such a poorly coordinated plan “a recipe for disaster”.

Along with unexpected rise of development cost, defense spending cut impose another constraint on the Joint Strike Fighter project. Initially, 3,000 F-35 fighters were planned to replace fighter bombers of three services of US armed forces and military forces of the allies. Instead of satisfying such diversified necessities of each service and country, Michael O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, recommends to cut the total number of the Joint Strike Fighter and focus on the Air Force version of F-35A, while canceling the Marine Corps' V/STOL version of F-35B and the Navy version of F-35C. So does the Simpson-Bowels deficit reduction commission. O’Hanlon suggests that US forces order unmanned aircraft to replace cancelled or reduced F-35 fighters.

The problem is, whether the United States can sustain superiority in air power, in view of rapid military build up of China, and still formidable air force of Russia. Both of them are currently developing stealth fighters, and they will export those fighters to anti-Western autocracies. Walter Pincus is too optimistic to dismiss these threats simply because the Soviet Union had collapsed long before. In addition, as it is a multinational project, suggested cancels will coerce allies to change their defense plans. Italy and Spain will lose their carrier planes to replace current Harriers, if the V/STOL version is cancelled. Britain, the second largest partner in this project, will have to redesign its CVF (future aircraft carrier) plan, if F-35C is not available. Though Japan has decided to choose F-35 for its next generation fighter, it is still necessary to watch Britain’s Queen Elizabeth class carrier plan, because unbearable delay may lead British policymakers to reconsider current idea. Present mess with F-35 can jeopardize national defense of America’s top allies in the Atlantic and the Pacific.

Certainly, Pentagon made an immature plan, which pushes the price of new stealth fighter unexpectedly upward. But I would question whether the Obama administration is firmly committed to the defense of the United States and the allies. It is not the shift to Asia that serves US interests but maintaining sufficient strength to defend the world order. It is right to pay more attention to China, but its expansionism is not just in East Asia but advances westward as well. China craves for more influences in Central Asia and the Middle East. The shift to Asia simply creates a huge power vacuum in the region where Iran acts belligerently and Arab nations face unprecedented political transitions. America needs to be well equipped to manage diversified challenges. It is an issue of America’s mainstay fighter, and Republican presidential candidates must talk more about this vital policy agenda to challenge President Barack Obama in the forthcoming election.

An Invitation from a Uighur Activist

2011-12-22T14:14:00.004+09:00

I was invited to the year end party on December 17, hosted by a Uighur independence activist, Tur Muhhamet. Mr. Muhammet lives in exile in Japan because of repression by the Chinese Communist Party to ethnic minorities in Xingjian, i.e., East Turkistan. He received a PhD degree in agricultural engineering from Kyushu University, which is one of best colleges in Japan. Currently, he heads the Central Asia Research Institute, and contributes articles to some Japanese journals such as “Ethnic Minorities in China” (中国民族問題研究), and also to the Proud Japan Network. Mr. Muhammet frequently joins a rally with Japanese conservatives who are keenly aware of growing threat of China.

I have come to know Mr. Muhammet through Twitter and Facebook. Particularly, since I published a post about the lecture of Chinese ambassador Cheng Yonghua on my blog, he and I become closer friends each other. I mentioned his Uighur liberation activity in that blog post, and contributed this article to an online policy journal “Hyakka Saiho” of the Japan Forum on International Relations, and the Proud Japan Network. I hope those will be of some help to raise awareness on Chinese repression in East Turkistan among my fellow Japanese people.

The party itself was nothing political. It was held at a Turkish restaurant Pamukkale Shinjuku. We just enjoyed Turkish food, belly dance show, and conversations. The food and the show were marvelous, and I would recommend this restaurant for some kind of event.

Attendants were Uighur, Japanese, and Turkish. Someone took me for a Uighur at first. I was marveled to see Uighur and Turkish talk effortlessly each other, though their mother tongues not identical, strictly speaking. As I repeatedly argue, the threat of China goes beyond the Asia-Pacific, and its westward expansionism needs more attention. I really realize that security of eastern and western Eurasia is deeply interconnected.

North Korea after Kim Jong-il

2011-12-20T22:58:00.001+09:00

North Korea’s supreme leader Kim Jong-il died suddenly on December 17, and his son Kim Jong-un is expected to succeed the position. Most of the experts around the globe foresee that Jong-un is too young and inexperienced to govern the country, and it takes a while to found his power base.

However, Richard Bush, Director of the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, comments “We cannot rule out the chance, small as it may be, that the regency will assess the failures of the Kim Jong-il reign and undertake true reform” (“Kim Jong-un’s Shaky Hold on Power in North Korea”; Daily Beast; December 19, 2011). Michael Mazza, Senior Research Associate at the American Enterprise Institute, argues furthermore that the Obama administration seize this opportunity to make a big progress in denuclearization talk with North Korea (“President Obama’s ‘wait-and-see approach’ to North Korea?”; Enterprise Blog; December 19, 2011).

Currently, it is urgent to freeze uranium enrichment program of Pyongyang. North Korea has plutonium to make four to eight nuclear bombs. The second step for North Korean nuclear project must be stopped in the nuclear negotiation this week (“Exploiting Kim's death”; Chicago Tribune; December 20, 2011).

America should not “lead from behind”, and close ties with Japan and South Korea will be increasingly necessary to manage unpredictable changes in North Korea. In addition, we should not assume that China can use decisive influence on Pyongyang as political process in this country is so opaque and isolated from the global community.

Manage Global Proliferation of Access Denial Missiles!

2011-12-16T00:41:00.007+09:00

Rapid expansion of Chinese naval power and access denial capability draws much attention among Western policymakers these days. Though seemingly defensive, access denial capability is more offensive than commonly thought. It is a nonverbal Monroe Doctrine to deploy missiles to destroy Western fleets. While experts speculate China, a recent article in the Diplomat Magazine notes that an increasing number of authoritarian regimes are building up access denial capabilities to defy Western naval supremacy in their neighboring sea area, and establish dominance in their self-assumed maritime sphere of influence. Therefore, Western policymakers must explore the strategy to stop proliferation of anti-ship cruise missile and nullify their access denial capabilities (“Anti-Access Goes Global”; Diplomat Magazine; December 2, 2011).

Regarding China’s access denial capability, Associate Professor Andrew Erickson at US Naval War College commented “[those missiles] put U.S. forces on the wrong side of physics” in his lecture entitled "Chinese Aerospace Power: Evolving Maritime Roles" at Naval War College Museum on September 8, 2011. See the video below.

Along with China, some autocracies, including Iran, Syria, and North Korea, are keen on deploying access denial missiles. Among them, North Korea poses little threats as their missiles are converted from old Soviet weaponry. More serious threats are Syria and Iran. Both countries import access denial missiles from Russia and China. Although Iran has been posing critical dangers to the global community by pursuing nuclear project and sponsoring terrorism, China exports advanced anti-ship cruise missiles to Iran, and even built a factory to make such missiles there (“Inside the Ring --- China-Iran Missile Sales”; Washington Times; November 2, 2011). This summer, Iran tested Tonder land to sea missile near the strategic Strait of Holmuz. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard claims that this missile flies in Mach 3 speed and its maximum range is 186 miles (“Iran Fires Anti-Ship Missiles near Key Gulf Strait”; Defense News; 6 July, 2011). It is likely that Iran used advanced technology from China to make this missile. Therefore, I argue repeatedly that the threat of China is beyond the Asia Pacific. Furthermore, Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted that non-state actors like Hezbollah possesses　more advanced anti-ship missiles than some sovereign states in his farewell speech at the American Enterprise Institute on May 24.

As to missile technology, Harry Kazianis, Assistant Editor of the Diplomat Magazine, comments “While such technology isn’t new, the effective ranges of such weapons have increased tremendously, along with their accuracy, speed of delivery and availability. Defending against such systems is therefore a major headache for military planners.” It is estimated that China currently has anti-ship missiles with a range of 1,500 to 2,700 kilometers, which exceeds the combat radius of Western fighters on aircraft carriers. Technically speaking, Western navies may be able to learn real combat lessons from the Falkland War. The Royal Navy fought against Argentina within the striking rage of French-made Exocet anti-ship missiles. The problem not only war capability but also psychology. As naval vessels are more high tech-equipped, the cost of losing them in the combat has grown greater, which makes Western navies more cautious. Therefore, the threat of nonverbal Monroe Doctrine by autocracies is considerable.

Talking of the Monroe Doctrine Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, argues repeatedly in his book “Dangerous Nation” that it is offensive than defensive　as it legitimizes American expansion in the Western Hemisphere. Professor Terumasa Nakanishi of Kyoto University comments more harshly in his book “The History of the Decline and Fall of the British Empire”. Until the end of the 19th century, British elites found the doctrine too Yankeeism and unacceptably bizarre, according to Nakanishi. Only when the rise of Germany posed critical challenges to British hegemony, did Marques of Salisbury accept it. Remember, Lord Salisbury is the prime minister who founded well known Anglo-Japanese alliance to manage the change in global power balance in the post Victorian era. History suggests how costly it is to leave authoritarian regimes to claim nonverbal Monroe Doctrine as they like. Therefore, it is urgent for us to explore strategies to nullify their access denial capability, so that we can defend our sea lanes around the globe. Tomahawk attack to anti-ship missile sites from nuclear powered submarine can be one of those strategies. We should not allow China and other autocracies to “occupy the sea”.

Action Alert from Act for Israel: Protest Anti-Semitism

2011-12-10T14:17:00.000+09:00

An American Jewish civilian group, named Act for Israel, sent an e-mail alert on December 7 to call an attention to a questionable remark by US Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman. Ambassador Gutman stated that Muslim antisemetism exists as a result of Israeli self-defense campaigns, and insisted that “old” European anti-Semitism doesn't exist any more.

In protest to this derogatory and racist comment, please copy and paste the message below on this webpage, and send it to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Dear Secretary Clinton,

I am writing to you today to express my dismay at Ambassador Gutman’s recent remarks legitimizing Muslim anti-Semitism and minimizing all other forms of anti-Semitism. It is wholly unbefitting of a representative of the US government to express such ill-conceived and erroneous views in an official setting.

Racism, including anti-Semitism, is never the fault of the person being discriminated against and always an indication of the immorality of those who are discriminating. It is troubling that Amb. Gutman, as an official representative of the US Government and your prestigious and good intentioned State Department, fails to understand this basic truth and uses his position to promote his misguided views.

In order to maintain the prestige of the State Department which you have successfully lead and to maintain American principles of tolerance and goodwill it is essential that you work to ensure that Amb. Gutman’s can no longer make use of the State Department’s good name to espouse hurtful messages. It is not in America’s interests to have an ambassador with such premature notions of racism and demand that you immediately remove Amb. Gutman from his post.

Shall We Consider Preemptive Strike against Iran to Stop the Nuclear Project?

2011-11-30T23:30:00.012+09:00

The nuclear crisis on Iran poses an unanswered question of the Iraq War to us. People criticized President then George W. Bush that the US-UK coalition invaded Iraq without solid proof of its nuclear possession. However, virtually none of the experts discussed much more vital issue, whether preemptive attack is necessary to stop nuclear proliferation. Actually, Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, insisted on striking North Korea to stop its nuclear project when he had an interview with a Japanese political journal SAPIO in 2003. Since then, North Korea conducted a nuclear bomb experiment in October 2006, and succeeded in causing some kind of nuclear explosion. The global community failed to stop proliferation to Pyongyang dictatorship.

Let me narrate the overview of this crisis. Tension has become increasingly intensified since Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced to install new centrifuges to acquire highly enriched uranium (“Iran's Nuclear Experiments Raise Alarm at U.N. Agency”; Wall Street Journal; September 3, 2011). While suspicion of nuclear proliferation was growing, Iran’s first nuclear plant in Bushehr started to provide electricity (“Iran’s First Nuclear Power Plant Goes into Operation”; New York Times; September 4, 2011). As the International Atomic Energy released a new report to warn that Iran’s nuclear program has proceeded almost close to develop nuclear weapons, President Ahmadinejad denounced IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano (“Iran Escalates Anti-U.S. Rhetoric over Nuclear Report”; New York Times; November 9, 2011). In view of growing threat to the Gulf area, the Obama administration proposed to supply bunker busters with the United Arab Emirates to contain Iran’s ambition for regional dominance (“U.S. prepares to send ‘bunker-busting’ bombs to U.A.E. to help contain Iran”; National Post; November 12, 2011). Despite tightening pressure on Iran, Israeli experts are skeptic to efficacy of sanctions by the global community. Ephraim Kam, Deputy Director of the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, doubts whether new IAEA report promotes sufficient pressure, because "Iran wants a bomb, or at least the capacity to make a bomb, and is willing to pay the price." Kam says Israel can manage a unilateral strike on "three or four" Iranian nuclear sites, but he also admits that the United States is reluctant to support another war in the Middle East because the Obama administration is withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan (“Analysis: Israelis doubt world will stop Iran's nuclear quest”; Reuters; November 15, 2011).

Prior to discussing the impact of sanctions and preemptive attack on Iran, let me talk about the IAEA report. According to this, Iran has completed preparations for high explosive tests and procurement of equipment and materials for nuclear-weapons development. Also, Iran has designed a prototype warhead for Shahab-3 ballistic missile. Therefore, Iran has come quite close to produce a nuclear weapon (“IAEA report: death knell of Iran diplomacy?”; IISS Strategic Comments; November 2011).

In view of such an imminent crisis, we have to discuss efficacy of sanctions and preemptive attack. Currently, the United States, Britain, and Canada declared to impose sanctions to stop financial and petrochemical business activities with Iran. However, experts doubt efficacy of sanctions (“Iran Penalties Insufficient to Curb Atomic Effort: Experts”; Global Security Newswire; November 22, 2011). Former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Norman Lamont warns that broad sanctions can make Iranian businesses more dependent on the Revolutionary Guards that runs nationalized energy sectors and key industries in Iran. Moreover, ex-British Ambassador to the UN Jeremy Greenstock notes that sanctions are often used as a political pressure between verbal attack and military action (“Sanctions on Iran a Failed Approach”; IISS Voices; 23 November 2011). In addition, the Obama administration is reluctant to take punitive measures against Iran’s central bank, though it is widely considered the most powerful economic pressure the United States can use. The White House worries that this will skyrocket oil price, and threaten economic recovery in the United States and Europe (“U.S. Imposes New Sanctions on Iran, but Strongest Weapon Remains Unused”; Global Security Newswire; November 22, 2011).

In addition to economic aspects, we have to consider the nature of Shiite theocracy in Iran. Michael Rubin, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, points out that the Islamic Republic pursues to spread the revolution throughout the Islam world. The nuclear project is their jihad to achieve their own revolutionary goal (“Iran’s Nuclear Project”; National Review Online; November 8, 2011). For Iran, nuclear weapon is a source of their power and prestige on the global stage. Alireza Nader, Policy Analyst of RAND Corporation, comments that nuclear prestige is worth the price of sanctions as regime survival is the vital goal for Shiite theocracy (“Analysis - For Iran, the sanctions price may be worth paying”; Reuters; November 29, 2011). In pursuit of bargaining power against the West, Iran even conducted a secret experiment for ICBM early this November (“Iran Conducted ICBM Experiment: Report”; Global Security Newswire; November 21, 2011).

Another very important point that we must not dismiss is the policy stance of Russia and China. Michael Singh, Managing Director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Jacqueline Deal, President of the Long Term Strategy Group, mention perception gaps between the United States and China. The United States may see China as a key partner in isolating Iran, but China sees Iran as a potential partner in countering U.S. power. Moreover, they quote Chinese Major General Zhang Shiping that Iran is potentially a desirable military base for the Chinese navy in the Middle East (“China's Iranian Gambit”; Foreign Policy; October 31, 2011). In view of rapid growth of Chinese sea power, this cannot be dismissed. In addition to geopolitical rivalries with the United States, Mark Hibbs, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, pints out that both Russia and China need security and economic partnership with Iran through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Russia wants to export more conventional weapons and nuclear reactors to Iran for big business deal. In order to defend their interests in Iran, Hibbs says Russia may suggest a roadmap for Iran to limit uranium enrichment to the low level (“Waiting for Russia's Next Move on Iran”; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Q&A; November 22, 2011). The problem is revolutionary nature of the current regime of Iran. Their obsession with national prestige is hard to deal with. While Matthew Levitt、Senior Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, insists that even if sanctions hurt the Iranian economy, it still has generous customers for oil and gas, such as China, Japan, South Korea, some European countries including Italy, Greece, and Spain. Oil price is high enough to sustain the regime. Regardless of damages by sanctions, Karim Sadjapour Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says “The economic welfare of the Iranian people has never been a top priority of the Islamic Republic” (“Iran's Economy Can Take the Pressure—for Now”; Bloomberg Business Week; November 30, 2011). Therefore it is necessary to discuss tougher measures.

Regarding military strike, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta argues that it will pose negative impacts to world economy due to unintended consequences associated with the conflict. Instead, Panetta endorses diplomatic efforts through the six party talks to pressure Iran (“Strike on Iran could hurt world economy, US says”; Reuters; November 17, 2011). Certainly, as Panetta argues, military strike is associated with some risks. Sanctions need to be accompanied by other kinds of pressure, and diplomatic negotiation is one of them. However, Russia and China do not feel the treat of a nuclear Iran so imminent as the West and Israel do. This is why we have to consider preemptive strike against nuclear facilities in Iran. Jamie Fly, Executive Director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, argues that diplomatic efforts and sanctions failed to stop Iran’s nuclear program, and it has become increasingly necessary to take military actions. He also stresses harmful impacts of a nuclear Iran, such as insecurity in the Gulf area and Afghanistan, and possible proliferation to terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. Apparently, some actions are required, now (“Military action increasingly appears to be the only option that will prevent a nuclear Iran”; US News and World Report's Debate Club; November 16, 2011). As to preemptive attack, William Kristol, Director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, commented “It seems to me the United States has an obligation to act and not leave it to Israel to stop this threat,” in Fox News on November 6.

The global community has not answered the vital question of the Iraq War: whether preemptive attack is necessary to stop nuclear proliferation. It is forgotten homework for policymakers. This is far more important than “misinformation” that left wingers love to trumpet. Remember that Israeli air raid to Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 delayed Saddam Hussein’s dangerous project. The United States should not “lead from behind” when preemptive attack is urgently necessary.

A Presentation on History and Current Politics of Islam and the Middle East

2011-11-20T01:10:00.000+09:00

I gave a presentation about the following issue on November 17, hosted by Masaaki Mezaki, an international cultural analyst. We had active discussions at the event on a broad range of topics from history to current politics.

Title: The Future of Islam and the Global Community

1. Introduction
Basic terms on Islam, such as Sunni, Shiite, jihad, and so forth

2. Islam and Secularism: A Review of History
Attention to Islam Japanese Relations as well!: The Impact of the Meiji Restoration on Turkey and Iran

3. Democratization and Modernization in the Islamic World: Can we wipe out the roots of terrorism?

4. Problems of Modern Middle East
Is Israel over criticized?
Anti-modernization in Islam: The Iranian Revolution and the Rise of Islamic Traditionalism

5. Recent Problems
Tensions over Iran’s Nuclear Project
Pro or Con on US Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan

America Must Defend both Asia and the Middle East

2011-11-09T20:35:00.014+09:00

As if resonating the announcement by President Barack Obama to withdraw of US troops from Iraq (“U.S. Troops to Leave Iraq by Year’s End, Obama Says”; New York Times; October 21, 2011), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton contributed an article to insists that the United States expand in political and military presence in Asia (“America’s Pacific Century”; Foreign Policy; November 2011). However, this should not curtail current US involvement in the Middle East as Iran can fill the vacuum of power. Less involvement in the Middle East does not necessarily mean more involvement in Asia.

First, let me review the Foreign Policy article by Secretary Clinton. The Secretary says that the United States has allocated too much resource to Iraq and Afghanistan over the decade, and it is time to consider smart and systematic use of time and energy to sustain American leadership in the world. Clinton argues that the United States needs more focus on the Asia Pacific region, because this area has become a key to global politics. Asian nations enjoy high economic growth, and there are emerging powers like China, India, and Indonesia. In face of growing isolationism because of long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan along with domestic economy, she rebukes that America needs new markets in rapidly growing Asia. Clinton wants to restructure alliances with Asia Pacific nations, primarily with Japan, and also South Korea, Australia, and so forth, in order to manage security challenges of China. On the other hand, she explores more business opportunity in China, while maintaining American superiority against Chinese military build up. However, this article focuses extensively on market opportunities in Asia, rather than security in this region, and it insists on shifting manpower and resource from Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore, it raises serious concern that the Obama administration’s focus on Asia would sacrifice security in the Middle East, which will ultimately scale down America’s role as the world police man.

Currently, withdrawal from Iraq is the foremost issue on US role in the Middle East. Kayvan Kaboli, leader of Iranian resistance Green Party, criticizes that Obama’s decision to withdraw US troops from Iraq is premature and obsessed with the presidential election, which will ultimately embolden expansionism of the Shiite regime in Iran (“The Future of Iraq after US Departure”; Iranian American Forum --- Washington Insight; October 24. 2011). A joint article by Frederick W. Kagan: Director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute, Kimberly Kagan: President of the Institute for the Study of War, and Marisa Cochrane Sullivan Deputy Director of the Institute for the Study of War, argues “President Obama’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops is the mother of all disasters” (“Defeat in Iraq”; Weekly Standard; November 7, 2011). Unlike Vietnam, Iraq is related to two critical security challenges which are Iran and Al Qaeda. They say that US pullout will intensify sectarian conflicts in Iraq, which will lead Sunni Arabs to seek support from Al Qaeda. In rivalry with them, Shiites would look for help from Iran. More importantly, Iran can penetrate its influence and import illegal goods through a long border line between Iraq. Therefore, it is vital to control trans-border trade to impose sanctions on Iran’s nuclear project. Also, three authors say that current domestic politics in Iraq is dependent on delicate balance of ethno-sectarian fractions so much that US presence is necessary to guarantee stability. When the Obama administration declared the pullout from Iraq, the chairman of Iran’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hassan Firouzabadi even said that “American soldiers had no other choice than to leave Iraq, and this is the beginning of all American forces withdrawing from the region.” As three authors argue, leaving Iraq without completing the mission will undermine what America has achieved in the War on Terror.

In view of such criticism, Secretary Clinton warned Iran not to misunderstand US intentions in the Middle East. She stressed that the United States will maintain a robust presence in Iraq, by providing support and training for the Iraqi military and security forces (“Clinton warns Iran not to ‘miscalculate’ U.S. resolve as troops leave Iraq”; Washington Post; October 24, 2011). Moreover, the Obama administration announced to increase military presence in the Gulf area after withdrawing from Iraq. Combat troops in Iraq will be repositioned in Kuwait, and military ties with the Gulf Cooperation Council will be strengthened in face of growing threat of Iran. Multilateral security partnerships in the region develop furthermore. The Iraqi military forces were invited to an anti-guerrilla and terrorist exercise called Eager Lion 12 in Jordan next year. Also, some Gulf Cooperation Council members such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates sent combat aircrafts to NATO led mission in Libya, and Bahrain and the UAE deploy forces in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Gulf nations are concerned that American withdrawal from Iraq creates a vacuum that provokes Iran’s expansionist ambition as Bahraini Foreign Minister Sheik Khalid says. At the Senate Armed Service Committee, twelve senators expressed their distress that Iran would interpret US pullout from Iraq as their strategic victory (“U.S. Planning Troop Buildup in Gulf after Exit from Iraq”; New York Times; October 29, 2011).

A resource shift from the Middle East to Asia is no assurance to block Chinese expansionism. China is keen on filling the power vacuum when US troops withdraw from Afghanistan through strengthening ties with Pakistan (“China, US Reevaluate Asian Strategies Post Bin Laden”; Eurasia Review; May 8, 2011). The Sino-Pakistani nuclear deal is an apparent posture of rivaling against the United States and India. In addition, China continues to provide advanced missiles to Iran, which violates UN sanctions. China breaks the promise to the United States in 1997 not to sell C-802 anti-ship cruise missiles to Iran. In addition, China built an entire missile plant in Iran to produce the Nasr-1 anti-ship cruise missile last year. The United States can punish foreign companies that provide advanced arms to Iran, through the Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2006 or CISADA (the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act) of 2010 (“Inside the Ring --- China Iran Missile Sales”; Washington Times; November 2, 2011). China’s strong connections with Iran and Pakistan make Middle East increasingly vulnerable.

Since the Chinese threat is global, and the Middle East nations need American presence, the United States must be well prepared to manage security challenges both in Asia and the Middle East. Therefore, it is vital that US defense expenditures meet such dual or even multiple requirements for global security. Michael Auslin, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, discusses the impact of current defense spending cut on Asian security. His primary focus is China’s expansion of navy operations from the East and the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean. Rapid build up of the Chinese navy and its assertive behavior on the Asian sea lane, heighten tensions in the region from Japan, ASEAN nations, Australia, and India. The resulting insecurity highlights continual US role to maintain stability, and Asia-Pacific nations explore to deepen strategic partnership with the United States. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta needed to soothe anxieties of Asian nations regarding defense budget cut, on his trip to Asia this October (“Asian Anxiety”; New York Times; October 25, 2011). I would like to mention that the Asian sea lane connects both sides of Eurasia, and the security of Asia and the Middle East is strongly interconnected.

In Washington, the special bipartisan committee on the budget demanded not to cut defense spending furthermore. House Speaker John Boehner told that defense expenditure cut went beyond the requirements in the budget accord between President Obama and Republicans this summer. Meanwhile, Democrat Congressman Adam Smith of the House Armed Service Committee said that lawmakers need to show alternatives to defend defense spending, such as raising revenue or cutting spending other than defense (“Boehner speaks out against more defense cuts”; Military Times; October 27, 2011). Robert Samuelson, Economics Columnist of the Washington Post, point out that US armed forces have been downsized precipitously from late 1980s to 2010 despite long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Quite importantly, though Iraq and Afghanistan raised defense budgets from 2001 to 2011, the total war cost of these years is $1.3 trillion, which accounts for only 4.4% of the total federal budget of $29.7 trillion in the same period. Defense spending itself does not ensure effective and wise use of national power, but excessive reduction of it poses constraints to policy options. Samuelson warns that current defense expenditure reduction jeopardizes advantages in advanced technology and training quality both of which are the key to American military superiority (“The dangerous debate over cutting military spending”; Washington Post; October 31, 2011).

Remember that both Asian and Middle Eastern nations need American presence. As seen in China’s ties with Iran and Pakistan, security challenges on both sides of Eurasia are not independent but interconnected. Also, North Korea constitutes the Axis of Evil with Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Current defense cut by the Obama administration augments anxieties both in Asia and the Middle East. It is necessary to learn lessons from British Strategic Defence and Security Review by the Cameron administration. In the statement on SDSR at the House of Commons on October 19 last year, Prime Minister David Cameron said “This review is about how we project power and influence in a rapidly changing world.” The war in Libya suggests that Britain’s combat performance did not meet this objective sufficiently. The United States must invest sufficient resources on defense in order to carry out as many policy options as possible. America itself is a recipient of global public goods provided by American military preeminence.

Article Contribution to the Proud Japan Network

2011-10-30T23:08:00.001+09:00

One of my friends on Facebook introduced me a conservative civic media, called the Proud Japan Network. This group was found quite recently to advocate a strong push for Japan’s national interests, and promote awareness of the beauty and virtue of traditional Japanese culture.

For this objective, this group publishes articles on the web, and broadcasts online videos. Some distinguished people endorse this group, such as Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Former Prime Minister Toshiki Kaifu, Retired Air General Toshio Tamogami, a Uyghur independence activist Tur Muhammet, and Masaharu Isshiki the Patriotic Coast Guard in the Senkaku Island dispute.

I contributed one of my blog posts to the column of the Proud Japan Network. Unfortunately, only Japanese language pages are available at this stage. It is a pleasure that this blog has won another opportunity of recognition.

A Review of the Lecture by Chinese Ambassador on Sino-Japanese Relations

2011-10-29T10:15:00.000+09:00

The Japan Forum on International Relations invited Chinese ambassador to Japan Cheng Yonghua to give a lecture on Sino-Japanese relations on October 13. Ambassador Cheng delivered the White Paper on “The Peaceful Development of China” to all attendants at the symposium, which was released by the State Council of China on September 6 this year. Cheng told that the development of China contributes to public interest of the world, and China and Japan should strengthen the bilateral relationship starting from the economy regardless of differences in political regime and ideology. As the Sino-Japanese relationship is an issue of high public attention these days, numerous questions were asked at the symposium. I was deeply impressed with Ambassador Cheng’s attitude to answer every question, including some minor points. However, is Chinese policy so “peaceful”, “win-win”, and “without being hegemonic” as the White Paper says? Also, most of the questions at the Q & A session were too “friendly”, considering current bilateral relations between Japan and China. But for real Sino-Japanese mutual understandings, some severe questions could have been helpful. Therefore, I would like to ask the following four questions.

First, I would like to ask a question about China’s “”understanding of history” and “vision of East Asia”. An increasing number of people in China, raging from intellectuals to grassroots citizens, argue that China restore the position before the Opium War, in view of its growing national power. Prior to the Opium War, China treated its neighbors as tributary states to the emperor of the Middle Kingdom in the Ce Feng system. The war broke out between Britain and China, because the Qing dynasty did not accept equal free trade. Considering this point, I suspect that China claims aggressively hegemonic status in the world much more than Britain and America which respect the Westphalia system.

Such suspicion has grown, because Ambassador Cheng focused on “China, Japan, South Korea + ASEAN” when he talked about regional cooperation, bit did not mention Australia and New Zealand. Also, as in the case of Europe, American support is indispensible for regional cooperation in Asia. Any argument that is obsessed with regional integration by “China, Japan, South Korea + ASEAN” reminds me of creation of “the union of Mongoloid nations” and “exclusion of Caucasian nations”. If this is the case, no one can blame that people regard China’s initiative for regional cooperation as the return of old Ce feng regime. None of east Asian nations want such regional cooperation.

Second, I would like to ask which is more important for China, global public interest or great power rivalries. A specific test for this question is nuclear nonproliferation, and it is necessary to examine China’s policy to Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan in particular .With regard to Iran and North Korea, China participates in international negotiations to denuclearize both countries, but it is reluctant to impose sanctions on them. As to North Korea, it is broadly believed among Japanese people that China is much keener on maintaining the Kim regime rather than finding solutions to the nuclear problem. In addition, China helped Iran’s project to build a nuclear power plant, and along with Russia, it continually oppose the initiative to strengthen sanctions proposed by the United States, Britain, France, and Germany. It appears to me that China is more interested in preserving oil resource and geopolitical rivalries with the West than nuclear nonproliferation.

More problematic issue is Pakistan. As if matching India that has reached nuclear deals with foreign contractors, starting from the United States, other industrialized countries, and even Russia, China signed a nuclear deal with Pakistan. This does not just intensify nuclear rivalries between India and Pakistan. Pakistan is in critical trouble in view of nuclear proliferation to terrorists.　In the past, there was the Khan network, and recently, bin Laden hid there, and a suspicion has emerged that ISI assisted the Haqqani network to attack the US embassy. Unlike India, Pakistan is in no position of boasting that it has never proliferated nuclear weapons. Since China signed a nuclear deal with such problematic Pakistan, we cannot but watch Beijing with suspicion that its priority lies in geopolitical rivalries with the United States and India rather than global public interest.

Japan is the only country that experienced nuclear bomb attacks. Can we dismiss this, and strengthen the Sino-Japanese relationship simply in pursuit of shortsighted commercial interests? An issue like global warming is also a vital agenda of international public interest as many questions on this problem were asked at the symposium, but the threat of it proceeds slowly. On the other hand, the threat of nuclear weapons proceeds rapidly, once a new possessor emerges. This is the reason why I am asking about China’s policy on nuclear nonproliferation to test the real meaning of “peaceful development” mentioned in the White Paper concretely.

Third, relations with the United States were hardly mentioned when the ambassador told about China’s global and East Asian policy. However, whether regional level or global level, it is impossible to tell Sino-Japanese relations without referring to America. The question I wanted to ask was how China sees the presidential election in the United States next year. Currently, the territorial dispute over Senkaku Islands is calmed down, and China refrains from provoking its neighbors in the sea around the homeland. Is this because China takes US presidential election into account? Actually, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton contributes an article to Foreign Policy November issue to insist on closer relations with Asia. US-Chinese relations will be increasingly influential in Japanese-Chinese relations.

Fourth, though Ambassador Cheng mentioned that Chinese media are diversified these days, can people assert that there are no governmental regulations to the freedom of speeches and expressions? The Nobel Prize Liu Xiaobo has drawn worldwide attentions. In Japan, an Uyghur liberation activist Tur Muhhammet lives in exile. In the China Town of Ikebukuro in Tokyo, there are some Falun Gong activists. At most, if Ambassador Cheng had said that governmental regulations to speeches and expressions were not so severe as reported by foreign media, then, we would be able to be able to believe what he said.

These are questions I wanted to ask at the symposium, but I am afraid that they are not “severe“ enough as I mentioned at the beginning, and “so sweet as a soft cream”. Above all, the focal point of my questions is which is more important for China, global public interest or great power rivalries. The second question on nuclear issues, particularly relations with Pakistan, is the critical test in my view. It is absolutely wrong to assume that Sino-Japanese relations can advance only through depending on superficial friendship and mere pursuit of economic interests. Business cycle is a universal and basic theory of economics. Therefore, high economic growth does not necessarily guarantee further development of regional cooperation in East Asia.

Finally, I would like to express my heartfelt respect to Ambassador Cheng Yonghua as he replied to every question deeply and politely. No wonder the time had run out, and some attendants and I were not endowed opportunities to ask questions. Though there are many hurdles to improve bilateral relations, I am impressed with sincere attitudes of Ambassador Cheng Yonghua, which strongly suggest that China wants to develop relations with Japan. Therefore, the last symposium was very helpful to deepen understandings on the Sino-Japanese relationship.

Stop South Korean Company from Helping Iran’s Nuclear Ambition!

2011-10-22T17:18:00.004+09:00

A civic advocacy group called the United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) has released an urgent request to the Daelim conglomerate of South Korea to stop continuing business with Iran. Daelim undergoes oil and gas projects with the Shiite regime of Iran that sponsors terrorism and proliferates nuclear weapons.

US Government Accountability Office raised a critical concern that Daelim made profits through illegal commercial activities with Iran. Energy business with Iran is violation of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA), whose explicit goal is “to stop businesses from helping Iran develop its natural gas and petroleum sectors given the control exercised over those sectors by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).” The IRGC is the Iranian government's branch in direct control of Iran's weapons of mass destruction programs, including its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Daelim's commercialism is an act of nullifying Western sanctions against Iran's nuclear ambition. Iran constitutes the Axis of Evil along with North Korea. Therefore, Daelim ruins national security of South Korea itself.

In order to stop Iran’s dangerous project, sign the letter of protest from this link that will be sent to Daelim executives and US government officials. Thank you very much in advance for your kind cooperation.

Can Japan Deepen the Alliance with America while Pursuing Pacifist Diplomacy?

2011-10-18T23:40:00.001+09:00

These days, prime ministers step down every year in Japan. Also, depressant atmosphere prevails due to poor economic performance and nationwide concerns with Japanese decline on global stage. In such unreliable political sceneries, Former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone had an interview with NHK’s anchorman Kensuke Ogoshi in News Watch 9 which was broadcasted on September 15, and he told the guideline for Japan’s future. At the interview, Nakasone insisted that Japan rebuild a nation strong against natural disasters in view of 3/11 earthquake, and appealed importance of soft power as a liberal democracy. In addition, Nakasone told it necessary for political leaders to brush up their personality and intellect by themselves, in order to perform the duty of the prime minister. I was impressed with the interview itself, but I felt some contradictions in his comment that Japan should deepen the alliance with the United States while pursuing pacifist diplomacy. This is because it has become apparent that Japan cannot cooperate with the United States and the global community in security issues as a pacifist nation based on Article 9 of the constitution, which was typically seen in the Gulf War of 1991.

Nakasone argued that we never forget that Japan gave a great deal of trouble to Asian neighbors during World War Ⅱ. I agree with him that Japan not return to militarism during the Pacific War, but do people around the world want Japan that is continually repentant of the past? The Abe administration and the Aso administration explored to strengthen military cooperation with NATO, and European nations welcomed them because both Japan and Europe are close allies to the United States and industrialized democracies. In addition, Asian democracies facing threats of Chinese military expansion think well of growing military role of Japan. In the post Cold War era, while the global community faces threats like the War on Terror, resurgence of China and Russia, and nuclear proliferation, does only Japan have to repent the past continually as done in the postwar period?

Come to think of it, in the 1980s when Nakasone was in charge of the administration, the influence of Middle East affairs on the US-Japanese alliance grew bigger and bigger. The United States had no choice but withdraw the Nixon Doctrine, which led Japan to abandon free rider policy in national security. This is a precursor of “globalization of the US-Japanese alliance as I mentioned on this blog before. Participation in RIMPAC symbolizes such globalization and multilateralization. Though Japan had already participated in joint naval exercise of Pacific nations since preceding Suziki administration, its involvement has expanded since the Nakasone administration. Not only liberal democracies in the region, but also Britain join this exercise far away from the Asia-Pacific area. Such large scale participations were precedents to sending the Self Defense Forces to Iraq under the Koizumi administration. National defense policy in the 1980s has had such great impacts on Japan later in this century. In addition to this achievement, Nakasone endorses constitutional amendment. Despite this, he insisted that it was Japan’s fundamental position to pursue pacifist diplomacy. Therefore, Nakasone’s comment in the interview sounded like a self denial of his own achievement and creed.

It is a considerable constraint for Japan to abide by exclusively defensive defense principles as a pacifist state. In Iraq, the Self defense Forces joined the mission of reconstruction under the British command, but they were not allowed to fight along with other coalition forces. Had the Self Defense Forces been able to carry guns and shoot just one terrorist to death, it could have nurtured common sentiment of unity with British and Dutch forces as fellow soldiers. More importantly, it would have been welcomed by Iraqi people. If that had been the case, Japan could have won much more trust in the global community. Regarding the response against North Korean ballistic missile which is one the most dreadful threat to the Japanese homeland today, experts have not agreed on which stage to intercept it because of constraints under the principle of exclusively defensive defense, and things have become theological controversies.

Article 9 of the constitution had a historical implication to dismantle war time militarism. However, the pacifist clause has no longer political role, because global political sceneries of the postwar era and present days are completely different. Above all, should we define national defense policy in the constitution? Any policy of the state is defined through interactions between the incumbent administration and the legislative organization.　For example, in the economy, any constitution cannot define whether to take free market policy or welfare state policy. A constitution defines the system of the government and human rights protection under the rule of law, but not policy directions of specific issues. Therefore, I think it necessary to reconsider Japan as a pacifist nation.

Finally, I would like to argue a hypothesis to discuss pacifist foreign policy. These days, the media and people often say that the quality of politicians has become poorer. I suspect this is because Japanese politicians do not think of war as a means of policy for many years. I can hardly believe that those who are not intellectual enough to think of the war can be real politicians. Eminent philosophers of all ages and cultures ―― from Aristotle, Plato, Sun Tzu, Confucius, to Clausewitz ――　discussed the war as the ultimate political agenda for the state. This is typically illustrated in the fact that monarchs around the world went to the battlefield by themselves, and commanded the war on the horseback until early 19th century military technologies were not highly specialized. War is such a critical policy agenda for the state. I shall never embrace an idea that we entrust the destiny of the state to politicians who are completely ignorant of war.

War is accompanied by tremendous destructive power, and deep insight and high ethical standards are required to use such power. In order to discuss this point, I would like to mention Japanese samurais in the Edo period. As they belonged to the ruling class, they were endowed the privilege of belting on swords. Swords were such lethal weapons that samurais hardly drew them against merchants and peasants, unless they had no other choices save their honor. This is also the case with samurais each other. They had awes with their own power. I believe that we can hardly expect such “humility and a sense of responsibility” to politicians who lay aside thinking of war as a means of policy.

Consequently, I doubt whether Japan should be a pacifist nation that continually repent the past. Instead, it is necessary to think of war as a policy measure, and show future-oriented attitudes. This will deepen the US-Japanese alliance and strengthen trust to Japan in the global community.

US Foreign Policy and 2012 Election

2011-10-05T23:43:00.013+09:00

As the presidential election is coming closer, it is necessary to explore foreign policy debates. Around the 10th anniversary of 9/11, some critical issues have emerged such as Palestinian bid for UN membership, Admiral Mullen’s congressional testimony on Pakistani ISI’s connections with the Haqqani Network (“Pakistan supports Haqqani network, Adm. Mullen tells Congress”; CNN News; September 23, 2011), and Iran’s decision to deploy nuclear centrifuge machine (“Iran's Nuclear Experiments Raise Alarm at U.N. Agency”; Wall Street Journal; September 3, 2011). Can America still afford to pay little attention to foreign policy? The other day, Iran even announced to send its fleet off the Atlantic coast of the United States (“Iran planning to send ships near U.S. waters”; September 28; CNN News).

I would like to mention some commentaries about foreign policy focuses in the forthcoming election. George Friedman, Chief Executive Officer of a Texas-based think tank STRATFOR, points out inherent contradictions and weaknesses associated with the birth of the Obama administration. Those who voted for Barack Hussein Obama expected him to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, stop unilateralism, narrow socio-economic inequality, stop job exports, and close Guantánamo prison. However, Obama insisted that the United States focus on Afghanistan and stop fighting in Iraq. Quite ironically, Obama’s multilateralism has not filled the gap between America and Europe. As opposed to Obama’s expectation, Europeans are not necessarily willing to help the United States in managing global challenges, even though his administration shows willingness to listen to Europe. Typically, Germany even refused to “lead from behind” in Libya, and did neither join air attack nor send ground troops there.

More importantly, we should bear in mind that Barack Obama won the last election mainly because voters were upset with sudden financial crisis. His core supporters are welfare state oriented, and prefer high tax policies. On the other hand, centrists do not necessarily object to tax increase, but they are extremely sensitive to big spending accompanied by state interventionist welfare plans. George Friedman says that since Obama is preoccupied with balancing his core supporters and swing voters, his policy focus is on domestic politics, which makes US foreign policy receptive to external affair during the election. The problem is, external shocks that I mention at the beginning are too great for the United States to act receptively. (“Obama's Dilemma: U.S. Foreign Policy and Electoral Realities”; Geopolitical Weekly; September 20, 2011)

However, such little attention to is a boon to Obama, as Jimmy Carter failed in his second　term election, because of Iranian students seizure of US embassy and Soviet invasion to Afghanistan, according to Tony Blankley, Visiting Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Despite this, Blankley is critically concerned that Obama foreign policy weakens America’s position in the world. Particularly, Blankley is alarmed with Russia and China. Obama was not prepared to the return of Vladimir Putin during the Medvedev presidency, and treated Putin as if he was a secondary leader. Therefore incoming Putin is not comfortable with Obama. This ruins an opportunity for the United States to pursue a Kissingerian diplomacy to balance Russia and China. In addition, the Obama administration withdrew the missile defense system from Poland and Czech, though Kremlin is turning toward more nationalist. His appeasement to China raises concerns even among liberals and neoliberals (“President's Foreign Policy Failures Increase”; Real Clear Politics; September 28, 2011). Obama is in no position to belittle foreign policy in this election, considering global balance of power and American safety.

Though election debates are extremely inward-looking, some foreign policy issues draw a nationwide attention among voters. The Israel-Palestine conflict is one of them. The influence of Iranian sponsored Hamas in the Palestine Authority raises concerns among the American public. A Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, strongly demanded that the Obama administration not endorse Palestine bid for UN membership (“Perry blasts Obama’s policies on Israel, Palestinians”; Washington Post; September 21, 2011). We should not dismiss that conservative civic advocacy groups like Move America Forward regard Israel as an indispensible ally in the War on Terror, because it is the only Western styled democracy in the Middle East. Things are beyond the Jewish lobby.

Regarding Admiral Mullen’s testimony, Sadanand Dhume, columnist of the Wall Street Journal, comments that this suggests America’s frustration with Pakistan’s ambiguous attitude in the War on Terror. Shortly before the testimony at the Senate Armed Service Committee, former Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani was killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul. Dhume argues that Pakistan needs to show its commitment to fight against the Haqqani Network, so that the United States will not resort to strong actions like military attacks in Pakistani territory (“Admiral Mullen Slams Pakistan”; The Enterprise Blog; September 22, 2011). This issue can make the Af-Pak problem increasingly sensitive in the forthcoming election, in view of President Obama’s decision to scale down the troop level in Afghanistan.

In such atmosphere, China stays calm. The Chinese government held a state-sponsored concert of a Japanese pop-singer group called SMAP in Beijing this September, in order to ease bilateral tensions with Japan on the Senkaku Islands dispute ("Wen 'sincerely welcomes' SMAP's Beijing concert Fri."; Kyodo News; September 15, 2011) . I wonder whether such a smiling diplomacy is just aimed at Japan. China may be taking cautious approaches not to provoke America during the election. In any case, foreign policy debates cannot be dismissed in this election. The bipartisan super committee will announce their final conclusion on defense budget, this November. Since key policy agendas are intertwined, domestic economy cannot stand alone.

Can America Trust President Obama on National Security?

2011-09-20T14:37:00.006+09:00

In view of the incoming presidential election, it is time that we graded foreign policy of the Obama administration. At this stage, American voters are preoccupied with domestic economy. However, the 10th anniversary of 9/11 can wake them up. Too many people in the United States and abroad were infatuated with Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 election. However, his job performance disappoints American citizens. In the economy, only 17% of them give credit (“So who thinks Obama is helping the economy”; Washington Post; September 8, 2011). In foreign policy, his achievements are barren. Former Ambassador to UN John Bolton comments Obama’s foreign policy critically in his recent article (“The Innocents Abroad: Obama's Foreign Policy Is Characterized”; National Review; September 19, 2011). His article appears in a critical moment to think of 9/11 legacy and the forthcoming presidential election. Let me review this.

In this article, Bolton criticizes President Obama’s innocence and lack of interest in foreign policy, which helps further growth of threats to the United States and its allies. According to Bolton, Obama is apologetic to America’s hegemonic role as the provider of global public goods, and he says “Like Obama's presidency generally, his national-security flaws combine ideology, naïveté, weakness, lack of leadership, intellectual laziness, and a near-religious faith in negotiation for its own sake.” Furthermore, Bolton points out that Barack Obama is devoted to restructure domestic economy and society so much that he shows compelling interest in foreign policy only when he finds urgent necessity to do so as in the case of the surge in Afghanistan and the attack to Osama bin Laden. I would like to mention that Obama’s early day speeches show those problems, though the media praised the change from “Bush’s unilateralism” to “modest multilateral cooperation”. I have to stress that America cannot enjoy its own economic prosperity and domestic stability without getting involved with removing security threats around the world. America itself is a recipient of global public goods provided by a liberal world order of Pax Americana.

Quite interestingly, I would like to call an attention that John Bolton mentions some correlation between Obama’s viewpoint on domestic and foreign policy of America. Just as Obama is keen on changing the American society, as seen in his social security reform, he envisions a post-American world. Bolton says that Obama is no similar to any presidents since Franklin Roosevelt, because he does not believe in America’s special role in the world. Considering such lack of confidence in America itself, I wonder why the media was so infatuated with Obama to depict him a Black Kennedy during 2008 election. John Kennedy was more assertive to American leadership in the world, while Obama is so apologetic of it that Nile Gardiner, a former policy staff to Lady Margaret Thatcher, argues Obama stop such behavior (“Barack Obama should stop apologising for America”; Daily Telegraph; 2 June, 2009).

Now, let me talk of specific threats and issues to assess the impact of Obama’s foreign policy. Obama has launched an ambitious initiative toward a world without nuclear weapons. The first Nuclear Security Summit in Washington last year has drawn dramatic attention by the media. However, Bolton criticizes that Obama’s obsession with negotiation has not stopped nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea. This September, Iran has built new centrifuge facilities to obtain highly enriched uranium, which raises critical concerns among nonproliferation experts (“Iran's Nuclear Experiments Raise Alarm at U.N. Agency”; Wall Street Journal; September 3, 2011). North Korea also makes progress to make warheads small enough for their ballistic missiles, while Obama just waits for diplomatic negotiations. Both rogue states just gained time for their nuclear projects.

Obama’s appeasement to China and Russia is questionable, because this is deeply associated with present day arguments on “relative decline” of the United States. Obama decided to withdraw missile defense system from Poland and Czech. Also, he withheld the sales of F16 fighters to Taiwan. As a result, Russia and China assume their dominant positions in the former Soviet Union and East Asia respectively. Particularly, South and East China Seas are areas of grave concerns in view of natural resource disputes, and the growth of Chinese naval power and access denial capability.

Regarding Libya, Bolton asserts that Obama’s cause of “responsibilities to protect citizens”, instead of “regime change”, is utterly wrong. NATO did not oust Muammar Khadafy swiftly enough, and there is no guarantee whether the new regime will be a pro-Western stable democracy or not. The controversial strategy of “lead from behind” makes America less safe as Max Boot, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, warns. He says, “But if it fails, and Libya devolves into anarchy or despotism, this operation will likely be remembered as a tactical triumph that didn't translate into strategic success. The outcome still hangs in the balance” (Did Libya Vindicate 'Leading From Behind?'”; Wall Street Journal; September 1, 2011). Currently, Khadafy’s loyalists have fled into Niger, and Muammar Khadafy himself is not found yet. They can plot terrorist attacks out of Libya.

The Obama administration’s approaches to the Middle East need to be reviewed furthermore, as John Bolton is critically concerned that they are completely inconsistent and contradictory. Since the inauguration, Obama has been too afraid of “offending” public opinion in the Islam world, as shown in his speeches in Prague and Cairo. In the Arab Spring, there are some problems such as the rise of Islamism in Egypt, continual dictatorship in Syria, rampant Hezbollah in Lebanon. In addition, Turkey is departing from pro-Western secularism of Kemal Ataturk. The most fatal error that Bolton points out is Obama’s misjudgment to reduce troops in Iraq and Afghanistan after successful attack to Osama bin Laden in the War on Terror. While Obama belittles these threats, he denounces Israel for building houses in the suburb of Jerusalem. Considering the above points, Bolton wonders whether Obama understands real dangers in the Middle East.

I would argue that such loss of policy balance mentioned by Bolton will lead to further problems in East Asia. As in Libya, the “lead from behind” diplomacy does not work in this region. China and North Korea poses much more dreadful threats to their neighbors than Khadafy’s Libya. Meanwhile, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are far weaker than Britain and France. American involvement is utterly essential to regional security, even though it “offends” nationalists in China and North Korea. I strongly hope that Obama reconsider his speech at APEC Singapore summit, as he said “America welcomes a strong China”.

On defense expenditure, Obama made use of the debt ceiling debate for proposing drastic cuts. However, the Super Committee is no support of such proposal. Republicans and the Defense Department resist it as expected. Also, Democrats do not want to be seen weak on defense by agreeing to Obama’s defense spending cut. Though partisan gaps are not filled, the Super Committee’s conclusion in the November deadline can rollback pro defense arguments (“Hyper-Partisanship in Defense Budget Debate Playing in Pentagon’s Favor”; National Defense --- Blog; September 9, 2011).

The 10th anniversary 9/11 terrorist attack has passed, and America needs in depth debates on national security for 2012 election. John Bolton’s article has made an appearance on such a critical occasion, and its insightful criticism to the Obama administration’s foreign policy achievements is invaluable and extremely helpful.

The 10th Anniversary of 9-11 and the Prospect of the War on Terror

2011-09-06T12:12:00.006+09:00

In view of the 10th anniversary of 9-11 terrorist attack, it is necessary to assess its policy implications for the future.

To begin with, I would like to mention an interesting column by Brian Jenkins, a senior adviser to the president of the Rand Corporation (“Five myths about 9/11”; Washington Post; August 29, 2011). Jenkins examines widely spread misconceptions about the War on Terror. Although 9-11 appears a bolt from the blue, it was expected as low-tech raids by Al Qaeda were carried out before. Quite importantly, Osama bin Laden mis-assumed that America was so afraid of combat risks that it would not retaliate against Al Qaeda terrorist attack, as the Clinton administration withdrew from Somalia quickly. Also, Islam did not unite against the Western coalition as Osama envisioned when the War on Terror broke out.

The focal point of this article is US reaction. Jenkins says that the Bush administration acted right to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. When terrorist attacks happened, further raids by Al Qaeda were anticipated. Therefore, the United States had no choice but to improve intelligence, to strengthen security at home, and to use military force abroad in order to remove hostile regime and potential threat. I would argue that this point needs more attention, in order to understand US-led efforts for Middle East democratization and nuclear nonproliferation. It is America’s Middle East strategy since 9-11 that provokes the Arab Spring.

However, American citizens are somewhat fed up with long wars, and budget debates pose psychological constraints to defense spending. Karlyn Bowman, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, conducted a poll to understand how Americans see the War on Terror now (“The War on Terror: Ten Years of Polls on American Attitudes”; AEI Political Report; September 2011). According to the report, “Public concern about terrorism is not as high as it was ten years ago, but Americans have not lost sight of the threat.” The American public gives credit to both the Bush administration and the Obama administration in tackling terrorism. However, they have ambiguous feeling to the War on Terror. While Americans want the government to take tough measures to protect themselves from terrorists, they are increasingly concerned with civil liberties by strict surveillance. The war in Afghanistan is another issue of ambiguous sentiment. Though 57% of Americans still see the initial decision to intervene in Afghanistan was right, 64% of them believe that the troop level be reduced now. We can conclude that American citizens want to lower war burdens for their own life, but they are keen to keep their country safe.

Finally, let me mention grassroots movements of 9-11 events. In such an atmosphere, conservative civic organizations like Move America Forward (MAF), launch vigorous campaigns to appeal support for US troops fighting against terrorists. MAF sent an e-mail alert on August 30 to call an attention to still ongoing wars in the Middle East as the 10th 9-11 anniversary is coming close. Since then, MAF has been sending messages to appeal grassroots support for the War on Terror, including missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their campaigns may have some impacts on presidential election debates.

Currently, both Democrats and Republicans are preoccupied with the economy. The 10th anniversary of 9-11 can provoke more talks on defense. We must keep in mind that the Tea Party does not just represent free market libertarians, but also constitutional patriots. The latter is dedicated to build a strong America to defend the nation of Founding Fathers. This anniversary can stimulate patriotic sentiments, which may activate debates on defense budget for the presidential election.

The Implication of Libya to the Trans-Atlantic Alliance

2011-09-03T19:20:00.003+09:00

The war in Libya ends successfully with a small number of casualties. As shown in the chart below, this war was smaller and quicker than wars in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. However, James Blitz, political editor of the Financial Times, points out some lessons to be learnt for policymakers in Europe and America (“Defence: Lessons from Libya”; Financial Times; August 30, 2011).

To begin with, lack of unity within NATO delayed the progress in this war, and Colonel Khadafy is not still found yet, though his regime has completely collapsed now. While Britain and France led NATO operations, other European members including Spain and Turkey refused to participate in ground attacks, and Germany and Poland rejected to join all missions. US Secretary of Defense-then Robert Gates urged more defense commitment by European allies at the Brussels meeting this June. Quite ironically, the United States decided to "lead from behind" in this war, and just supported the coalition led by Britain and France, but did not directly involved in combats. In consequence, NATO forces lacked solid and coherent leadership to defeat Muammar Khadafy. It is widely known that Republican politicians and conservative opinion leaders criticize such self-denial of America by the Obama administration.

The will of intervention is not the only problem. European nations do not have sufficient scales of armaments to defeat a weak and small enemy like Khadafy’s Libya. Due to stagnant economy, European governments are obsessed with the idea of small and efficient armed forces. However, Britain faced critical shortage of airpower because the Royal Air Force was cut drastically under the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR). While NATO fighter planes were attacking Khadafy’s army, Air Chief Marshall Sir Stephen Dalton warned that the Cameron administration’s defense plan was unsustainable to maintain British military capability on the global stage (“RAF chief Sir Stephen Dalton makes case for Britain's air power”; Guardian; 3 April 2011). France barely kept its aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle operational during the war. Apparently, current size of European military is insufficient.

We have to remember that Blitz stresses importance of ground battle. Air attack does not guarantee the victory in the end. One senior British official of the Ministry of Defence even said, “The countries that deserve most credit in this conflict are Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. They provided the rebels with the training and weapons they needed, and acted as their leaders.”

The war in Libya gives lessons for policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic. As James Blitz mentions, reluctant attitudes among some NATO members ruins the unity of the alliance. The foremost problem is the size and the quality of armed forces. Currently, both America and Europe are preoccupied with the budget. Remember. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said “I have long believed, and I still do, that the defense budget, however large it may be, is not the cause of this country's fiscal woes” and "a smaller military, no matter how superb, will be able to go to fewer places and be able to do fewer things.” In a globalized world, more overseas intervention is required to keep free nations safe. American and European leaders and citizens must learn a lot of vital lessons from Libya.

Facebook Question: Which is more Dangerous, Islamic Extremist or Ultra Rightist?

2011-08-29T23:32:00.000+09:00

In view of the 10th anniversary of 9-11 terrorist attack and a horrible massacre in Norway, I ask a question on my Facebook, “Which is more dangerous, Islamic extremist or ultra rightist?” I shall appreciate it, if you answer this question.

You can leave a comment on the linked page. This is not a Gallup survey, as samples are not sufficient. Rather than statistical data, I hope to enjoy mutual interactions.

Japan Needs Nuclear Energy for National Defense

2011-08-23T18:38:00.002+09:00

Although the Fukushima Nuclear Plant Shock has led Prime Minister Naoto Kan to declare denuclearization of energy sources, Japan needs to maintain nuclear power technology for national defense. I am not insisting that Japan possess nuclear weapons. Instead, I would argue that Japan consider having nuclear powered attack submarines deploying Tomahawk missiles with conventional warheads. Actually, the Japanese government explored to have nuclear powered submarines when making the Guideline of Defense Program in 2004, in view of growing pressure posed by the Chinese Navy. Kan’s energy policy will narrow the range of policy options for national security.

Let me talk about security in Japanese neighborhood, in order to assess advantages of Tomahawk nuclear attack submarine. Currently, the rise of two major threats in East Asia, i.e., China and North Korea, is increasingly critical to Japan’s national defense. In addition to rapid expansion of naval power, China is deploying carrier killer missiles for access denial capability and J-20 stealth fighters. North Korea brandishes Rodong and Taepodong nuclear ballistic missiles. These land based threats will be nullified with Tomahawk missiles before they are launched or take off. The Japanese Self Defense Forces explore to shot down North Korean missiles with the anti-ballistic missile system including Aegis destroyers. However, it is much easier to hit objects staying on the ground than flying fast in the air. Also, nuclear attack submarines can contain the Chinese fleet including aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines.

If Japan were to have Tomahawk nuclear submarines, it would have to import them from the United States or Britain. It is cheaper and quicker than developing its own nuclear submarines. As to ground attack, American and British navies have much battle field experience, including Kosovo, the Gulf, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Japanese defense officials can learn tactical lessons from them, in order to explore the best way to destroy facilities of Chinese carrier killer missiles and North Korean ballistic missiles. The only sea battle experience of nuclear submarine is the Falkland War. Royal Navy’s nuclear submarine Conqueror sank Argentine cruiser General Belgrano so successfully that Argentine Navy could hardly act in the ocean during the war. This will help Japan’s naval strategy. Some nationalists like Governor Shintaro Ishihara of Tokyo Prefecture and Retired General Toshio Tamogami of the Air Defense Force insist that Japan possess nuclear weapons. However, nuclear bombs have not been used in any wars for 66 years since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is much more realistic and rational for Japan to have Tomahawk submarines with conventional warheads.

Some media and opinion leaders say that Japan learn from Europe, as Germany and Italy decided to denuclearize their energy sources. But remember! Neither Germany nor Italy faces imminent threats in their neighborhood. Although Russia reemerges nationalist under Vladimir Putin, new NATO members in Eastern Europe are buffer to Western Europe. Also, both Germany and Italy have no ambition of becoming global military powers, unlike Britain and France. Therefore they need neither nuclear powered submarines nor nuclear weapons. Japanese people talk about Germany's and Italy's electricity import from France, but defense reasons cannot be dismissed when we discuss changes of their energy policy after the Fukushima shock.

It is not wrong that Prime Minister Kan launches clean energy initiatives after Fukushima. But we must remember that the Obama administration has not virtually even started anything of the Green New Deal, although it was one of crown jewelries　in his election campaign manifesto. Green businesses are small and innovative, but not labor and capital intensive. Therefore, they are not suitable for TVA styled mega public projects. At this stage, it is a science fiction that renewable energies supplant fire and nuclear power completely. Above all, how can Tomahawk missile submarines operate with clean and renewable power sources such as solar, geothermal, tidal, and wind energies?

Current debates about nuclear energy and its alternatives focus exclusively on the economy, but national security perspectives should not be dismissed. Once we abolish nuclear power generation, it will take considerably a long time to restore technology and skills to use it again. This will narrow our policy choices for defense.

Secretary Panetta’s First Press Briefing on US Defense Expenditure

2011-08-13T16:39:00.008+09:00

As shown in the above video, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who succeeded the position from Robert Gates this June, did the first press briefing on August 4 to warn against further cuts in defense spending. Panetta was expected to be a cost cutter of defense as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under the Clinton administration. However, wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, have led him to abstain from further cut in military budget (“Leon Panetta warns against Pentagon budget cuts”; San Francisco Chronicle; August 5, 2011).

As President Barack Obama and the Republican Party reached an agreement on debt ceiling, it is time to discuss how much expenditure is to be cut in which area. Defense spending is no exception, and Republicans, notably Senator John Kyl, denounce that Democrat proposal of a 500 billion dollar automatic cut in a decade from 2013 would be irresponsible and weak on defense. In view of the forthcoming presidential election, Republican attack on the proposed defense expenditure reduction is being intensified. Meanwhile, Secretary Panetta spoke against his own party in his first press briefing (“Threatened Defense Cuts in Debt Deal Could Loom Over 2012 Race”; Bloomberg News; August 5, 2011). Also, Panetta urged tax increase and spending cuts in other areas like Medicare and social security for necessary savings. It is quite noteworthy that defense spending has been on the rise since 2001 even without wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Secretary Panetta says that a drastic cut “would do real damage to our security, our troops and their families, and our military’s ability to protect the nation.” It is expected that military benefits and increasingly sophisticated weaponry system push defense spending upward (“Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warns against more cuts in Pentagon budget”; Washington Post; August 5, 2011).

However, congressional debates are not simply Democrat-Republican duels. Defense budget splits the Republican as well. While Tea Party libertarians focus on tax reduction, neoconservatives support strong military power. In view of inter and intra party rifts, Senator John McCain proposed to reduce tax breaks as a preemptive strike against defense cuts (“Defense spending in Washington spotlight”; San Francisco Chronicle; August 7, 2011). Above all, the economy is supposed to be the primary determinant in 2012 election, and it will place significant influence on defense budget debates (“Will Obama be reelected? The economy could hold the answer”; Washington Post; August 6, 2011).

Having seen the overview of Secretary Panetta’s first briefing on defense spending, I would like to mention opinions among national security experts. As the bipartisan agreement on the Debt Ceiling Deal was reached, Resident Fellow Thomas Donnelly and Resident Scholar Gary Schmitt, both at the American Enterprise Institute, argue that it is time to discuss the defense budget. They insist that a weak push on defense will alienate the military, which will eventually hurt conservative bases for the next election. Also, they urge Tea Party libertarians to balance a small government and a strong defense, and not to let the country run by a president who prefers to "lead from behind" (“The (Raw) Deal on Defense”; Weekly Standard; August 3, 2011).

Furthermore, I would like to introduce a highly recommended article by Max Boot, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, to refute far left liberals. In this article, Boot articulates his support for Panetta, and makes lucid and strong arguments against a leading advocate for Little Americanism Fareed Zakaria, Editor-at-Large of Time (“Cutting Defense Spending Could Hasten America’s Decline as a World Power”; Commentary; August 4, 2011). Arguing against Zakaria’s recent column calling for a drastic cut of defense spending (“Why defense spending should be cut”; Washington Post; August 4, 2011), Boot makes the case for maintaining US military power from the following points.

Even though including war expenditure for Afghanistan and Iraq, the total cost of national defense accounts for just 5.1% of GDP, which is lower than 8.1% for Social Security and Medicare, and around 7% defense spending during the Cold War. More importantly, Boot criticizes Zakaria for dismissing military benefits and high tech weaponry systems when comparing defense expenditure today and during the Korean War and the Eisenhower era. That is, there is every reason why defense spending soars these days. The vital point in this essay is that defense spending cut does not help civilian diplomacy and development aid. He also criticizes Zakaria that foreign aid is no exception under the pressure for expenditure cut. Finally Boot quotes Leon Panetta that a drastic defense spending would be “extraordinarily difficult and very high risk.” Again, I strongly recommend this article to make the case against pacifist liberals like Fareed Zakaria.

Another analysis that needs to be attention is a budget chart created by the Heritage Foundation. As opposed to widely believed notions, it shows that the total budget is likely to increase sharply even excluding defense spending. That is, it is utterly wrong to blame defense expenditure for growing budget deficit (“The Military Isn't the Problem”; Weekly Standard Blog; August 3, 2011). See the chart below.

As Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said in the press briefing, there are two vital points to discuss US defense under present fiscal austerity. One is to have the capability to meet security challenges around the world, such as terrorism, rogue states, and rising powers. The other is to maintain the position of the best armed forces in the world. Secretary Panetta has outlined continuity of US defense from his predecessor Robert Gates. Further talk on defense budget will be done at the super committee at the congress. Watch the process there closer!

Still, Islamic Extremists Are Greater Threats than Ultra Rightists

2011-08-04T16:26:00.001+09:00

7-22 massacre in Norway by Anders Behring Breivik is too horrible. I agree with those who argue that policymakers are obsessed with Islamic extremists when it comes to counterterrorism but they need to pay more attention to Christian and Judaist far rights. However, in terms of national and global security, Islamic extremists are far more dangerous than ultra rightists such as Christian and Judaist extremists and white supremacists. Therefore, it is taken for granted that counterterrorism policy focuses primarily on Islamic radicals. Of course, we must not allow prejudices and segregations to Muslims.

Why is the threat of radical Muslim greater than that of ultra rightists? I would like to mention the following points. First, Islamic terrorists have larger and more global organizations. Islamic radicals such as Al Qaeda, the Haqqani Network, Lashkar e Taiba, and so forth have international connections, and they launch aggressive campaigns to expand huge basis of supporters. Notably, they recruit Muslim youngsters living in the West. Also, Islamic extremists have mutual interconnections. On the other hand, since the far right has a manifesto of radical chauvinism in view of “defending our nation”, it hardly has transnational connections. Ultra rightists, including KKK and WAR of the United States, the National Front of Britain, and Neo Nazi in Germany, hardly act together beyond national boundaries. Speaking of the scale of a terrorist organization, state sponsorship cannot be dismissed. It is well known that Iran supports Hezbollah in Lebanon. In addition, terrorists in southern Iraq and Afghanistan are sponsored by Iran. On the other hand, virtually none of far right terrorists are sponsored by the state.

Second, we should keep in mind ”With us, or against us” perspective, which Former President George W. Bush said in his speech just before the Iraq War. Islamic extremists do not hesitate to execute large scale destructions in big cities in developed countries. Those terrorists have no hesitation to pursue mass murder of ordinary citizens as long as they are enemy to those radicals, and the symbolic landmark that their enemy takes pride in will be a key target for destruction. 9-11 is the most notable case. On the other hand, as ultra rightists are jingoists, it is quite unlikely that they commit large scale destructions of big cities in their own country, including the symbolic landmark that their country takes pride in. Though the massacre by Breivik is horrible, none of Norwegian monuments were destroyed in this incident. He just killed people those who appeared to “vilify the tradition of his country” in his eyes. In other words, destructive behavior by jingoists to their own country is somewhat restrained.

Third, let me mention weapons of mass destruction, particularly the use of nuclear weapons. This is deeply interrelated to the first and the second points. Non-proliferation of nuclear weapon is one of vital issues of national and global security today. In the past, the Khan Network was supposed to have ties with Iran, North Korea, Libya, and Al Qaeda. Islamic extremists can easily find ties with such international network, but it is difficult for the far right to join the “Axis of Evil” because of its chauvinist nature. What will happen, should terrorists acquire nuclear weapons? There is nothing strange that Islamic radicals use acquired nuclear bombs to destroy the whole of the city itself. This is sufficiently possible, in view of the scale of 9-11 destruction. On the other hand, though rightwing acquisition of nuclear weapon is dangerous, it is quite unlikely that they destroy the whole of the city itself, considering their ideological standpoints.

I discussed which is more serious threat, whether Western far right or Islamic extremists. There is an analogy between the far right and the far left in Japan. Since ultra rightists uphold imperial divinity nationalism, it is unlikely that they destroy Tokyo along with the Imperial Place and the Yasukuni Shrine, but it is quite likely that ultra leftists destroy the whole of the city along with such symbolic landmarks once they acquire WMDs like nuclear weapons. Actually, ultra leftists helped abduction of Japanese citizens by North Korea in the past. The above mentioned three points are helpful to judge which terrorists are more critical threat to us.

Now, let’s get back to Western far right and Islamic radicals. Based on the above three points, the former can be managed through the police. On the other hand, in the War on Terror with the latter, the world’s best armed forces and a Guinness Book class sniper fight against them. Apparently, Islamic extremists are far more dangerous threats than ultra rightists. The Breivik incident is too horrible, and we should wipe out prejudices against Muslims and other minorities. I strongly agree to this opinion. However, there is nothing wrong that policymakers focus much more on Islamic extremists than ultra rightists in counterterrorism policy.

The Impact of UK Handover of Helmand Capital on Afghan Future

2011-07-23T02:44:00.006+09:00

Britain’s withdrawal from Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand province in the south, will be a critical test for the Obama administration’s Afghan strategy which was discussed in the last post. Among US allies, Britain has made by far the largest contribution to the War on Terror both in Afghanistan and Iraq. Prior to the surge in 2009, Britain urged the Obama administration to accept the surge plan by General Stanley McChrystal. Defence Secretary-then Bob Ainsworth said that additional US troops be sent to reduce British casualties. General Sir David Richards, Commander of the British Army in Afghanistan, stressed that defeat for NATO would have an "intoxicating impact" on extremists around the world. The special relationship between Britain and the United States had some impact on President Barack Obama’s final decision for the surge. Furthermore, the British Army made a tremendous achievement in Afghanistan. In November 2009, Corporal of Horse Craig Harrison of the Household Cavalry killed a Taliban soldier at a range of 2,475 m (2,707 yd) with his rifle. This is a Guinness Book record of sniper shot in combat. At NATO Defense Ministers Meeting in Brussels this June, Defence Secretary Liam Fox trumpeted British commitment to the Western alliance, when US Secretary of Defense-then Robert Gates urged more defense spending to other European allies ("Gates Questions NATO's Future"; Wall Street Journal; June 11, 2011).

Considering such great contributions by the British forces, a handover of Lashkar Gah to the Afghan security forces is a critical test for the next step in this war. While the British government stresses progress in security there, things are still volatile. A failure of power transition in Lashkar Gah will inflict significant damages on ISAF operations and Obama’s plan for US troop pull out. Actually, American media watch closer to implications of this British action.

According to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, security in Lashkar Gah has improved dramatically. See the video below.

On July 19, Foreign Secretary William Hague submitted a report to the Parliament, and said that the Afghan National Security Forces responded effectively despite the rise of insurgent attacks in June (“Progress in Afghanistan during June 2011”; FCO News; 19 July, 2011). Secretary Hague and Governor Gulab Mangal of Helmand Province commemorated the transition a significant milestone. Hague also said that Britain would continue to provide military and development assistance for Afghanistan after finishing combat missions by 2015 (“Afghans take the lead in Lashkar Gah security”; FCO News; 20 July, 2011). Janan Mosazai, Spokesman at the Afghan Foreign Ministry, asserted that this is beyond the transfer of security responsibilities, and said, "The whole purpose of this transition process is to ensure, in the long term, that we have a stable, secure, peaceful Afghanistan because that is in the interest of security and stability in the broader region and the wider world." Furthermore, NATO Secretary General Anders Fough Rasmussen said that the transfer would undermine the Taliban’s position as they would be attacking their own countrymen.

However, things do not go as senior officials insist. Afghan people do not trust their government’s capability of maintaining security. Since Afghan President Hamid Karzai announced transition of security responsibility from July in seven areas this March, violence has increased sharply. Britain handed over Lashkar Gah in such an environment (“Lashkar Gah: NATO hands over volatile Afghan city”; BBC News; 20 July, 2011). Unlike more peaceful areas such as Kabul and Bamian, transition in Lashkar Gah is modest and only downtown parts have been returned to the Afghan security authority (“In southern Afghanistan, a modest transition”; Washington Post; July 21, 2011).

As US Senator John McCain said, troop pullout based on calendar rather than the condition in the battlefield is absurd. British withdrawal from volatile Lashkar Gah is modest. The outcome of this handover will have significant implications to the future of Afghan strategy. Also, the United Kingdom has made considerable contribution to wars in the Middle East from Libya to Afghanistan. This is why I call more attention to British handover of Lashkar Gah.

A Critical Review of US Withdrawal from Afghanistan

2011-07-13T08:23:00.004+09:00

President Barack Obama announced to cut US troops in Afghanistan in view of successful attack to Osama bin Laden. However, top leaders in the military warn caustic consequences of premature withdrawal (“Military leaders know Obama’s decision is a disaster”; Post Partisan—Washington Post; June 23, 2011). The foremost objective in this war is not simply killing bin Laden himself, but founding stable democracy that allows no terrorist safe havens in the Af-Pak region.

Before pro-con discussions about troop reduction, we must understand a strategic overview in Afghanistan. The Foreign Policy Initiative has released a new report for basic picture of this war (“Fact Sheet: Success in Afghanistan is Critical to Prevailing in the War on Terror”; Foreign Policy Initiative; June 23, 2011). Quoting Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution (“Afghanistan's Role in Osama bin Laden Raid”; Daily Beast; May 10, 2011), this report insists that the United States keep alert to Al Qaeda as it would be rebuilt under a new leadership. As to war achievements, General David Petraeus said “US, NATO, and other ISAF forces have turned up the pressure on al-Qaeda and their affiliated groups in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan and have significantly degraded their ability to plan and conduct operations throughout the theater.” As agreed at NATO Lisbon Summit last November, US and NATO forces support the Afghan government to enforce laws and upgrade the capability of the Afghan security forces, in order to improve governance in Afghanistan. In conclusion, this report warns that precipitous withdrawal of Western troops will ruin achievements made in this war.

Troop reduction will change the strategy from counterinsurgency which is a labor intensive mission that requires protecting the civilian population, to counterterrorism which is a limited mission primarily to targeting militant leaders. Counterinsurgency responsibilities will be assumed by Afghan security forces. Secretary of Defense-then Robert Gates said, "a gradual shift that will really depend on what part of the country you're in.” (“Gates sees shifts in Afghanistan strategy”; Military Times; June 27, 2011) The problem is, whether such a precipitous change in strategy is appropriate or not. Also, the decision making process for troop withdrawal needs critical assessment.

Robert Kagan, Director at the Foreign Policy Initiative, comments that Barack Obama is an isolationist like presidents in the 1930s, and preoccupied with his own reelection victory. However, Kagan says that premature withdrawal will embolden terrorist groups such as the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e Taiba, as well Al Qaeda in the Af-Pak region. Another 9-11 could inflict damages that costs more than the billions spent on the surge. Furthermore, US drawdown will provoke pullout of European allies (“Don’t Come Home, America”; Weekly Standard; July 4, 2011). For further understanding of Obama’s decision from critical viewpoints, a panel discussion at the Institute for the Studies of War on June 30 is very helpful. Three leaders including Senator John McCain, Senator Joseph Lieberman, and Retired Genera Jack Keane spoke at the event that was moderated by Michael O’Hanlon Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. Keane narrated an overview of the war in Afghanistan. See the video below.

As an architect of the surge in Iraq, Keane made it clear that counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan did not make progress until sending additional troops in 2009. Regarding President Obama’s decision of massive withdrawal, Keane said the plan irresponsible and reckless, because it will ruin strategic gains the coalition forces achieved. While the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces were substantially destroyed, the Haqqani network is still rampant, which will be a formidable challenge to incoming ISAF Commander John Allen. Senator McCain agrees with General Keane, and said that troop pullout based on the calendar rather than the condition in the battlefield is absurd. In addition to combat strategies, political framework needs more attention. Though criticism for corruption undermines President Obama’s trust in the Karzai administration, three panelists emphasized compelling necessity of close partnership between two leaders. Also, they stressed that President Karzai’s sincere hope for some kind of security deals with the United States will help long term security in the region from Central Asia, the Iranian Plateau to the Indian Subcontinent. Also, panelists agreed that Pakistani involvement is vital, as terrorists receive substantial material support from safe havens in this country.

In addition to the strategy, the decision making process needs critical assessment. At the hearing of Senate Armed Service Committee on June 28, Lieutenant General John Allen who replaces General David Petraeus as the Commander in Afghanistan testified that President Obama’s original withdrawal plan was more aggressive than the announced one. Neither Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen nor General Petraeus support the plan, because troops will pull out in the midst of fighting season of the next year. In Afghanistan, guerillas act from April to November when the climate is warm enough to fight. Therefore, Stephen Hayes, Senior Writer of the Weekly Standard, criticizes Obama’s attitude to top military advisors (”General Reveals that Obama Ignored Military's Advice on Afghanistan”; Weekly Standard Blog; June 28, 2011). Earlier, Defense Secretary-then Gates said that US forces be fully committed to global security including Afghanistan and Iraq (“U.S. Military Will Always Have 'A Full Menu,' Secretary Gates Says”; NPR News; June 2, 2011).

Why doesn’t President Obama give sufficient considerations to those advices? It is Vice President Joseph Biden that has significant influence on Obama’s decision. Biden told Obama that the military went beyond the goal of “defeating Al Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from toppling the Afghan government and improving security.” Biden’s opinion of targeted and small scale deployment over mass deployment is gaining ground in view of chronic tension with the Karzai administration and the kill of Osama bin Laden. Also, Biden is winning Obama’s trust in a broad range of policy issues from Iraq to the budget (“Obama’s Growing Trust in Biden Is Reflected in His Call on Troops”; New York Times; June 24, 2011). White House politics and bilateral political interactions impose more influence on Obama’s decision than strategic necessities. The Republican side is also a problem. As recent poll suggests that three quarter of Americans hope some level of troop cut, Republican presidential candidates are divided in Afghan strategy. While Former Governor of Minnesota Tim Pawlenty criticizes Obama’s plan, other candidates such as Former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney says war costs needs to be considered (“GOP hopefuls stake out Afghanistan positions”; Washington Post; June 22, 2011). In response to drastic withdrawal plan of cutting 33,000 soldiers by September 2012 and war-reluctant public opinion, Senator John McCain, Senator Joseph Lieberman, and Senator Lindsey Graham, jointly spoke out against the troop cut. They do not believe in successful negotiations with the Taliban, and argue that the withdrawal plan will encourage the enemy (“McCain, Lieberman, Graham criticize Afghan drawdown plan”; Washington Post; July 4, 2011).

Facing vehement criticism coming from leading politicians and generals, new Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta visited Afghanistan to reaffirm the Obama plan, when he met with President Hamid Karzai. Regarding the War on Terror, Panetta says Al Qaeda is fading and targeted attack to terrorist leaders will bring victory to the US forces. On the other hand, Secretary Panetta urged more attention to Yemen, another terrorist haven (“Panetta: U.S. ‘within reach’ of defeating al-Qaeda”; Washington Post; July 9, 2011). As widely discussed, the budget and incoming presidential election are key issues. However, other points such as White House politics and an overview of Middle East political transition must be given sufficient consideration as well. Those aspects play more important roles in decision making rather than strategic rationality in Afghanistan.

US Defense and Its Role as the World Policeman

2011-06-30T14:38:00.010+09:00

American defense policy is at the crossroads in view of growing pressure for fiscal austerity and withdrawal from Afghanistan. Ongoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates articulated that the United States must maintain the role of the world policeman, and NATO allies make more defense contributions to deal with new security challenges in the 21st century. Before leaving the job to the next Secretary Leon Panetta, Gates presented an overview of US defense policy at the American Enterprise Institute on May 24. See the video below.

In this event, Secretary Gates advocated that the United States maintain defense capability in spite of fiscal constraints. The fundamental premise of his speech is that the ultimate guarantee to defend the world from aggressors and dictators is American hard power which is the size, strength, and outreach of its armed forces. While Gates stressed importance of victory in the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, he told that the US military needs reforms in weaponry systems and organizations to meet requirements to deal with new threats. Though he believes defense expenditure does not hurt the economy, political reality does not allow the Pentagon to be exempted from budget cut. Today, the nature of threats is complicated and unpredictable, but free nations do not face a gigantic military adversary after the Cold War. In order to manage the trade off between politico-fiscal constraints and military demand, Gates raised key aspects to determine the future of US defense, which are priority, strategy, and risks. As the United States needs to fight two major wars, its armed forces must be large enough, and small forces are no use however efficient they may be. In addition to maintaining superiority against China and Russia, the United States must manage threats by non-state actors like Hezbollah which have more well equipped armed forces than state actors. Therefore, small and efficient military capability does not make sense. At the end of the speech, Secretary Gates emphasized America’s special responsibility in maintaining world peace, despite growing antipathy to the war among the public.

In view of US role in the world, some conservative media criticize President Obama’s “dangerous instinct” to cut defense expenditure whose share in GDP of 3.5% which is half of that of 7.5% during the Cold War, while introducing European styled health care system. On the other hand, they applaud Gates as he resisted such Little Americanism (“The Gates Farewell Warning”; Wall Street Journal; May 28, 2011). Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton argues furthermore “Adam Smith wrote in ‘The Wealth of Nations’ that ‘the first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force.’” (“National Security Must Not Be an Afterthought”; Washington Examiner; May 24, 2011) Taking America’s role as the global policeman into serious consideration, the Defending Defense Project, jointly run by the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Foreign Policy Initiative, released an open letter of question to next Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. Most importantly, quoting comments “I have long believed, and I still do, that the defense budget, however large it may be, is not the cause of this country's fiscal woes” and "a smaller military, no matter how superb, will be able to go to fewer places and be able to do fewer things” by Secretary Gates, this letter asks whether next Secretary Panetta agrees to the above viewpoints. Regarding rising threats, China and Iran are key focuses. Finally, this letter demands incoming Secretary Panetta to reconsider withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan because current plans were made before the Arab spring (“Ten Questions on the Future of US Defense Spending Priorities for Secretary of Defense Nominee Leon Panetta”; Defending Defense Project; June 7, 2011).

Military capability of NATO allies is also an important issue to think of US defense. At NATO Defense Ministers Meeting in Brussels, Secretary Gates urged European allies to make more contribution in defense. As shown in the table, some members like Spain and Belgium spend around 1% of GDP for defense. This is almost the same as that of Japan whose pacifist constitution and mindsets still pose constraints to military activities（”Gates Questions NATO's Future”; Wall Street Journal; June 11, 2011). Things have not changed since Robert Kagan talked of American Mars and European Venus in his well known book, “Of Paradise and Power”. NATO members other than Britain and France are military pygmies.

Another focal point of US defense in the world is Afghanistan. The Obama administration sees the successful attack to Osama bin Laden is a good opportunity to end the long war. However, we have to note that strategists in the military do not believe Obama’s decision right. Robert Kagan, Director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, mentions that the entire military leaders worry caustic outcomes by withdrawal as commented by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen that the decision will embolden insurgents and increase risks to remaining troops. Also, it will lead allies to cut defense contribution in Afghanistan (“Military leaders know Obama’s decision is a disaster”; Post Partisan—Washington Post; June 23, 2011). At the Senate hearing on June 23, General David Petraeus testified that he agrees with Admiral Mullen. Toby Harnden illustrates critical gaps between Obama and armed forces (“General David Petraeus: I disagree with Barack Obama but 'I'm no quitter'”; Daily Telegraph Blog; June 24, 2011). Actually, ongoing Gates warned the risk of premature withdrawal when he visited Afghanistan (“Gates: No Rush for U.S. Troops to Leave Afghanistan”; NPR; June 4, 2011). Neighborhood countries do not want confusions associated with US withdrawal. When American officials talked with the Taliban, India raised concerns because Delhi officials do not believe in the Good Taliban Theory (“India and the Taliban Talks”; Diplomat Blog; June 26, 2011).

In view of fiscal austerity, cost performance is a vital issue of consideration. However, obsession with efficiency will ruin national security as new threat emerges one after another. Regretfully, national security is a secondary issue in the debate for 2012 presidential election at this stage. Though Republican candidates attack unanimously Obama’s economic and social security policy, they are split on defense, particularly with regard to Afghanistan (“GOP hopefuls stake out Afghanistan positions”; Washington Post; June 23, 2011). But remember! Fragile global security shall never allow nation building at home. Also, America’s position will be weakened if cutting its own defense while urge “free riders” to spend more on it.

More Donations to Japanese Policymaking Infrastructure!

2011-06-16T22:22:00.002+09:00

The coalition of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and the Clean Government Party (Komeito) has been critical to Prime Minister Naoto Kan with regard to his response to the great earthquake and his foreign and domestic policies. This led them to pose a no confidence motion to the Kan cabinet, in expectation of uprisings within the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) by the Ozawa-Hatoyama group, despite huge gaps in fundamental policy values between the LDP-Komeito coalition and Democrat dissidents. LDP places the foremost priority on the US-Japanese alliance as shown in their agreement with the United States over Futemma Air Base. On the other hand, the Ozawa-Hatoyama group explores close ties with China and the United Nations. As shown in the joint plot of no confidence motion by such an incompatible alliance, Japanese people are fed up with messy conflicts in Nagatacho which is more oriented toward political fraction rivalries rather than policy measures. But it is no use just to blame the diet. Above all, ability of winning votes and ability of thinking of the vision of the world or the state are not necessarily congruent. Rather, we should try to make democracy sound through policymaking initiatives outside the legislative and the executive sectors of the government. For this purpose, it is necessary to develop policymaking infrastructures which enable organizations and individuals pursuing policy ideals to exert influences on parliamentary politicians and bureaucrats.

While Japan has fallen into a political turmoil this year, in the United States, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace commemorates the centennial anniversary. The background of think tank development in the United States is a “political vacuum”. America was growing rapidly since the latter half of the 19th century, and it was called a “Hercules in the cradle” by Europeans. However, this Hercules was so inward-looking that he went back to the cradle after Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Even though British hegemony was in decline during the interwar period, Hercules was reluctant to go out to defeat monsters such as the Nemean Lion. Business societies and citizens thought that such an inward looking America exercise political leadership in accordance with its national power, and it was a think tank of long history such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Brookings Institution, and the Council on Foreign Relations that was founded through donations by them. A long tradition of civic voluntarism donation culture since the era of British colonial rule helped policymaking infrastructures grow out of established governmental frameworks. Even present days, new think tanks, NGOs, and individuals of policy visions stand up one after another in the United States. It is supported by donations from corporations, philanthropy foundations, and citizens.

Open publication - Free publishing - More carnegie

Essentially, democracy is not just the rule by the majority. It is a political regime to control excessive abuse of power under absolute monarchy. It is utterly wrong to believe that a judgment by the people is always right. If things were simply left to decisions by the majority, politics would fall into the idiocracy that permitted Barabbas and executed Jesus. In order to stop such idiocracy, minority rights are protected through systems like checks and balances, freedom of speech, and the rule of law. However, they are not enough, and intellectuals out of official positions need to take leadership in shaping the public opinion to correct misjudgments by the people. As it were, think tanks, NGOs, and individuals of visions advocate policy ideals beyond short term partisan tug wars, play alternative roles of Plato’s “philosopher king”. In order to make policymaking infrastructures that enable them to work actively, donations from people of the willing are necessary. Donation culture in Japan is expected to develop in view of the 3-11 earthquake, but real social contribution is beyond simply supporting charity activities.

Expanding donations to policy infrastructures is not only for right democracy. These days, Japan loses self confidence in face of the rise of emerging economies in the neighborhood such as China, South Korea, and ASEAN countries. However, no matter how their industrial output grows, it is Japan along with America and Europe that plays a leading role to show fundamental values and solutions of the system in the global political economy. It is important to strengthen the leadership in knowledge so that Japan can win political and economic competitions among states.

Consequently, close ties of civic voluntarism and intellectuals of the willing are necessary so that Japan can get out of “political vacuums”. It is useless just to talk when Prime Minister Kan resigns, or whether to vote for DPJ or LDP. For this purpose, more donations for policymaking infrastructures are anticipated, beyond for charity activities grown since 3-11.

Poland as a Frontline of Russo-Western Rivalries

2011-06-02T20:01:00.003+09:00

President Barack Obama went on a trip to Europe at the end of this May, starting from Ireland, Britain, France, and Poland. Jan Techau, Director the European Centre of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, comments that his visit to Poland has more important security implications than the bilateral strategic discussion on Libya in Britain and the Deauville Summit of G8 in France.

It is no exaggeration to say that history of Poland is history of Europe from the 20th century onward. World War Ⅱ began from here. The Anglo-Soviet clash on Poland during the war grew into the Cold War. The Solidarity movement led by Lech Walesa was a precursor of the Berlin Wall fall down. Poland is in such a critical position in the Russo-Western geopolitical rivalry. According to Techau, Obama’s visit to Poland is expected to ease widespread anxieties among Central European nations that the United States resets relations with Russia at the expense of newly expanded NATO members in the east. Reassuring American security umbrella to the Eastern fringe will help the trans-Atlantic Alliance become more integrated. In the eyes of Poland, Obama’s decision to withdraw missile defense systems from there appears conciliatory to Russia. In order to soothe Poland, a squadron of US fighters will be stationed there from 2013. As Techau argues, a staunch alliance between America and Europe is the key to world peace and stability. Despite the rise of emerging economies, it is only the West that can make principles, ideas, and mechanisms of global policymaking (“Doing Geopolitics in Eastern Europe”; Carnegie Commentary; May 25, 2011). Obama’s visit to Poland poses significant implications to the Western alliance and power games with Russia.

Currently, the Russo-Western relationship is extremely delicate and complex. On one hand, both sides are deepening security cooperation as cited in the declaration of NATO Lisbon Summit last November. On the other hand, they are at odds with fundamental visions of global policymaking. While the West wants to promote a liberal world order, Russia envisions a multipolar and multi-valued world. Also, geopolitical rivalries between Russia and the West are still substantial. At Deauville, just before President Obama’s visit to Poland, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev demanded assurance that missile interceptors were not targeted on Russia while endorsing NATO led attack to Libya to oust Khadafy. See the Video below.

Mark Brzezinski, foreign policy advisor in Obama’s presidential election campaign, comments that it takes a long time to improve Russo-Polish relations because disagreements on the massacre of Katyn Forest. Strains between both countries deters the US-Russian reset, he says (“Obama, Poland, and Russia”; New York Times; May 26, 2011). As in the last century, Brzezinski’s article suggests that Poland is a key country of Russo-Western geopolitics in the 21st century. At the press conference after the bilateral talks with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, President Obama applauded Poland a model for democracy to Arab nations. Also, he assured US defense involvement in Poland. See the video below.

Russia was not the only agenda at the Obama-Tusk meeting. Along with economic issues like energy and trade, and security in Afghanistan, civil society repression in Belarus was discussed (“Warsaw visit concludes Obama’s four-nation European trip” Washington Post; May 29, 2011). Security in Eastern Europe is still volatile.

The Deauville Summit may have advanced the Russo-Western reset and deepened trans-Atlantic ties, but this détente has not eased East-West geopolitical tensions completely. Therefore, we need continual attention to NATO’s eastern frontiers such as Poland, Czech, and Romania, and former Soviet republics.

A Critical Review of Obama’s 5-19 Speech on Israel

2011-05-24T14:29:00.003+09:00

President Barack Obama delivered speech to address fundamental approaches for Middle East reform in view of successful attack to Osama bin Laden. Among a wide range of issues in the speech, the Israeli-Palestine mention has drawn a focal attention by the media. The global community applauded to hear Obama’s message on May 19 that Israel withdraw to the 1967 border for Middle East peace process. Is this really a breakthrough as widely expected? Let me comment briefly.

From Israeli viewpoints, Obama demanded Israel to swap the land without requesting anything to the Palestinian side. David Horovitz of the Jerusalem Post points out that Obama failed to mention historical ties between the Jews and current Israeli territory in the Cairo speech in 2009. Unless this history-sovereignty ties are accepted, real compromise between Israel and Palestine cannot be achieved, he says (“Obama’s failure to internalize Palestinian intolerance”; Jerusalem Post; May 20, 2011). Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu interprets that Obama’s speech overturns the 2004 agreement between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, that is, no complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 line and Palestinian refugees’ incorporation into the future Palestinian state. Herb Keinon of the Jerusalem Post criticizes Obama’s remark from the following three points. First, as Obama said the 1967 borders be the baseline for the peace process, Israel must hand over all the territory acquired in the Six Day War to the Palestinian side. This is to say that Obama defends Palestinian policy goal while demanding a complete compromise for Israel. Second, Obama did not reconfirm the 2004 agreement that Palestinian refugees return to a Palestinian state. This makes the refugee issue vague and provokes concerns on the Israeli side. Third, Obama suggested to engage Hamas without clearly demanding fundamental principles: curbing terrorism, recognizing Israel, and accepting previous agreements (”Analysis: What rankled Netanyahu in the Obama speech”; Jerusalem Post; May 20, 2011).

Let me mention some critical comments to Obama’s proposal on the American side. Though complete withdrawal of Israel is unlikely, American policymakers expect that the national border will be somewhat similar to the 1967 lines. The 2004 agreement is interpreted like this way on both the American and the Israeli side. However, Danielle Pletka, Vice President at the American Enterprise Institute, mentions that the timing and the balance of this speech are inappropriate. Obama himself decided to insert the 1967 line just before the speech without listening to his senior advisers. There is no wonder Prime Minister Netanyahu was startled to hear this controversial speech as he stood by President Obama at the joint press conference. As to the balance, Obama failed to condemn terrorism by Hamas and poor governance in the Palestine area. She says this imbalance is rooted to Obama’s antipathy to Israel, which is unacceptable to American values and interests (“A Little More on the 1967 Lines, Obama and Israel”; Enterprise Blog; May 20, 2011). In any case, I would argue that Obama has made the same mistake to overturn previous agreements without giving sufficient consideration to the timing and the balance as former Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama did on Futemma Air Base.

It is premature to praise Obama’s new proposal for the Israeli-Palestinian peace talk. On the other hand, Barack Obama outlined to reconfirm Bush administration’s policy to promote democracy in the Middle East, and the global community must pay more attention to this primary message in the 5-19 speech. Without airy fairy performance to shock Benyamin Netanyahu, this speech would have been more meaningful, and it is a pity.

The World after Osama bin Laden

2011-05-08T10:56:00.010+09:00

The most wanted terrorist Osama bin Laden was killed in the attack by US Navy SEALSs in Abbottabad Pakistan on May 2. This is a landmark in the War on Terror, and a heavy blow to terrorist organizations notably Al Qaeda. However, it does not mean the end of Islamic terrorism. As Bin Laden’s hideout was not so far from Pakistani capital Islamabad, relations between Pakistan and the West are straining.

Let me talk about its implications to the war in Afghanistan. Liberals such as Gilles Dorronsoro, Associate Member at the French Institute of Anatolian Studies, argues that the United States make use of this chance to talk to the Taliban to get out of this long war, as he thinks it unlikely that things in Afghanistan and Pakistan improve soon (“Bin Laden Death Points to Way out of Trap”; Bloomberg News; May 3, 2011). On the other hand, Ashley Tellis, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, insists that conflicts among local ethnic groups and tribes will be eased only when the United States are sufficiently involved both politically and militarily. He urges Obama to accept field commanders’ advise to maintain the largest possible number of troops in Afghanistan (“Creating New Facts on the Ground”; Carnegie Policy Brief; May 2011).

The key to Western involvement in Afghanistan is how much critical threat Al Qaeda will continue to pose in the Middle East and South Asia. According to BBC, Al Qaeda and its affiliations are determined to launch attack in Pakistan in tribute to Osama, which poses substantial risks to Afganistan, Pakistan ,and India (“Osama's death: What next for al-Qaeda?”; BBC News; 2 May 2011). Daniel Byman, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, comments that the loss of charismatic and unifying personality like bin Laden has given a tremendous damage to Al Qaeda (“What Next for Al Qaeda?”; Brookings Opinion; May 2, 2011). However, hardly any experts see that the War on Terror is over.

Frederick Kagan, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, presents a concise viewpoint to understand global terrorism after bin Laden. The killing of Osama is an important achievement, and Al Qaeda has been weakened. Since the surge in Iraq by the Bush administration, they lost their franchises there. Also, he says that they are losing in Afghanistan. However, he warns that premature retreat from the War on Terror by the United States and its allies will allow remaining Al Qaeda leaders to find another franchise somewhere else (“Bin Laden, No More”; National Review Online Symposium; May 3, 2011). Fouad Ajami, Professor of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, argues furthermore that bin Laden was a loser, rejected in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also says that bin Laden was killed when his jihadist legacy was being eclipsed in the Arab Spring (“Osama Bin Laden, Weak Horse”; Wall Street Journal; May 3, 2011).

British experts express almost the same views as those of Americans. Paul Cornish, Head of International Security Programme at Chatham House, comments that symbolic effect of the death of the most notorious murderer cannot be underestimated, and perils of jihadists in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya have become less dreadful (“Osama bin Laden: Gone but not Forgotten”; Chatham House Comment; 3 May 2011). Of course, jihadist threats have not been wiped out. Xenia Dormandy, Senior Fellow at the Chatham House, warns the US Congress not to cut resources invested in this war simply for the sake of fiscal austerity (“Death of Osama bin Laden: The Threat Remains”; Chatham House Comment; 2 May 2011).

At present, Pakistan is an impending problem. The discovery of bin Laden in Abbottabad is strengthening distrusts to Pakistan among American policymakers. Since the hideout was close to military garrisons, the United States suspects that Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence sheltered him. Both American and Pakistani officials are puzzled with this (“Amid Skepticism, Pakistan Calculates Its Response”; New York Times; May 2, 2011). British leaders are also shocked to hear this news. Since the fall of Pervez Musharraf, UK-Pakistani counterterrorism ties have deepened under President Asif Al Zardari. In order to overturn a drawback in bilateral relations, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Pakistani High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, announced that the Pakistani government had no information about bin Laden before the attack by US SEALs (“MP 'shocked' at bin Laden Pakistan discovery”; Independent; 2 May 2011).

The vital issue is bin Laden’s secret network in Pakistan. John Brennan, Counterterrorism Advisor to President Obama, questions whether bin Laden had some support system in Pakistan. Pakistan’s position in counterterrorism is delicate and complicated. While Pakistani intelligence community could make use of bin Laden threat to demand US military aid, a stable democracy in Afghanistan having close ties with India can encircle Pakistan itself (”American secrecy lays bare deep distrust of its Pakistani 'allies'”; Independent; 3 May, 2011). In view of Western criticism and suspicion, Husain Haqqani, Pakistani Ambassador to the United States, appeared in CNN to admit that Osama bin Laden had support system in Pakistan. However, Haqqani denied that the Pakistani government knew Osama hiding in its territory. In addition, he emphasized Pakistan’ contribution to the War on Terror in arresting terrorist leaders such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh (“Osama had support system in Pak: Haqqani”; Hindu; May 3, 2011).

The successful attack to Osama bin Laden is a symbolic and great achievement. However, there are critical problems to be resolved. Considering connections with Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals, secret support system of terrorism is a foremost threat to global security. In the past, Pakistan was criticized for notorious Khan Network, tied to Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Also, state sponsorship to radicals must be investigated. As I mentioned in the last post, Iran has connections with Al Qaeda. It supports Shiite radicals like Hezzbolah in Lebanon and Bahrain to overturn pro-Western regimes and wipe out Israel. Those issues are more dreadful than revenge attacks in tribute to Osama.

Stability in Iraq and Dark Influences of Iran

2011-04-30T20:23:00.005+09:00

While the global public is preoccupied with recent unrests in Libya, Syria, and Yemen, a reminder article on Iraq was released by Frederick Kagan, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and Kimberly Kagan, President of the Institute for the Study of War (“Stand with Iraq”; Weekly Standard; April 18, 2011). On one hand, the Arab Spring is a great opportunity to advance democracy throughout the Middle East. But on the other hand, the collapse of the balance of power can provoke Iran’s ambition to expand its influence in the Gulf area and furthermore. Therefore, stable and strong democracy in Iraq is vital to lead Arab Spring movements to more favorable direction.

Both Kagans criticize a preoccupation with ending the war in Iraq and a notion that the US-Iraqi relations should focus on nonmilitary fields. Actually, the United States has not made meaningful progress in developing nonmilitary ties with Iraq, while Iran penetrates there through trade and investment businesses, many of which are tied to the Revolutionary Guard. Moreover, Iran deepens ties with Iraqi leaders drawing little attention from the United States. Both authors argue that the United States cannot develop bilateral partnership with Iraq by simply relying on soft power. They say that continuous presence of US peacekeeping forces will foster Arab-Kurd peace. Also, Iraqi security forces are still weak to curb Iranian-backed militias and Sunni insurgents including Al Qaeda. The United States played significant roles to manage such security challenges in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Therefore, I agree with them that the Obama administration be psychologically involved in Iraq to make continuous commitment to maintain security there. Furthermore, Max Boot, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, says, “We are still in Kosovo, South Korea and other post-conflict zones that are far more stable. We need to be in Iraq too” (“It's in America's Interest to Stay in Iraq”; Real Clear World; April 18, 2011).

American political and military presence is the key to stop Iranian ambition in the Middle East and Central Asia. Particularly, Iran is keen to penetrate its influence into the Gulf area. Bahrain is a primary target, as populated by Shiite majority. Iran sponsors Hezbollah-led uprisings there, which intensifies tensions with Arab emirates and the United States (“Bahrain Sees Hezbollah Plot in Protest”; Wall Street Journal; April 25, 2011).

Radical Shiites like Hezbollah is not the only organization sponsored by Iran. Sunni networks, notably Al Qaeda, receive substantial assistance from Iran to pursue their destructive activities throughout the Middle East. Stephen F. Hayes, Senior Writer of the Weekly Standard, and Thomas Joscelyn, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracy, talk of dreadful cases of Iran-Al Qaeda ties. In 2009, Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia told President Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan that Iran hosted Saudis to agitate uprisings in his country. In 2007, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan agreed Iran provided small fire weapons to Afghan insurgents. More importantly, CIA Director Michael Hayden said such support had been approved “at the highest levels” of the Iranian regime in 2008 (“The Iran Connection”; Weekly Standard; December 13, 2010).

Considering Iran’s ties with terrorists and radicals, stability in Iraq is interconnected with successful political transitions in the Middle East from Morocco to Pakistan. As terrorist networks are so widespread and so deeply connected with autocrats, it is utterly wrong to insist that we focus on Iraq and Afghanistan, while leaving Arab dictatorship like Libya and Syria as they are. American presence and leadership are essential to help the Arab Spring and defeat terrorists. The Obama administration’s excessive modest stance on Libya is counterproductive to the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore, I agree with Charles Krauthammer’s comment “Leading from behind is not leading” (“The Obama doctrine: Leading from behind”; Washington Post; April 29, 2011).

Meanwhile, Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki would announce how many US troops stay after December this year in several weeks. The challenge posed by a radical Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr is a key issue of US-Iraqi security talks before Maliki decides the status of US forces (“Iraq must decide in "weeks" on U.S. troops: Mullen”; Reuters; April 23, 2011). Don’t forget Iraq. Democracy promotion, along with the War on terror and nuclear nonproliferation in the Middle East started from here.

Think again Our Relations with China

2011-04-18T01:23:00.004+09:00

Despite political rivalries with free nations, business societies regard China as an indispensable partner for growth opportunities. Moreover, some policymakers see China a locomotive for the world economy while developed nations are aging. However, relations with the Beijing regime need to be reconsidered both in terms of politics and the economy. Is it really our interest to “bow down and praise” autocrats as President Barack Obama did in his speech at APEC summit in Singapore?

First, let me talk about political aspects. Ellen Bork, Director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, criticizes that the Obama administration’s engagement policy has not changed repressive nature of the Communist China. Since the Jasmine Revolutions in the Arab world, the Chinese authority has been arresting numerous activists, lawyers, and bloggers for freedom. While American human rights lawyer organizations such as the New York City Bar Association and the American Bar Association demand the Chinese government to release them, human rights issues are not the agenda at the US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in Washington this May. Bork says that the Obama administration puts too much emphasis on the economy over democracy (“Meanwhile, in Beijing ...”; Weekly Standard; April 11, 2011). In view of Western pressure to release Ai Weiwei (“Amid crackdown, U.S. groups strive to improve China's legal system”; USA Today; April 14, 2011), Chinese police accuses Ai of evading tax, committing bigamy, and spreading pornography (“China police building tax case against detained artist”; Reuters; April 14, 2011). As China is manipulating criminal cases against human rights activists just to crackdown Jasmine movements at home, the Obama administration needs to reconsider business first diplomacy with Beijing.

Geopolitical conflicts like the Senkaku dispute also need attention. I suspect that China has been emboldened to see apologetic global policy of the Obama administration. This is not only in East Asia, but worldwide. Regarding Libya, Lluís Bassets, Vice-Director of a Spanish daily El Pais, argues that President Obama is too modest to take leadership for Western democracies, which disappoints European allies (“EU and NATO in a tail spin”; Presseurop; 15 April, 2011). Quite regretfully, both Japanese and American opinion leaders blame Former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama for allowing China to make use of worsening relations between both countries, but they hardly analyze critically on President Obama’s China policy. Hatoyama advocated the regular triangle relationship among Japan, the United States, and China. Also, he tried to overturn the bilateral deal on Futenma Air Base. The Washington Post is right to call Hatoyama loopy. However, speculation to Hatoyama has obscured faults on the Obama side. Had Obama acted steadfast, China would not have committed dangerous adventure to provoke the US-Japanese alliance, however loopy Japanese leaders were.

Moreover, we need to cast doubt to widely spread opinions among many economists and businessmen that China’s economic growth will contribute to our economy, and market opportunities there should not be missed. The Economist discusses the balance of gains and losses from trade between the United Sates and China on its blog. As Adam Smith and David Ricardo insist, free trade with China brings economic gains to the United States. However, this is offset by unemployment. As this blog argues, American welfare system may have to adjust to global economic competition (“Better safety nets needed”; Economist—Free Exchange; February 22, 2011). However, I would argue that cheap and massive labor of China poses compelling threats to workers in the United States, Europe, and Japan.

Finally, 3-11 earthquake and subsequent Fukushima nuclear accident has brought us home that Japan is in no position of meddling America and China. It has turned out that Hatoyama’s vision of the regular triangle is utterly wrong, and the Operation Tomodachi reminds Japanese people that a strong US-Japanese alliance is the vital and foremost national interest. Furthermore, in the nuclear accident, the United States and France offered technological help to manage the crisis, and Russia proposed new governance for nuclear energy based on the Chernobyl experience. Has China done anything? In the area of knowledge, China is no rival for the West and Russia. Remember this, my fellow Japanese.

We must think again when we evaluate real power of China and its importance to our national interest. Applying the theory of Susan Strange, Chinese power is relational, not structural. China can hard power muscle to impose its will on others, but it unable cannot set international norms and show solutions to global challenges. We should never kowtow to Red China for the sake of short term economic interests. Bear it in mind, businessmen and “pragmatic” politicians. China is not necessarily the savior to boost our economy.

Shut down Nuclear Plants? Wait!: Peaceful Use and Non-proliferation

2011-04-11T02:58:00.003+09:00

After the Fukushima shock, an increasing number of people insist that nuclear power plants be shut down immediately to avoid radioactive pollution to the environment. Some say that renewable resource such as biomass, geothermal, solar, wind, and tidal energy, supplant atomic power as post-petroleum energy resource. However, we should remember that technological assistance to build nuclear reactors for peaceful use is a bargaining tool for nonproliferation. Atomic energy and nuclear weapons are deeply correlated. Therefore, complete elimination of nuclear power plants can remove constraints to rising proliferators, which will lead to more nuclear tests and more radioactive contamination. This paradox is very important when we think of peaceful use of nuclear energy and nonproliferation of nuclear weapons after Fukushima.

Relations between peaceful use of atomic energy and nonproliferation of nuclear weapons can be described from the following points. First, established nuclear great powers like P5 and developed nations offer technological assistance for otherwise proliferators to build nuclear reactors. In return, countries accepting the assistance are demanded to stop developing or proliferating nuclear weapons. Once developed nations shut down nuclear power plants, they will lose this vital bargaining tool. Second, providers of technological assistance can demand verification, even though the customer country is out of the NPT regime.

The US-Indian nuclear deal is the most successful case of reactor for nonproliferation. In return for technological help, India accepted to stop nuclear tests. This deal has become a paradigm for other industrialized and emerging economies keen to pioneer the Indian market. Among them, Japan finally decided to shed anti-nuclear sentiments through Hiroshima-Nagasaki experience, and join the nuclear deal with India. Despite pacifist emotion, Japanese companies such as Hitachi, Toshiba, and Japan Steel Works subcontract General Electric and Areva to build nuclear reactors (“U.S., France press for Japan-India nuclear deal – Nikkei”; Reuters; June 9, 2010).

Reactor for nonproliferation deal is also explored in negotiations with Iran and North Korea. Whether we can talk with them or not, helping reactor building is one of carrots accompanied by a stick of economic sanction. As nuclear power plant projects are suspended in developed countries, negotiations with Iran and North Korea will be stalled.

It is too naïve to demand nuclear power plans be shut down immediately. Once we shut down, we will lose a means to bind potential nuclear proliferators. While the tsunami was a natural disaster once in a thousand years of Japanese history, nuclear testing is an act of human will that can happen anytime. Rising proliferators have poor technological solutions to manage the testing site, which would result in more serious radioactive pollution on the earth.

If we stop peaceful use of nuclear power, the problem will grow beyond energy and the environment. It is regretful that opinion leaders fail to discuss the impact of the Fukushima accident on nuclear arms control and nonproliferation.

Smart Power in US Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice on Libya and Japan

2011-03-31T23:39:00.012+09:00

Last month, I talked about a new security concept of smart power and US foreign policy. The word of “smart” captures the heart of many people, occasionally without exploring the real meaning of it. Quite often, “smart” or “efficient” organizations fail to manage something unexpected. Regarding smart power, Joseph Nye,Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University, and Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, discussed this concept in US foreign policy in PBS's “Ideas in Action” on March 4. See the video below.

Nye is an authority of smart power and a close advisor to the Obama administration, while Kagan is a leading neoconservative commentator who was a foreign policy consultant for John McCain in the last presidential election. Therefore, this program illustrates how the new concept is viewed among American foreign policy makers. In the program, Professor Nye explains that smart power is a combination of hard power, which is economic and military power, and soft power, which is persuasion and attraction. Nye says that the United States is still the preeminent power, because of ideological supremacy. Robert Kagan agrees that power is multidimensional and smart use of those powers will be helpful to US diplomacy. However, Kagan insists that soft power is effective only when associated with strong hard power, as typically seen in US security umbrella during the Cold War.

Today, security challenges are intertwined. While global issues like financial disorder, environmental degradations, and non-state actor threats need transnational cooperation, traditional state to state rivalries are growing. Quite importantly, as Kagan argues, charm of Obama has not had any effect to curb Chinese and Iranian challenges. Nye also agrees importance of military power in this century. Through the discussion by both opinion leaders, we understand that the use of hard power and soft power is correlated.

When we talk of smart power, we must remember that the nature of security challenges is evolving increasingly intertwined. This is not only an agenda of US foreign policy. The strategic security concept adopted at NATO Lisbon summit in November last year states, “A comprehensive political, civilian and military approach is necessary for effective crisis management”, in order to tackle such security challenges discussed by Nye and Kagan.

Currently, humanitarian intervention to Libya and the nuclear crisis in Japan are critical cases to discuss smart power in practice. The former is a traditional power rivalry of “The West and the Rest”, as China, Russia, and India did not vote for the war at the UN Security Council. The latter, however, requires transnational cooperation. Since nuclear energy and environmental issues are critical agenda of global commons, problems are beyond national and ideological clashes.

The case of Libya is quite puzzling. At the beginning, the Obama administration was too cautious of humanitarian intervention, while France and Britain urged American commitment. This is completely opposite to the Iraq War. Solid Western alliance is essential to help rebels against the Kadafi regime. In addition to policy coordination with allies, the Obama administration is psychologically traumatized with anti-American protests during the Iraq War. This is not the only reason for Obama’s hesitation to “boots on the ground”. Those who urge US commitment are neoconservatives who advocate regime change and liberals who insist on humanitarian intervention. Meanwhile, the Congress demanded Obama to clarify war objectives and the limit of intervention (“Pressure building on Obama to clarify mission in Libya”; Washington Post; March 24, 2011). Quite embarrassingly, “Mr. Obama’s administration, however, has clearly tried to avoid the debate over a strategy beyond that by shifting the burden of enforcing the United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing force on to France, Britain and other allies, including Arab nations like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, which on Thursday said that it would contribute warplanes to the effort. In other words, the American exit strategy is not necessarily the coalition’s exit strategy.” (“Allies Are Split on Goal and Exit Strategy in Libya”; New York Times; March 25, 2011)

As the debate on the Libya strategy became intensified, Senator John McCain urged the Obama administration to act beyond air attack, and not to allow Kadafi to massacre Libyan citizens (“McCain Wants Obama to Oust Qaddafi”; FOX News; March 25, 2011). On the other hand Professor Joseph Nye defended Obama’s approach. The United States avoids unilateralism and behaves humbly by leaving command responsibility to NATO. Also, Nye endorses Obama’s restraint on strategic objectives and fighting duration (“Four reasons to support Obama on Libya strikes”; Power & Policy; March 22, 2011).

But we should remember that In response to pressure from inside and outside the United States, Obama extolled America’s special role and universal values, and rejected realism in the speech at the National Defense University on March 28. Robert Kagan comments his speech Kennedy-esque (“In Obama’s speech, echoes of JFK”; Washington Post—Post Partisan; March 28, 2011). See the video below.

At the London Conference hosted by British Foreign Secretary William Hague, Secretary Hillary Clinton met Libyan opposition leader Mahmoud Jebril, and discussed democratic transition of Libya. However, the United States prefers political pressure to oust Kadafi. Though majority of rebel fighters are responsible Libyans, NATO Commander Admiral James Stavridis testified at Capitol Hill that some of them were associated with Al Qaeda and Hezbollah (“Summit swings behind Libyan rebels”; Financial Times; March 29, 2011). In addition to domestic opinions against unlimited war expansion and relations with European allies, this makes the Obama administration still cautious of “boots on the ground” decision.

The Fukushima Nuclear Accident caused by the Great Eastern Japan Earthquake requires transnational policy coordination beyond national strategic interests and ideology. Above all, the United States has more resources to manage this crisis than any other countries, a cabal of nuclear experts and the most well-equipped armed forces in the world. Michael Auslin, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise, urged US armed forces to help Japanese earthquake victims. As Japan has only 100 military helicopters, he recommends more US heavy-lift helicopters to be sent (“Japan Needs Its Own Berlin Airlift”; FOX News; March 15, 2011). The earthquake and subsequent tsunami has inflicted dreadful damages to the Japanese economy, and the United States must support this ally that cannot help becoming inward-looking for years. Despite difficult economic ties, political ties of both countries are strengthened by the joint rescue and reconstruction mission of the Operation Tomodachi (“The US Military's Role”; New York Times Room for Debate; March 16, 2011). Rescue teams from other countries also give substantial help to Japanese victims.

In addition to multinational rescue and reconstruction activities, new global governance for nuclear safety must be established. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev proposed to expand nuclear safety regulations by international organizations. Also, Medvadev said that Russia would be willing to offer technological help to safe nuclear plants in developing countries（”Russian standards of safety for nuclear power industry should be adopted internationally”; President of Russia News; March 24, 2011).

Libya and Japan are vital cases to explore practical use of smart power in American foreign policy. The former needs traditional power oriented approaches, as insisted by Kagan. The latter needs multi-multilateral coordination including civil societies and local communities, as maintained by Nye. Being smart does not necessarily mean achieving something with smaller capital and manpower. Smart power diplomacy must deepen American involvement in global security. Any presidents must be psychologically into the world.

Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami

2011-03-21T15:28:00.001+09:00

As widely known around the world, unprecedentedly tremendous earthquake of Richter scale 9.0 attacked on the Pacific coast of north eastern Japan. People are panicked and basic commodities like food and flash lights have become scarce as a result of scare buyout. In Tokyo, electricity shortage stresses people, and many events were cancelled.

Though things have improved after St. Patrick’s Day, eastern Japan is still in emergency. People are still concerned with scheduled blackouts. In order to save electric consumption, trains run less frequently and shops close earlier. Those make everything inconvenient. In a north western suburb of Tokyo where I live, air planes and helicopters of the US Air Force and Japanese Self Defense Force, from Yokota and Iruma bases, fly at night. Usually people complain such noises at night, but it is a critical emergency, now. They are saviors for disaster torn Japanese people.

Since Global American Discourse is a depth in analysis and advocacy blog, premature commentaries shall not be posted. Therefore, the earthquake and tsunami were not mentioned on this blog. However, I may talk about lessons of this earthquake in the future, regarding crisis management and the Fukushima nuclear accident. Particularly, the latter is closely related to nuclear nonproliferation, which is one of important agendas on this blog. My views about this earthquake appear on my Twitter, particularly from 3-11 (the earthquake day) to 3-17.

I would like to express my heartfelt condolences to those who experienced plights of unprecedented disaster.

Gambare Nippon!

Pray for Japan!

How Should America Advance Middle East Democracy?

2011-03-18T01:09:00.003+09:00

As I mentioned in the last post, the rise of anti-government protests in the Middle East does not imply an erosion of American grip in this region. Rather, a long quested American Dream of Middle East democracy since the outbreak of the Afghan War and the Iraq War is coming true. In what way should the United States be involved in Middle East political transformation? I would like to talk about three key countries, which are Egypt, Libya, and Iran.

Grassroots uprisings provoked by the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia and the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt are not bolts from the blue. In a joint report by Marina Ottaway and Amr Hamzawy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, authors say that the civil protest started in Tunisia was not a completely new development, but rather a more dramatic example of the unrest common across the Arab world. Civilian protests for political and economic reform in Egypt have been witnessed from the end of the last century, and the quest for democracy has been intensified since 2003, the year of the Iraq War. Things in other Arab nations, including Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, are somewhat similar. Through in depth analysis of socio-political movements in the Arab world, Ottaway and Hamzawy say that youth movements spread rapidly even without well-arranged organizational structures. Although traditional unionists and left wing activists argue that those movements depending on social media are not long-lasting, the Facebook revolution in Tunisia has inspired Arab citizens who hope to overthrow dictators repressing them with mighty security services (“Protest Movements and Political Change in the Arab World”; Carnegie Endowment Policy Outlook; January 28, 2011).

Former Jordanian Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher argues furthermore to suggest necessary steps toward Arab reform. Since Arab citizens no longer trust the government, any reform must be beyond lip service. Muasher endorses fair election, strong parliament, checks and balances, and educational reform. Without political reform, people will not trust economic liberalization, because economic growth simply widened social inequality. Muasher insists that the above reforms must be pushed forward, and leaders must overcome harsh opposition by the establishment (“How to Achieve Real Reform in the Arab World”; Washington Post; February 2, 2011).

As to Egypt, Amr Hamzawy, Research Director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, argues almost the same points as Marwan Muasher. He insists that the emergency law be eliminated, and civil freedom be protected. Furthermore, Hamzawy recommends that political prisoners be freed (“Egypt's Path Ahead: Agree to the People's Demands”; National; February 2, 2011).

Some Western commentators warn the risk of Islamists, but Former Dutch Member of the Parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali say that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt can adapt to reality, though they were violent in the past. Through her experience in election, Ali points out, “The party has to be embedded in as many communities as possible, regardless of social class, religion or even political views” (“Get Ready for the Muslim Brotherhood”; New York Times; February 3, 2011). Therefore, Western policymakers should focus on transparent and accountable governance in Egypt, rather than the rise of Islamists.

Michelle Dunne, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, argue that successful democratization of Egypt will have a considerable impact on the whole Arab world. Egypt is a birthplace of pan-Arabism and the first country to the peace treaty with Israel. Its population is by far the largest among Arab nations. Both experts recommend smart and targeted assistance to Egypt. They argue that Western aid must be focused on the economy rather than military, such as debt forgiveness and free trade agreement. Also, mentioning a report of recent trip to Egypt by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, they insist on increasing private investment which Egyptians need, and send a delegation of high-tech industry there (“Why Egypt Has To Be the U.S. Priority in the Middle East”; Washington Post; March 7, 2011). Since anti-Mubarak youth stood up to demand improvements in the economy and social inequality, their recommendation will be plausible. Quite importantly, both authors advise the US government to respect self rise movements by Egyptians, and not to impose American-styled democracy. Kagan and Dunne argue that Middle East policy needs a high powered leader to act beyond bureaucratic sectionalism, and put a unique proposal that the Obama administration appoint a Middle East Transition Czar.

Things in Libya are completely different as Colonel Muammar Khadafi clings to power. While Western policymakers advocate that a no-fly-zone be imposed on Libya, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is skeptic to American capability for such a mission, and even hopes of leaving it to Britain, France, and Italy (“Robert Gates on Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Defense Budget”; Weekly Standard Blog; February 23, 2011). As the Obama administration is cautious of intervention to Libya, foreign policy and human rights experts, including Robert Kagan, William Kristol, and former officials of the Bush and Clinton administration, urged President Obama to take actions against Colonel Khadafi’s repression, notably establishing no-fly-zone (Open Letter; Foreign Policy Initiative; February 25, 2011). Jamie Fly, Executive Director of the Foreign Policy Initiative points out that enforcing a no-fly-zone by the United States and key allies does not need the approval of the UN Security Council, as in previous cases of Iraq and Kosovo. He also argues that the Obama administration not dismiss America’s moral obligation to defend Libyan citizens attacked by Khadafi (“Opposing view: A moral obligation to intervene”; USA Today; March 3, 2011). Moreover, Fly criticizes the inaction, because even liberal New York Times argues “the Obama administration is throwing out so many conflicting messages on Libya that they are blunting any potential pressure on the Libyan regime and weakening American credibility” (“What Should We Do About Libya?”; National Review Online Symposium; March 10, 2011).

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met a delegation of the Benghazi government in waiting which is called the National Transitional Council in Paris. If the council is recognized by the global community, it can use Libya’s overseas assets and export oil. Though France recognized this post Khadafi regime, the waiting regime does not agree with the United States on Israel-Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan (“Rebel council seeks to transform Libya”; Washington Post; March 15, 2011). But this is also the case with the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt. I do not believe it a legitimate reason for the United States to abstain from supporting the anti-Khadafi rebel. Despite that, the United States did not agree to a no-fly-zone initiative by France and Britain at G8 foreign ministers meeting in Paris (“France fails to get G8 accord on Libya no-fly zone”; Reuters; March 15, 2011). The Obama administration may be traumatized by the Bush administration’s experience in the Iraq War, but an obsession with a UN resolution will simply delay necessary action. This is a critical test of current administration’s use of smart power.

While some analysts argue that Iran will fill the Middle East power vacuum in view of the fall of pro-Western Arab governments, Karim Sadjapour, Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace comments the opposite. Potential reemergence of democratized Egypt will undermine relative power of Iran. Also, he says that Iran has the same problems of repression and deteriorating economy as those in Egypt and Tunisia. Furthermore, Arab Shiites in Iraq and Bahrain do not feel themselves familiar to Iran (“Arabs Rise, Tehran Trembles”; New York Times; March 5, 2011). It is quite likely that the Arab transition will stimulate youngsters in Iran who stood up in the Green Movement.

Finally, I would like to explore the big picture of the Arab world and the guidelines to advance democracy in this region. Marwan Muasher insists that the West must give priority to political reform over economic liberalization, as the market economy without checks and balances brought wealth to the ruling class and simply widened socio-economic inequality. Also, he calls an attention to the vital fact that the protests spread nationwide by ordinary citizens who were annoyed with autocrats, not Islamists who cling to outmoded theocracy. That makes a compromise with a repressive regime useless (“Arab Myths and Realities”; Project Syndicate; March 8, 2011).

While some experts compare current Arab democratization with the fall of Berlin Wall, Thomas Carothers, Vice President at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, comments cautiously. Unlike monolithically communist Central and Eastern Europe in the Cold War era, Arab nations are more diversified, including reformist monarchs, conservative monarchs, autocratic presidents, tribal states, failing states, oil-rich states, and water-poor states. Also, Arab leaders are more independent of the West than those in Central and Eastern Europe. However, that does not mean Arab democracy is difficult to achieve, as Arab activists are keen to learn successful experiences abroad. Islamists may be well organized, but they need support from swing voters to win majority. Quite importantly, Carothers points out that Islamists in the Arab world were willing to work within multiparty systems (“Think Again: Arab Democracy”; Foreign Policy; March 10, 2011).

The path to democracy in the Middle East is not so simplistic. Gulf monarchies are key allies to the West, and slow but steady approaches are necessary. Such approaches differ from one country to another. In some cases, bold interventions are required, and the Obama administration is finally moving toward endorsing France and Britain in Libya (“Specter of Rebel Rout Helps Shift U.S. Policy on Libya”; New York Times; March 16, 2011). On the other hand, things in Bahrain grow difficult to manage. Democracy in the Middle East has become an America’s agenda since 9-11, and critical tests are posed now.

Middle East Democracy: American Dream Will Come True?

2011-03-05T00:18:00.003+09:00

The United States has been exploring political reform in the Middle East for a long time. Leading think tanks and NGOs have been helping empowerment of rural communities, women, ethnic minorities and so forth in the Middle East. Particularly, since 9-11 terrorist attack, and subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, American policymakers have begun to give high priority on democracy promotion throughout the world. European foreign policy experts follow this. Moreover, have any Japanese leaders talked about Middle East political reform so seriously without US-led initiatives associated with the Afghan and the Iraq wars? Only through joint endeavor of the Western alliance, has Middle East democracy become a key agenda of global security to defeat terrorists, like Al Qaeda.

Some people say that the unrest in the Middle East implies the decline of American influence. As Facebook revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt are posing impacts to Gulf monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, they argue that grassroots quest for democracy will shake pro-American but corrupt regimes, which will tempt Iran to expand its influences (“As Arab world shakes, Iran's influence grows”; San Jose Mercury News; February 23, 2011). Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was critically alarmed by Iranian warship passage through the Suez Canal (“Passage of Iran ships through Suez delayed by 48 hours”; Haaretz; February 20, 2011).

It is partly true that the unrest in the Middle East provides a good chance for emerging powers to fill the power vacuum. As the fall of President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt suggests, new democratic regime may not necessarily be a staunch ally to the West and Israel. However, we must remember that distrust to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan has grown among the American public since 9-11 attacks, although they are long term allies to the United States. Suicide bombers in the attacks were mostly Saudi Arabians and Pakistanis. Innumerable conservative bloggers among grassroots Americans detest corruption and poor governance in both countries that nurtured terrorism.

Western intellectuals are also bitter to Middle East dictatorship and monarchy. Christopher Davidson, Reader at Durham University in the United Kingdom, argues that wealthy and unaccountable Persian Gulf monarchs are no longer. exempt from Middle East turmoil. Davidson says Gulf monarchy is akin to single party dictatorship as political parties are mostly forbidden. Social inequality and human rights abuse are not the only problems. Due to nepotism and long rule by current monarchs, Saudi Arabia and Oman have problems to select competent successors. Therefore, governability of Gulf sultanates is deadlocked (“Lords of the Realm”; Foreign Policy; February 21, 2011). Former British Foreign Secretary David Miliband compares current Middle East to Berlin 1989 rather than Iran 1979 on Twitter.

Among Arab nations, Egypt is the key to foresee the transformation for democracy. Michael Barone, Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, argues that reform in the Middle East will give an unprecedented opportunity for American leaders to ally with only pristine partners. In history, the United States had to take an option to be allied with autocratic regimes such as Stalin’s Soviet Union, in order to defeat more critical threats (“As with Other Fallen Allies, Egypt Will Vex the US”; Washington Examiner; February 5, 2011). Senator John McCain expresses unabashed support for civil movements, and says it is a great opportunity to advance toward Ronald Reagan’s dream of the world free of tyranny (“John McCain on Egypt”; Weekly Standard Blog; February 8, 2011).

Middle East unrest is not a great opportunity for contenders to the West. The rise of Islamic democracy will inflict impacts on China. Minxin Pei, Adjunct senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, points out that Chinese leaders are beginning to understand that economic growth-based legitimacy is unreliable, since social inequality and corruption are becoming increasingly serious as seen in Egypt. Pei argues that the Chinese Communist Party must take a difficult step toward gradual democratization like Taiwan, Mexico, and Brazil (”The Message for China from Tahrir Square”; Financial times; 12 February, 2011).

Russia is also just a reactionary actor. NATO Under Secretary Lord George Hakobyan mentions that Russia sent weapons to dictator regimes such as Libya and Yemen, in order to manage the unrest. Like China, turmoil in the Middle East is no chance for Russia to replace America in this region.

While Iran explores to seize the opportunity to expand influences in the Middle East, it faces domestic uprisings. For fear of another Green Movement, the Shiite theocracy arrested opposition leaders, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi. Now, the United States and the EU discusses tougher sanctions on Iran, as taken against Libya (“What about Iran?”; Wall Street Journal; March 3, 2011). Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton argues that the United States is legitimately interested in preventing Iranian expansionist ambition to help democracy throughout the Middle East (“How Freedom's Foes Exploit Arab Unrest”; New York Post; February 21, 2011). Things do not necessarily develop in favor of Iran.

Recent turmoil in Libya shows us that only US and NATO troops can act as the Global Police Force. Regarding Western intervention, Ibrahim Sharqieh, deputy director of Brookings Doha Center in Qatar, said, "I don't think they would have any problem with this. I would suspect that the Arab world would support this" (“Analysts: More Libyan bloodshed could prompt U.S., NATO intervention”; CNN; February 25, 2011). According to Sir Richard Dalton, Former British Ambassador to Libya, the threat of bloodshed in this country is serious enough to consider international humanitarian armed intervention. Though Russia and China oppose Western military intervention, Libya has been isolated in the Arab world. Also, Libyan oil production can be replaced in the short term by others like Saudi Arabia. Dalton says both points are the key to make Western humanitarian intervention more acceptable (“We must stand ready to intervene in Libya”; Daily Telegraph; 27 February, 2011).

Since Middle East reform is a long time policy pursuit of the United States, Michelle Dunne, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, wrote a letter to President Barack Obama and secretary of State Hillary Clinton to urge US involvement in democratic transition of Egypt (Open Letter; Working Group on Egypt; February 7, 2011). Furthermore, William Kristol says if Obama helps Arab democracy, “we critics of his administration here at home will be glad to salute him” (“Obama's moment in the Middle East - and at home”; Washington Post; February 23, 2011). Regarding widespread concerns to Islamists, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Former Member of the Parliament of the Netherland, denies the rise of fundamentalism. In case of Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is an ideologically diversified group, consisted of tribal leaders, free-market liberals, socialists, hard-core Marxists and human rights activists. Ali points out that it is vital to found effective organizations to make democracy sustainable (“Get Ready for the Muslim Brotherhood”; New York Times; February 3, 2011).

The media dramatize the Facebook revolution, but internet software is just a tool. People who use the software are far more important than Facebook or Twitter. Don’t forget that American and European development aid organizations, think tanks and NGOs have been involved in empowerment of Middle East citizens. That has given tremendous help to awaken educated people in this region. The Obama administration needs to bear it in mind.

Joining Paperblog

2011-02-26T13:16:00.000+09:00

A blogger association called Paperblog invited Global American Discourse to join them. Click the following banner.

It is good news that Global American Discourse wins recognition. You will find some stimulating blogs in the United States and around the world on this site.

A Smart Use of American Smart Power: Don’t Be Apologetic to the Iraq War

2011-02-18T13:23:00.004+09:00

I attended a US-Japanese policy dialogue, entitled “US-Japanese Relations in the Era of Smart Power” on February 14. This event was co-hosted by the Global Forum of Japan and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. As global issues are increasingly intertwined, consummate combination of hard power and soft power is more and more important. However, current East Asia is a Hobbesian world where China and North Korea challenge Western-led liberal order. Also, Russia joins the regional power game again. In a world like this, hard power is a key component. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the basic concept of smart power, and explore how to use it smartly.

At the beginning of the event, Michael Green, Japan Chair at the CSIS, told the basic notion of smart power that it was a reaction against the Iraq War. When I heard this, it sounded very apologetic to US foreign policy. In the early days, President Barack Obama sent messages of repent and regret in his speeches in Prague and Cairo. He even welcomed the “peaceful rise” of China at APEC Singapore summit. If the concept of smart power has come out as an apologetic reaction, this is a serious concern.

The Iraq War may have spurred anti-American sentiments, but we have to pay attention to a vital fact that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has triggered self rise democracy across the Middle East, the Green Movement in Iran, Facebook revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, and moreover. Further impacts could spread eastward like Central Asia, including Uighur. The winds of change could penetrate into the area beyond the Islamic sphere such as Tibet and the Chinese mainland.

Therefore, I asked a question to Michael Green that if the concept of “smart power” is an apologetic reaction to the Iraq War. Particularly, in the early days, Obama was so preoccupied with the “Change” that his foreign policy appeared to be a Gladstonian Little Americanism. Bob Woodward says, “Obama is psychologically out of Afghanistan.” If “smart power” is a finesse word to express dis-involvement and unwillingness to maintain the public goods of our liberal world order, it is a critical concern. Also, as I mention above, despite bitter criticism, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein inactivated discussions on Middle East democracy among policymakers around the globe.

In reply to my question, Green said that the concept itself emerged in 2007 when US-led coalition faced terrorist attacks before the surge. But he said that apologetic aspects had been shed away since the Bush administration succeeded in defeating insurgents. As long as smart power is just a consummate combination of hard power and soft power to deal with new security challenges, I regard it as an innovative concept.

Talking of Iraq, nuclear nonproliferation is another cornerstone issue. A substantial number of critics point out that the Iraq War was illegitimate, as the allied forces could not find nuclear weapons when the Baathist regime was defeated. Some even say Iraq was not a threat. This is unfair. Iraq may not have developed nuclear bombs, but Saddam showed “never give up” attitudes against pressures and sanctions by the global community. It is such a long-lasting will of mass destruction that posed a grave threat to the global community. Saddam used chemical weapons against Kurdish minorities and the Iranian army. It is highly likely that he would have used nuclear weapons once he acquired.

Just a will of developing fatal arsenals poses a dreadful threat to us. Recent military build up of China is a good example. It is suspected that China made J20 stealth fighter through pirating American technology (“China's New Stealth Fighter May Use US Technology”; FOX News; January 23, 2011). Even though Chinese stealth fighter is less technologically advanced than American ones, China articulates its position to challenge the US air force. Furthermore, China is developing anti-aircraft carrier ballistic missile to strengthen access denial capability against US naval power as the Soviet Union did during the Cold War ("Chinese 'Carrier Killer' Missile Challenges US Regional Power"; AOL News; December 29, 2010). Though technological problems must be resolved, China’s ambition to establish military dominance in East Asian sea lanes has become open to the public. Considering those threats, I do not think the war to topple Saddam Hussein was an overreaction.

Remember those who opposed the Iraq War were not altruistic peace lovers. China and Russia confront Islamic separatist in their territories. Apparently, the rise of Islamic democracy, which will embolden Uyghur and Chechnya uprising, is intolerable for them. Also, France had business relations with Saddam’s regime. During the Iran-Iraq War, Israel bombed French-built nuclear plant in Iraq. Considering Saddam’s nuclear ambition, Gaullist foreign policy is not an acceptable excuse.

Both in terms of democracy promotion and nuclear nonproliferation, the United States do not have to be apologetic to Iraq. This is very important use smart power smartly to maintain and advance our liberal world order. Japan should have said this to Obama in the early days. To the contrary, Former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama worsened the relationship with the United States over Futenma, which led to Chinese attack to Japanese patrol ship off Senkaku Islands. There is no doubt that Japanese Democrat administration is responsible for allowing Chinese expansionism through straining US-Japanese relations. But Obama is also to be blamed for showing apologetic attitude just to impress the “Change” from Republican foreign policy. Quite ironically, Hatoyama acted against his aspiration for “equal relations” with the United States. If he really hoped it, he should have told Obama not to repent the Iraq War as dialogues toward Middle East democratization has begun to inactivate since then. This is the real smart use of smart power.

Remember! When Yukio Hatoyama talked about equal relations with the United States, he was scorned and hated among America policymakers, from liberals to conservatives. That is not the case with British Foreign Secretary William Hague. His inauguration speech for equal Anglo-American relations was respected by Americans. What makes the Double H so different? There are many lessons to be learnt for a smart use of smart power in Middle East reform and US-Japanese relations.

Professor Nye’s New Book on the American World Order

2011-02-07T02:04:00.003+09:00

Joseph Nye, University Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University, has released a new book “The Future of Power”. See the interview video below by the Harvard Center for Public Leadership.

According to conventional wisdom, power of the state consists of hard power and soft power. A new concept, called smart power, is a combination of both powers. Today, the nature of power has become increasingly complicated, which is beyond military and economic dimensions. Nye points out that democracy is inefficient in converting power resources into desired results, but a competition of ideas endows legitimate soft power. Autocracy may be efficient in converting power resources into desired results, but in the long term, Nye says that it will lead to corruption and poor governance.

Professor Nye denies what is called “American decline”, because the share of US GDP in the world economy has not changed so much since 1970s. Nye argues this is just a psychology, because Americans around 2001 were “overconfident” in their power. Nye points out two important power shifts. One is from Western industrialized economies to Asian emerging economies. The rise of China should be understood in this context, as Asian nations develop their industrial basis. The other is from state actors to non-state actors. Information technology has led to information diffusion, which provides unprecedented power with individuals and private groups to exert influences on global policymaking. There are some typical cases such as humanitarian NGOs, terrorist groups, and Facebook revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt.

Professor Joseph Nye talks of key points of US foreign policy and its global leadership in this century. Particularly, changing nature of power is the vital issue in this book.

America’s Role and the Risk of Defense Cut

2011-01-24T01:25:00.005+09:00

American foreign policy faces multiple challenges, and policymakers are exploring post 9-11 security road maps. In addition to terrorism, new issues such as reemergence of Russia and China, non-proliferation and so forth, are growing more and more critical under the Obama administration. Shortly after the midterm elections, President Barack Obama attended NATO summit in Lisbon in order to discuss new security concepts with European allies to manage global security problems. Meanwhile, recent North Korean attack to Yeongpyeong Island of South Korea has brought a vital fact home to us that how indispensable American military preeminence is to global security. Should US defense power be cut prematurely in the name of new security vision, and should we even be willing to accept a multipolar world and American decline as liberals and doves say?

Security issues are increasingly intertwined with socio-economic aspects today, unlike straightforward Communism containment during the Cold War era. Therefore, the Quadrennial Defense Review, published by the United States Institute for Peace last December, recommends “the U.S. government must adopt a comprehensive approach to its national security mission, creating partnerships among multiple federal agencies as well as state and local governments, private industry, allies, international organizations, indigenous elements, and the American people.” The QDR also advised to remove sectional barriers among the federal government (“Security Can’t Stop with DoD”; Defense News; December 20, 2010).

Despite such compelling challenges, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen announced military budget cut on January 6. In view of fiscal duress, Gates says that defense spending is no exception. Massive spending reduction is expected in the Army and Marine Corps after 2015 when the US forces withdraw from Afghanistan (”Defense budget: to cut $100 billion, Army and Marines will shrink”; Christian Science Monitor; January 6, 2011). Amphibious landing-crafts for Marine Corps will be canceled (“Gates wants to drop $14 billion Marine landing-craft program”; Washington Post; January 5, 2011). Also, the purchase order of F-35B V/STOL fighters for Marine Corps will be suspended (“JSF Tests Slips Again, Purchase to Be Slashed”; Aviation Week; January 11, 2011), because British Prime Minister David Cameron decided to introduce less-expensive and longer-range F-35C carrier variants for forthcoming Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers (“Cameron: UK to swap JSFs to carrier variant, axe Harrier and Nimrod”; Flightglobal; 19 October, 2010). While cutting expenditures for costly equipments, Secretary Gates pledged more spending on unmanned aircrafts and sea crafts, and long range bombers.

Regarding the defense spending cut, Thomas Mahnken, Visiting Scholar at the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University, insists that US defense spending must not be reduced for the sake of efficiency. Mahnken agrees to Gates’s plan to postpone F-35B, and cancel costly arsenals like Army’s new surface to air missiles and Marine Corps fighting vehicles. On the other hand, he argues that further modernization such as next generation bombers and Virginia class attack submarines are necessary to deter China’s military ambition in the Western Pacific (“Gates's defense cuts: A glass half full -- but also half empty”; Shadow Government—Foreign Policy Blog; January 7, 2010).

The defense spending plan is not just an issue of fiscal austerity and military demand. Also, US defense policy needs to go along with those of key democratic allies. At NATO summit in Lisbon on November 19 and 20, Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced the New Security Concept toward more global, inclusive, and efficient organization to tackle post 9-11 world security. New problems such as missile proliferation and cyber attacks are key issues. Regarding counter-insurgency strategy, NATO will establish civilian sectors to help reconstruction of local societies and improvement of local security force, in view of experience in Afghanistan. For the first step, NATO trains the Afghan government, armed forces, and police, before transferring security responsibility in 2014. Also, Secretary General Rasmussen and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev declared to renew to mutual relations to develop cooperation on terrorism, piracy, and Afghan security. Moreover, Rasmussen even said that NATO would discuss territorial missile defense with Russia, which was a hurdle to reset US-Russian relations before the Obama-Medvedev meeting in Moscow (”Summit meetings of Heads of State and Government”; NATO Newsroom; 19 November ~ 20 November, 2010). Full text of the New Security Concept is shown here.

The Obama administration moves toward cooperation with challenging great powers, but should America accept multi-polarity so recklessly? Let me mention a presentation of an overview of US foreign policy by Senator John McCain at the Foreign Policy Initiative on November 15. Regarding the Pearl Necklace strategy of China, McCain said security partnership with Pacific and Indian Ocean nations was necessary to prevent deadly conflicts with China. Also, McCain said that free trade agreements with Asia would bolster American political presence in the region. Russia may not be able to reignite the Cold War, but Kremlin autocracy will make clashes with the West inevitable. As to Iran, McCain criticized Obama for lukewarm approaches to support democracy movements during the last Iranian presidential election. Senator McCain shows understandings of the Gates plan to cut costs, but he firmly insists that America’s role for global security not be diminished.

Currently, the most critical challenge to a liberal world order of Pax Americana is the “peaceful rise” of China. While the American side is alarmed with rapid military build up of China, Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie gave little consideration to this when US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates talked with him. China’s impatience to take over Taiwan threatens America’s Pacific allies such as Japan and Australia (“Can Obama cut the military in the face of a rising China?”; Christian Science Monitor; January 11, 2011). Despite rapid technological development like stealth fighter, U.S. intelligence lacks concrete information about China's military changes (“Defense Secretary Gates: U.S. underestimated parts of China's military modernization”; Washington Post; January 9, 2011). Experts say that the new stealth fighter called J-20 does not seem to match US counterpart F-22, because its engine systems are less compatible with stealth technology than those of American ones (“Chinese J-20 Stealth Fighter In Taxi Tests”; Aviation Week; January 3, 2011). Even though, China reveals its own ambition to defy American hegemony.

In view of resurgent challenges including China, conservatives and neoconservatives raise critical concerns to defense cut by the Obama administration. Arthur Herman, a historian, warns that unilateral defense drawback under President Obama and Secretary Gates is inappropriate when America is fighting wars and new threats are growing. Herman says it is not a peace time now, unlike shortly after World War Ⅱ and the Cold War. Though he agrees that US armed forces be modernized and cost-effective, he insists that they must be big enough to deter expansionism of Russia and China. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is no reason for premature defense cut (The Re-Hollowing of the Military”; Commentary; September 2010). Furthermore, Herman argues that military spending is the best economic stimulus (“Don't Let O Disarm Our Military”; New York Post; January 10, 2011). Considering technological spin-off effects, I agree with him. Knowledge is our advantage over cheap labor emerging economies.

Today, US defense expenditure accounts for merely 3.8% of GDP, if purely operational war costs are subtracted. This is just 2/3 of traditional peace time outlays of 5.7%. Even if war costs are included, the total defense spending is only 4.6% of GDP (“America's Dangerous Rush to Shrink Its Military Power”; Wall Street Journal; December 27, 2010). Thomas Donnelly, Resident Fellow, and Gary Schmitt, Resident Scholar, both at the American Enterprise Institute, criticizes the Obama administration’s attitude to talk of defense spending in the same way as cutting inefficient expenditure in education. They insist that America’s role in the world must not be diminished in the name of budget efficiency (“Slashing Pentagon Spending Isn't the Same as Cutting Education Funding”; Washington Examiner; December 7, 2010).

At the panel discussion at the Brookings Institution on December 28, Senior Fellow Robert Kagan mentioned the fundamental point why defense cut for the deficit reduction would damage America’s national interest. American economic prosperity is guaranteed under a liberal world order protected by its own military strength. Kagan says that premature defense cut will lead to the same isolationist mistake as committed during the interwar period. See the video below.

In conclusion, let me quote a tweet by Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton. At time of war and growing security threats abroad, Secretary Gates's proposed defense cuts would make the US less secure and able to defend itself.

The Change of Profile Photo

2011-01-09T21:01:00.006+09:00

It is my birthday today, and I have changed the profile photo of Global American Discourse. Just as the old one, the new photo is Herculean Alexander wearing a lion’s skin.

Old version

New Version

In the new image, lion is much clearer, and looks more fearsome and powerful. This is a landmark for the New Year.

New Year Question 2: Can Interdependence Prevent International Conflicts?

2011-01-08T03:14:00.004+09:00

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.

New Year Question 1: Can American Power Manage New Challenges in 2011?

2011-01-04T23:56:00.007+09:00

President Barack Obama’s leadership in foreign policy will be critically questioned this year, as he lost terribly in the midterm elections last November. Toby Harnden, US Editor of the Daily Telegraph, lists 10 foreign policy priorities of the United States to foresee the world this year (”Top 10 foreign policy challenges facing Barack Obama in 2011”; Toby Harnden --- Daily Telegraph Blog; January 1, 2011). In dealing with these challenges, whether the United States is willing and able to invest sufficient resource is the foremost question.

Among them, Afghanistan and Iran are far more vital than other top 10 issues. Though Obama remarked that US troops in Afghanistan would withdraw from July this year, he postponed it by December 2014 at NATO Summit in Lisbon last November. There are some problems within the Obama administration. As Bob Woodward mentions in his book “Obama’s Wars”, the President is psychologically out of Afghanistan. Also, the team is split between Vice President Joseph Biden who insists on withdrawing early, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who argue for completing the mission. Harnden points out intertwined problems on the Afghan side. Insurgents use frontier areas in Pakistan as their safe havens. The Afghan government is still corrupt and its security forces are still unreliable despite some improvements. The Obama administration needs to tackle the above problems mentioned by Harnden this year. Otherwise, progress achieved by General David Petraeus will be ruined.

As to Iran, Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon says that technical problems delay the nuclear project, and it takes three more years to make the bomb (“Israel - Iran nuclear bomb 'still three years away'”; BBC News; 29 December 2010). Though it is unlikely that the Ahmadinejad administration stop this project, economic sanctions hit the Iranian economy which leads to nation wide frustrations among youngsters. Harnden says that possible regime change or an Israeli attack there would help counter insurgency operations in Afghanistan.

While facing major Middle Eastern challenges like Afghanistan and Iran, the United States must deal with strategic and geopolitical rivalries with China and Russia, and threat of North Korea. The United States needs to contain China’s peaceful rise, but dependence on Chinese money inflow could loosen the grip. New START with Russia does not make the world nuclear free, nor prevent Vladimir Putin from winning the presidential election in 2012. Quite puzzlingly, it is necessary to have China and Russia involved in sensitive diplomacy to stop nuclear ambition of Iran and North Korea. As current tension in the Korean Peninsula becomes increasingly complicated, in view of North Korea after Kim Jong-il, vigilant attention to China is required.

Stagnant global economy can pose some constraints to US defense budget, while the Chinese economy rises. American policymakers keep in mind that the share of current defense expenditure in GDP is lower, compared with those in the Cold War era. Therefore, the economy is no excuse for American leaders to lower defense commitment.

Other issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Lebanon problem need consummate diplomatic efforts. WikiLeaks has spotlighted a new threat in the cyberspace era that cannot be resolved in traditional concepts of security.

In such a problematic world, Obama needs to get along with House Republicans as Democrats lost the midterm elections. Being preoccupied with Afghanistan and Iran is no excuse to loosen the grip on other security challenges. The media often talk of American decline (“The limits of power --- Blocked at home, what can Barack Obama achieve abroad?”; Economist; November 22, 2010). But this “decline” is the consequence of “A Holiday from History” attitude shortly after the Cold War. The United States was not prepared to curb the rise of new threats. It is not partisan politics that matters. Has America learned this lesson? That is the question.

Who Visits Global American Discourse?

2010-12-31T20:53:00.002+09:00

As Google has introduced an access counter system this year, I can compare statistic data of both English and Japanese version, now.

Access location is very helpful to estimate who are interested in this blog. Without question, the most accesses to the English version come from the United States. European countries such as Germany, Britain, and France are natural good customers. Quite interestingly, Global American Discourse has substantial accesses from small countries, like the Netherlands, Lithuania, Latvia, and so forth. Considering the population, this is impressive.

Among major countries, India and Russia are leading assessors, while hardly any web surf comes from China. Maybe, the Chinese authority bans a visit to Google site. Accesses from South Korea rises on special occasions like the Yeongpyeong attack by North Korea. I wish more visits come from the Middle East, as this blog often mentions Iran and Afghanistan.

As to the Japanese version, accesses come mainly from urban areas such as Tokyo, Chiba, Kanagawa, and Osaka prefectures.

Due to the nature of this blog, posts are not published so frequently. Advocacy commentaries on this blog are based on in depth analysis. Therefore, Global American Discourse does not necessarily respond to sudden incidents quick enough. But this implies that this blog does not make premature and poorly-founded comments.

This attitude is not advantageous to boost the popularity ranking of the blog, but it is the quality that gave Global American Discourse high reputation. As I mentioned before, policy experts pay attention to this blog. I hope that net citizens visit cool headed policy blogs, rather than dubious agitator ones.

Happy New Year!

Special Thanks for Link Requests

2010-12-25T20:08:00.000+09:00

Thank you for link requests to Global American Discourse. I am pleased with your interest in blogposts on this site. I am sorry that I have not posted links to everyone who sent an e-mail.

Thank you again for your interest. Merry Christmas!

A Reconsideration of the US-Japanese Alliance at the 50th Anniversary

2010-12-20T00:47:00.012+09:00

It is the 50th anniversary of the US-Japanese Security Treaty this year. When the Cold War ended, the Hosokawa administration of Japan explored “independent” national security policy to strengthen Japan's own sovereign choice from the United States. However, the “peaceful rise” of China and tensions in the Korean Peninsula brought Japanese people home to understand vulnerable security in their neighborhood and importance of the alliance with the United States. This is not wrong. But I would like to talk about importance of the alliance from global contexts.

It is a pity that current debates on the US-Japanese alliance focus on bilateral and Asia-Pacific perspectives, that is, the alliance is an indispensable “public goods” to provide stability and a liberal order throughout East Asia. Assuming like this, Japanese leaders and the public feel a dilemma. While Japan can enjoy political stability and economic prosperity under the US security umbrella, a substantial number of Japanese public worry that the alliance will lead Japan into “America’s war” like Iraq and Afghanistan. The alliance must be viewed from more long term and worldwide perspectives. Remember that American allies around the world regard Japan as their trustworthy partner because they share common values and interests with Japan. As I argued in a previous post, an area from Suez to Pearl Harbor is the natural sphere of the US-Japanese alliance. We must be bold to deepen this indispensable strategic partnership.

Quite interestingly, liberal democratic nations still regard the alliance as bilateral and regional, though Japan and NATO explored closer ties during the Abe and the Aso administration period. At the policy forum by the Japan Forum on International Relations on November 22, I was rather perplexed to hear British Ambassador David Warren say the US-Japanese alliance “exclusive”. Technically speaking, Ambassador Warren is right, as the alliance is based on a bilateral treaty between the United States and Japan. Also, Japanese defense procurement is dependent on US made arsenals. There is nothing strange that policymakers who are keen to pioneer defense market in Japan think current US-Japanese alliance “exclusive”.

However, I would like to emphasize that the US-Japanese alliance is “opener” than commonly understood in the global community. It is a status symbol for Japan to strengthen its position in the world. As I said before, the alliance has been global since 1960s and 70s when Britain withdrew from the Indian Ocean and the shah’s Iran collapsed respectively. US 7th fleet expanded its operational sphere in response to them.

The US-Japanese alliance endowed invaluable political prestige to Japan. As a major industrialized democracy, Japan has been a de facto ally with Europe. It is symbolic that French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing invited Japan to the first Summit at Rambouillet in 1975. Also, Japan attended G5 Plaza finance ministers meeting of top Western economies, ahead of Canada and Italy. Europeans admit Japan their key partner, not simply because it is a big economy, but because it shares common values and strategic interests with them.

In security, Japan has been deepening partnership with American allies through the US-Japanese alliance. Since the War on Terror broke out, NATO has begun to develop strategic partnership with Japan. Also, in Iraq, Japanese Self Defense Force worked with Britain and the Netherlands through the US-Japanese alliance. “The special relationship” with America bolsters Japan’s multilateral diplomacy, particularly with European free nations.

Some Japanese lament that Japan was “forced” to join US-led Western camp through the alliance, and it lost foreign policy autonomy. However, since the Meiji Regime Change, this country has been one of Western Great Powers, and this is the national fundamental of modern Japan. Therefore, the US-Japanese alliance is a natural alliance for Japan.

The alliance helps Japan’s multilateral diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific region as well. When North Korea conducted a nuclear bomb test, American allies such as Britain and Australia also sent early warning planes to Okinawa. Japanese people were pleased with this multilateral support. In view of threats posed by China and North Korea, Japan is exploring regional security partnership with Australia, India, South Korea, Indonesia, and so forth. This is endorsed by the US-Japanese alliance.

Had I enough time to ask a question at the forum, I would have mentioned “open” and “multilateral” nature of the alliance to Ambassador Warren. His lecture was so stimulating that he needed to answer numerous enthusiastic questions from attendants. But as Ambassador Warren repeatedly said in the policy forum, there are numerous “exclusive” aspects in the alliance. Typically, Japan cannot help South Korea as “a friend in need” against recent aggression by North Korea.

In order to make the alliance is truly “open” and “multilateral”, it is necessary for Japan to lessen dependence on the Japan handlers. The alliance is evolving more worldwide. Regarding this, NHK TV broadcasted a special program on the 50th anniversary of the US-Japanese alliance on December 11. In that TV program, Jitsuro Terashima, Chairman of the Japan Research Institute, commented that Japanese policymakers should strengthen ties with global strategist in Washington political corridor rather than narrowly focused Japan handlers. I agree with him! I have been insisting that the alliance is not just bilateral and regional but global.

As to this point, I would like to mention Britain’s relations with the United States, as it is the role model for Japan to upgrade current alliance with the United States. Britain hardly relies on “British handlers”. British policymakers discuss global policy with American global strategists. Also, when they discuss regional affairs, they talk with corresponding American counterparts. When they talk on Russia, they meet American experts on Russian affairs. When they discuss Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, or wherever, they act accordingly. In those cases, it is no use to meet experts on Downing Street or Westminster.

Accordingly, it is not of much help for Japanese policymakers to depend excessively on Nagatacho and Kasumigaseki experts on the American side. Learning this “English lesson” will upgrade US-Japanese, UK (or EU)-Japanese, and Anglo-American relations. This triangle is much better than Yukio Hatoyama’s triangle among United States, Japan, and China ("Three interpretations of the US-Japanese-Chinese Security Triangle"; East Asia Forum; May 1, 2010).

These days, Japanese people are preoccupied with Chinese expansionism and North Korean brutalism, when they reassess the US-Japanese alliance. But we should not be “exclusive”, but “open, multilateral, and global” to make the alliance much more sustainable and strong.

NATO Aid for Inter College Cyber Network in Afghanistan

2010-12-09T21:58:00.002+09:00

Reconstruction in Afghanistan faces many difficulties, and stalled by Taliban insurgencies and continual corruptions. But the above video tells a brilliant progress. NATO is helping construction of inter college and satellite broadband network in Afghanistan. Unlike widely spread war torn image of this country, college campuses are very peaceful. Students are pleased with Internet facilities built by NATO, and they say new network will help their researches through connecting them with other universities in Afghanistan and outside their country.

Higher education is the key to reconstruction and modernization for the future. It will empower women and ethnic minorities, which is vital to promote stable democracy in the Middle East. The War on Terror is fought outside the battle field as well.

The US-Japanese Symposium on Nuclear Nonproliferation and East Asian Security

2010-12-06T10:41:00.010+09:00

The US embassy in Japan hosted a policy forum, entitled “The Future of the US-Japanese Alliance: Security in East Asia and Nuclear Policy”, on November 29 at the American Center in Tokyo. The primary agenda of this forum is how the United States and Japan can achieve their common policy goal of “the world without nuclear weapons”, while replying on nuclear security umbrella. The peaceful rise of China and rogue behaviors by North Korea pose critical challenges to US-Japanese common security initiatives.

Panelists from both American and Japanese sides represented senior and young generations. Politicians, bureaucrats, academics, journalists, and students attended this event. The following experts presented their viewpoints.

Moderator:
Ralph Cossa (USA) President, Pacific Forum, Center for Strategic and International Studies

Guest Speakers:
Brad Glosserman (USA) Executive Director, Pacific Forum, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Nobumasa Akiyama (Japan) Associate Professor, Hitotsubashi University
Daniel Kliman (USA) Visiting Fellow, Center for a New American Security
Wakana Mukai (Japan) Researcher, Ocean Policy Research Foundation

Regarding the nature of the alliance, Brad Glosserman stressed reciprocal partnership between Japan and the United States. While US military presence in Japan ensures peace and stability in the region, Japan offers substantial help to US forces, he mentioned. Glosserman said that the American side is ready to accept more equal alliance with Japan, but Japan needs to define its own position in the world.

The threat of China and North Korea is growing precipitously. The peaceful rise of China poses long term uncertainties as its intention for military build-up is unclear. Nobumasa Akiyama pointed out that current US-Chinese rivalries were more complicated than Cold War US-Soviet rivalries, because China’s strategic interests and armed force structures are asymmetric to those of the United States. While China declares “No first use” nuclear policy, its missiles are targeted at Japan and Taiwan. It is quite difficult to apply MAD to China, unlike the Soviet Union in the Cold War era. The problem is that China is building up its military power in accordance with its rapid economic growth.

As to North Korea, he says that nuclear deterrence does not work for a small scale aggression like Yeongpyeong this time, because none of Kim Jong-il’s adversaries including South Korea, the United States, and Japan do not want to escalate the combat. Some alternatives needs be considered, but China is reluctant to pressure North Korea. Therefore, I think that we be prepared for the last option, that is, regime change.

At the Q & A session, presenters and attendants had lively interactions, and many insightful questions came from opinion leaders and students. I would like to mention a couple of them.

Regarding nonproliferation and regime change, Ben Hashimoto of Japanese Democratic Party, Member of the House of Representatives, asked a question why the United States had attacked Iraq but not North Korea. It is a pity that panelists talked primarily on retaliatory military capability of both countries through nuclear and conventional weapons. They did not mention Saddam Hussein’s expansionist ambition. Saddam invaded Kuwait and Iran, and mass murdered Kurdish minority with toxic gas. The Baathist regime sought dominant position in the Arab world, and 1991 invasion to Kuwait was inspired by nationalization of Suez Canal under Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt. The Baathist Party denies Israel. I wish guest speakers had mentioned ideological danger of Baathism.

A journalist of Asahi TV mentioned that it was discouraging for Japanese people because President Barack Obama had not visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki during his stay in Japan for APEC summit in Yokohama. But I do not agree with him, in view of the Senkaku dispute with China, tension in the Korean Peninsula, and the surprise visit to Kunashiri Island by President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia. As security in East Asia is critically fragile, the Japanese public, particularly pro-American conservatives will be worried if US president appears weak and apologetic. Those who are critical to a “triumphant” America from the fall of Berlin Wall to the outburst of the Global Financial Crisis will be pleased if Obama visits Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But remember. Most of them are leftists and inherently anti-American. Priorities will be given to managing current threats, rather than showing sweet and humanistic attitudes.

New START was another issue of high attention. Guest speakers unanimously criticized Senator Jon Kyl for refusing to ratify this treaty with Russia. However, as Ex-Ambassador to the UN John Bolton points out, verification process under the new treaty is looser than that of START Ⅱ by George Bush Sr. and Boris Yeltin. Is czarism nationalist Russia today more trustworthy than pro-Western liberal Russia in those days? This is a vital question that should have been discussed at the symposium.

I would like to mention my questions at the Q & A session. One was how to make Russia and China responsible stakeholders in nonproliferation, in view of the clash between Western democracies and autocratic powers. Guest speakers replied that each country had its own national security priority, and nuclear nonproliferation was not necessarily a critical issue for some states. Typically, China and Russia do not share Western concern on Iran and North Korea. In such cases, panelists said that we must lead them to understand business with rogue proliferators would harm their interests. Daniel Kliman added that national interest of individual states is important for nonproliferation to dangerous regimes. For example, he mentioned that democratic Brazil and Turkey tried to meddle Iran and the global community.

The other question was on the Indo-Japanese nuclear deal. This is a turning point of Japanese foreign policy, considering anti-nuclear sentiment among the public. Wakana Mukai replied that Japan did not define its basic stance to nonproliferation in the Indian subcontinent rather than revised its foreign policy. She said that Japan just followed American policy for India, and chose business interests over nonproliferation. These are vital points. But I would like to mention that other nations, such as France, Germany, Britain, Canada, and South Korea signed their deals from similar perspectives. Even Russia followed Western nations to sign a nuclear deal with India. Does Japan have any choice under such “multilateral pressure”?

In conclusion, panelists insist that arms reduction is the first step toward a nuclear free world, and it is America’s interest to achieve this goal as US forces have overwhelming advantages in conventional weapons. Panelists talked many issues of vital interest on nuclear non proliferation and East Asian security. Attendants asked very stimulating questions. Unfortunately, I cannot mention everything at the symposium. Finally, I wish some conservative speakers had been invited to this event, because the discussion at the forum sounded rather liberal. That would have made this symposium more helpful to discuss the future of the US-Japanese alliance and nuclear arsenals.

North Korean Aggression: Reconsider Airlines in East Asia

2010-11-23T21:04:00.011+09:00

Today, North Korea fired more than 100 artillery shells to Yeonpyeong Island, north west of South Korea. According to a Korean newspaper, 2 South Korean servicemen and 21 non-combatant residents were killed in the crossfire (“North Korea shells southern island, two fatalities reported”; Korea Joong Ang Daily; November 23, 2010). The reason for North Korean aggression is not clear at this stage. In any case, see the map below.

This is not the first time that Yeongpyeong Island is attacked by North Korea. Kim Jong Il went into a skirmish with South Korea in 1999 and 2002 near this island. If you see the map, you will find that Incheon airport (A on the map), boasting the hub of East Asia, is very close to such dangerous Yeongpyeong Island (3 on the map).

It is time that airlines in East Asia were reconsidered. The Narita-Haneda air systems, around Tokyo, must be arranged urgently, as alternative hubs to Incheon. Currently, Japanese political corridor is in a complete mess over minor scandals and partisan conflicts. Under short-lived Hatoyama administration, Land and Transport Minister then Seiji Maehara launched this ambitious plan, to restore Japanese economic strength.

Now, things have become more impending. This is not just for Japanese economy or status in the world, but for global public interest. The world needs the Narita-Haneda hub in East Asia! Act beyond petty power games in Nagata-cho!

The US-Indian Talk: A Rollback from Apologist Diplomacy?

2010-11-21T23:26:00.011+09:00

Shortly after the loss in the midterm election, President Obama left for a ten day trip to Asia. Among big events including G20 in Seoul and APEC in Yokohama, bilateral talks with India is the most important because actual and concrete strategic issues were discussed, unlike nebulous and gigantic multilateral shows of G20 and APEC.

In addition to the rising market, India is a key country in security issues such as the Af-Pak problem and non-proliferation. Also, the trilateral power game among the United States, China, and India is an issue not to be dismissed. Prior to the bilateral talk from November 6 to 8, Senator John McCain gave a lecture on US-India relations at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on November 5. See the Video below.

Throughout the speech, McCain emphasized common democratic values between the Unites States and India, which are the key to develop further strategic partnership. India is not only a prospective emerging market for the United States. The Af-Pak problem is a critical issue for both countries. Senator McCain said that if the United States withdrew from Afghanistan prematurely, India would regard it as reluctance to deep commitment in the War on Terror. This is a critical point, because Bob Woodward says that President Barack Obama is psychologically out of Afghanistan, in his book “Obama’s Wars”. Actually, Obama showed the timetable for withdrawal from the Afghan frontline by 2014 at NATO summit in Lisbon (“Lisbon: NATO leaders endorse Afghanistan 2014 withdrawal date”; Daily Telegraph; 20 November, 2010).

Quite interestingly, McCain said that the US-Indian axis of democracy would advance liberty in Burma and Iran. In terms of geography, India is located between East Asia and the Middle East. The strategic partnership is beyond the Af-Pak security. India is developing naval cooperation with the United States, Australia, and other Asia-Pacific democracies. A hinge of eastern and western Eurasia, India is the key spot to coordinate trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific strategies of the United States. The problem is, the Obama administration is still somewhat shy of trumpeting America’s championship in global democracy. Therefore, the US-Indian partnership for regime change in Iran and Burma is likely to be a blueprint for the future.

Regarding the peaceful rise of China, though McCain talked implicitly of Indian counterbalance, he was cautious of making critical remarks on this country. McCain may have given consideration to business interests. However, he said that the US-Indian strategic partnership would be helpful to make China a “responsible power”.

On the other hand, George Perkovich, Vice President at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that the US-Indian relationship needs sustainable development without relying on “amphetamine” deals such as the Indo-US nuclear agreement by the Bush administration. See the video of an interview on November 4 below.

Particularly, liberals are concerned that the nuclear deal with a non-NPT member is contradictory to US national interest of non-proliferation. In addition, they worry that verification for nuclear facilities in India is only for US built ones, and other nuclear sites are out of touch. Therefore, liberals think this agreement will provoke nuclear arms race in the Indian subcontinent and around the world. However, liberals agree that strategic partnership with India is a vital national interest for the United States in view of the War on Terror and export market. As a centrist, Perkovich agrees with McCain’s view of common democracy values between the United States and India.

Regarding the Indo-Chinese geopolitical rivalries, Perkovich argues that the United States not make use of it. For India, China is a less important security concerns than the Af-Pak turmoil, Pakistani nuclear threats, and Islamic terrorists, he says. Historically, threats to India came from the Khyber Pass, rather than Himalaya Mountains. As Perkovich says, we should rather not expect Indian counterbalance against China too much.

At the meeting in New Delhi, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reached a crucial agreement on a wide range of issues. As the most leftist senator, Obama was critical to the bilateral deal under the Bush administration. However, as the president, Obama is keen to pioneer the market for American business, and expand investment in India. In security, Af-Pak, piracy, non-proliferation, counter terrorism, and bilateral defense cooperation are discussed. Both leaders agreed to develop bilateral partnership on new issues, such as the Evergreen Revolution and cyberspace security. The former is very Obamanian. It seems that this is a part of Obama’s Green New Deal, which has not made sufficient progress in the first half of the presidential term (“White House issues fact sheets on Obama's India visit”; Hindustan Times; November 9, 2010).

From Indian point of view, the latest joint statement with the United States is a breakthrough to join multilateral export control regimes of WMDs. S. Samuel C. Rajiv, Associate Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses in New Delhi, says that the US-Indian joint statement on November 8 will pave the way for Indian membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which will ultimately lead to India to join NPT and help India’s bid for a permanent member seat at UN Security Council, along with Germany and Japan. Obama is advancing his predecessor’s pursuit: deepening nuclear business with India, while accommodating this country into a US-led non-proliferation regime (“India’s Accommodation in Multi-lateral Export Control Regimes”; ISDA Comments; November 10, 2010).

The strategic partnership with India is a bipartisan national interest to the United States. For India, this will help boost its standpoint in global strategic bargaining. The bilateral deal by the Bush administration may have been controversial, but current administration could not develop the partnership furthermore without “amphetamine”. India is the first country that Obama visited after the midterm elections. Is this the first step to bring US foreign policy back to the normalcy as Robert Kagan argues, from apologetic diplomacy in the first two years?

The Clash between the West and Emerging Economies

2010-11-11T15:46:00.012+09:00

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.

A New Report on the Sino-Japanese Tension over Senkaku Islands

2010-10-31T22:24:00.004+09:00

The Japan Forum on International Relations had an emergent committee meeting to discuss the Senkaku Islands Dispute between Japan and China on October 6, and has released a new report. Based on 38 articles, including mine (p.32 ~ 33), top experts talked about current Sino-Japanese relationship from two points: how to understand Chinese behavior and how to evaluate responses by the Kan administration. While liberals and libertarians advocate mutual economic dependence between two nations, the “peaceful rise” of China poses a critical security concerns to Japan. Also, this problem is associated with natural resources and national sovereignty issues.

Japan must reinforce security ties with the United States, and design new multilateral strategies in the Asia-Pacific region and around the globe. This report will be of great help to discuss how to manage the dangerous expansion of China. I am pleased that my article was included. You will find some contributions by my blog friend Dr. Cat aka Koshu Takamine, who is a policy researcher affiliated with the Liberal Democratic Party.

Will the United States Shed “post-American” Foreign Policy?

2010-10-21T19:14:00.004+09:00

Since the inauguration, Barack Obama has been acting like a post-American president rather than American, just in order to change George W. Bush’s go it alone America into Zbignew Brzezinski’s lovable America. This is the vital reason why I have been critical to the Obama administration.

However, in view of czarist Russia, peacefully rising China, and nuclear proliferators Iran and North Korea, Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, argues a very interesting point that the Obama administration will act more assertively in the latter half of this term. Kagan says that the Obama administration will shift emphasis on democratic allies in Phase Ⅱ, from great power cooperation and nebulous policy coordination of G20 in Phase Ⅰ (“America: Once engaged, now ready to lead”; Washington Post; October 1, 2010). Comparing the speech by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last year (“Clinton: U.S. Urges 'Multi-Partner World'”; Washington Post; July 16, 2009) and this year (“Clinton declares 'new moment' in U.S. foreign policy in speech”; Washington Post; September 9, 2010), Kagan finds changes in US foreign policy direction as mentioned above.

Chinese expansionist ambition is growing as shown in the Senkaku Islands dispute with Japan. Moreover, political pressure posed by China on Norway for awarding Nobel Peace Prize for Liu Xiabo raised critical concerns in the global community. Sophie Richardson, Asia Advocacy Director at Human Rights Watch, comments "This Nobel Prize honors not only Liu's unflinching advocacy; it honors all those in China who struggle daily to make the government more accountable", even though the award infuriates the Chinese authority (“China: Liu Xiaobo’s Nobel Spotlights Rights Deficit”; Human Rights Watch News; October 8, 2010). Asia-Pacific nations are critically alarmed at the peaceful rise of autocratic China, and explore staunch alliance with the United States. On the other hand, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization criticized the prize for Liu Xiaobao Western-centered (“SCO comes out against the Nobel Peace Prize”; EurasiaNet—The Bug Pit; October 15, 2010). As Professor Masako Ikegami of Stockholm University in Sweden argues, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is an axis of autocracies led by China and Russia, and NATO and Asia-Pacific democracies must unite against their expansionism.

Russia is another challenger. Secretary Clinton visited Georgia, Poland, and Ukraine this July to reset the reset and balk Russian expansionism. New START, which is a landmark of the reset, awaits Senate ratification currently. In November 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates raised critical concerns as a cabinet member of the Bush administration that the United States had not designed new nuclear weapons while Russia was developing new ones, in the lecture at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Unlike the previous START between George H. W. Bush and Boris Yeltin, the Obama administration explores to reach an agreement when nuclear power balance is not in favor of the United States. Conservatives criticize new START. Russia succeeded in the test of launching new Bulava missile early October (“Russia's Bulava missile hits target in test”; RIA Novosti; 7 October, 2010). The reset with Russia was hasty, and needs to be reconsidered now.

In addition, engagement policy with Iran has not made any progress. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tries to divert public attention from domestic issues such as poor economy, growing democracy movements, and so forth. In the video below, broadcasted by France 24 on September 10, Meir Javedanfar who heads a London based think tank called Meepas, says the Iranian economy has deteriorated, and the number of brain drains and drug abuse has increased since the Islamic Revolution. Such desperate domestic politics leads Ahmadenejad to move toward nuclear development.

Also, Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor of the Council on Foreign Relations, mentions that domestic political rivalry with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Parliament Chairman Ali Larijani erodes Ahmadinejad’s leadership (“Iran's 'Shaky' Ahmadinejad”; CFR Interview; September 21, 2010). Those aspects are supposed to make Ahmadinejad increasingly hardliner.

In view of the above challenges, American foreign policy may return to the normalcy. Alliance with European and Asian democracies will be re-strengthened as Robert Kagan argues. The problem is, whether President Obama is willing to make sufficient military commitment to defeat enemies and contain threats.

The war in Afghanistan is a Litmus test to judge Obama is an American or post-American president. Referring to “Obama’s Wars” by Bob Woodward, Charles Krauthammer talks of Obama, "He is out of Afghanistan psychologically." When Obama announced the surge in Afghanistan on December 1 last year, he said that US troops would withdraw in 18 months. While Obama explores an exit strategy, he is not willing to get involved with institution building that is the very essence of the counterinsurgency strategy endorsed by General Stanley McChrystal and General David Petraeus. Obama is preoccupied with domestic politics and Democrat support in view of the midterm election (“Why is Obama sending troops to Afghanistan?”; Washington Post; October 1, 2010). It is quite problematic that President Obama does not believe in the most important mission in the War on Terror. Moreover, the vacuum of power by early withdrawal will provoke China to pursue expansionism in the Middle East as it does in Africa.

Remember that lowering military commitment does not guarantee economic growth. William Kristol, Director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, argues against widely spread misunderstandings that military spending hurts the US economy. Even including the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan, defense spending accounts for 4.9% of GDP this year, which is much lower than annual average of 6.5% since World War Ⅱ. Compared with other budgets, defense spending has not increased so much since 9-11. Quite importantly, Kristol points out that instability around the world due to lack of US military commitment will ruin the environment for long term economic growth. As Kristol insists “A weaker, cheaper military will not solve our financial woes.” (“Peace Doesn't Keep Itself”; Wall Street Journal; October 4, 2010)

The problem of insufficient military commitment is more deep-rooted. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has underfunded defense budget, assuming that the history has ended. Therefore, the Obama administration is not the only one responsible for security challenges today. A recent report by leading conservative think tanks refutes the myth of excessive spending on defense. In terms of purchasing power parity, Chinese military spending is almost close to that of American. Regarding sustainability of defense expenditure, Mackenzie Eaglen, Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, points out that defense spending is not source of fiscal deficit, because social welfare expenditures grow more rapidly since 1976. The joint report endorses US role as the global policeman, and argues that US forces must be well prepared to deter would be aggressors from destabilizing the world (“Defending Defense”; Joint Paper of AEI, Heritage Foundation, and Foreign Policy Initiative; October, 2010).

The Obama administration may reset the reset of US foreign policy as Robert Kagan argues. But it must be founded on military preeminence over potential adversaries and current enemies. Also, the Obama team must act beyond domestic constraints. In Phase Ⅰ, Obama was preoccupied with health care and the economy. In Phase Ⅱ, President Obama may have to spend more energy to persuade Republican opponents in domestic politics, as conservative momentum is growing in the forthcoming midterm elections. But this is a poor excuse. American leadership in global security is beyond partisan politics. President Obama needs to re-strengthen the League of Democracies. Once potential adversaries and current enemies see America weak, political and security environment will turn unfavorable to economic prosperity for free allies and America itself. The world does not need a lovable America.

A Guidebook on Post Orange Ukraine for Americans and Europeans

2010-10-08T16:37:00.008+09:00

Since the collapse of the Orange Revolution, Ukraine has fallen into somewhat a tributary state of Russia. A recent report published by Chatham House shows some clues to understand Ukrainian politics and security in the Black Sea region (“The Mortgaging of Ukraine’s Independence”; Chatham House Briefing Paper; August 2010). I would like to review this essay.

In this report, James Sherr, Head of Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House, presents an overview of post Soviet Ukrainian politics, and analyzes the Russo-Western geopolitical power game. Despite the hope of democracy, the Orange regime disappointed Ukrainian people because “Ukrainian society appears to have returned to the post-Soviet pattern of cynicism, apathy, distrust of others and loss of interest in anything unrelated to family and self.” However, Sherr says that the Polish-Lithuanian and Hapsburg traditions deters Russian-styled power rule in Ukraine. This is an important point to understand why Ukraine wanders between Europe and Russia.

The most important issue of this paper is the Kharkiv Accord with Russia on April 21 this year. Sherr says that President Viktor Yanukovych has committed a fatal error to sign this accord. Ukraine was offered a generous deal such as a 30% discount for gas import, in return of extending Russian military presence in its territory. In an interview with a Ukrainian newspaper, Amanda Paul, Policy Analyst at the European Policy Centre in Belgium, commented that the Kharkiv Accord would not damage EU-Ukrainian relations because this deal was expected. She says that the accord will not deter Ukraine’s aspiration for EU membership, but it is Kremlin’s stamp to keep Ukraine in the Russian sphere of influence (“Expert: Kharkiv accords between Medvedev, Yanukovych 'Moscow's stamp' for Kyiv”; Kyiv Post; April 22, 2010).

As Ukrainian people experienced the worst economic crisis since its independence during the gas conflict, they are preoccupied with the economy at the expense of national security. As a result, Ukraine was forced to take economic policies dependent on Russia. Once Ukraine cancels the deal, it must repay received discount. Also, Kremlin and Gazprom strengthened their leverage on Ukrainian economic policy. Sherr points out that though Yanukovych tried to decrease Russia’s ambitions through pre-emptive concessions, it has made Ukraine under de facto control of Russia.

This has significant implications for the Russo-Western geopolitics. Like the first president Leonid Kuchuma, Viktor Yanukovych explores to join the EU, while deepening friendship with Russia. However, the security environment has changed. In the Kuchuma era, the Euro Atlantic framework nurtured good relations between Yeltin’s Russia and the West. Today, Russia has moved back to Czarist nationalism. Also, 9/11 attacks and the peaceful rise of China have changed global security structure. In such a dangerous world, Yanukovych has deepened partnership with Russia, without counterweight to guarantee Ukrainian national interest, while Kuchuma explored NATO membership. Sherr mentions a critical point that Yanukovych does not understand fundamental difference in geopolitics in the 1990s and present days.

In view of Ukraine’s dangerous dependence on Russia, how should the West do?　When Yanukovych was inaugurated to new president, America and Europe accepted him a pragmatic centrist. However, poor governance under the Yanukovych administration has ruined democracy in this country although the election was free of fraud. This is a grave damage to security in the Black Sea area. Sherr insists that the EU must present credible membership prospects encourage Ukrainian efforts for democracy. Also, he insists that the Obama administration act beyond saying that the United States will not sacrifice neighboring countries to reset relations with Russia. Sherr criticizes the speech by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in Kyiv on July 3, because she simply said that the United States did not regard the Russo-Ukrainian friendship as anti-American, without defining US and Western interests in this region.

James Sherr argues a vital point. President Barack Obama is preoccupied with resetting relations with Russia, and his post-American behavior raises concerns among nations from Poland to Caucasus. Also, European leaders are too post modern to balk Russian expansionism. But things are making some progress. At the Yalta European Strategy Conference this October, Štefan Füle (Czech), European Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy, said that the forthcoming EU-Ukraine Association Agreement would improve political governance and economic transparency in Ukraine (“Ukraine and the World: Rethinking and Moving on”; Europa; 1 October 2010 As to the agreement, see “Ukraine close to finalizing Association Agreement with EU – Yanukovych”; RIA Novosti; 6 October 2010). Remember, James Sherr says “Even in the unlikely event that Russia’s more ambitious schemes of integration succeed, Ukraine will remain a sovereign state, and it must be treated as one“, in this paper.

The Impact of Japanese Kowtow to China on the Free World

2010-09-29T10:58:00.008+09:00

The territorial dispute between China and Japan over Senkaku Islands is beyond a bilateral clash. We need to understand this dispute from global contexts. It is a clash between autocracy and democracy, and the Japanese government bowed down Chinese pressure, as the rogue captain of Chinese fisher boat was released ("China fishing boat captain to be freed by Japan. Will it ease tensions?"; Christian Science Monitor; September 24, 2010).

One of the reasons for this kowtow is an export ban of rare earth elements to Japan imposed by China. These materials are necessary for manufacturing batteries for hybrid vehicles, appliances for mobile phones, and other high tech products. Currently, Japan relies 90% of rare earth resource demands on import from China ("China bans rare earth material export to Japan"; Fuji Sankei Business Eye; September 25, 2010). Chinese export ban inflicts critical damages on Japanese manufacturing industry. This dispute has brought us home that our free world is vulnerable to natural resource diplomacy by autocratic nations. It is quite similar to the gas dispute between Russia and Ukraine in January 2009. As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin intimidated whole Europe to close gas pipeline, Ukrainians bent over Russia. Ukraine sold its national sovereignty to Kremlin to extend the naval base deal for the Black Sea Fleet.

Natural resource diplomacy by China and Russia is combined with their expansionist ambition. Just as Russia regards Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union as its natural sphere of influence, China regards islands in East China and South China seas as the “pear necklace” for its aggressive expansionism from the Pacific to the Indian oceans ("China's High Seas Aggression"; Human Events; May 20, 2010). It is too well known that China pursues megalomaniac build up of its navy. Just as Russia acts with Czarist and Stalinist instinct in geopolitical rivalries against the West, China behaves with cefeng or Confucianism hegemony instinct when it claims its preeminence in East Asia. Throughout the history, China never admitted equal relations with any foreign countries until it was defeated by Queen Victoria’s gun boat in the Opium War. We must never forget this historical perspective, whenever China takes assertive attitude.

The Senkaku conflict is more serious than the Takeshima conflict. In the latter, South Korea has neither ambition nor power to tower over Japan, even though Koreans often launch anti-Japanese campaign on history. But China has cefeng ambition throughout East Asia, and explores to make Japan bend over, as Russia did to Ukraine. Therefore, autocratic China is far more dangerous than democratic South Korea.

In the old cold war, autocratic great powers were out of our system, and they had a tiny portion of share in global economic transaction. But in the new cold war, they use our global economy to impose their will on others. In an NHK’s TV program, “Japan at the Crossroads” on March 12, 2010, commentators and the public discussed the US-Japanese alliance and Japanese national security. In this debate, when a conservative opinion leader Yoshiko Sakurai stressed closer US-Japanese security ties to manage Chinese threat as both nations did against Cold War Soviet threat, Professor Kang Sang-jung of Tokyo University argued against her that China today was more incorporated into the global economy than the old Soviet Union. Kang said that China was no threat to Japan, because of such deeply founded mutual interdependence. If he understood the peril of natural resource diplomacy by autocratic states, he would change his viewpoints.

Will Japan succumb to China as Ukraine did to Russia? Current debates on this conflict utterly dismiss the fundamental structure global politics, which is the clash between democracy and autocracy as Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, argues in his book “The Return of history and the End of Dreams”. Further Japanese kowtow to China will embolden autocratic states around the world.

The Reality behind the Koran Burning on 9/11

2010-09-22T00:47:00.002+09:00

The 9th anniversary of 9/11 terrorist attack was landmarked by Koran burning. It is a protest against President Barack Obama’s decision to give permission to build a mosque close to the ground zero. Certainly, 9-11 attacks aggravated anti-Islamic sentiments among Americans, and I think it is a caustic political error to give such a controversial permission when the public have not shed trauma of a dreadful incident.

However, I think things are beyond anti-Islamic sentiment but distrust to the Obama presidency. As shown in the Tea Party movements, grassroots conservatives criticize President Obama’s economic and health care policy, because they are afraid of “excessive” governmental intervention into their civil life. Conservative momentums are growing stronger even without the Tea Party. According to a recent poll by the USA Today and Gallup, “About 59% of Democrats, 55% of Republicans and 50% of independents said they believed the GOP had become more conservative since Obama took office” (Poll: GOP more conservative but not because of the 'tea party'; Los Angels Times; September 17, 2010). It is ironical that the Obama presidency splits America, as opposed to his famous speech to call for unity beyond race and ideology. Koran burning and the Tea Party movements are just tiny tips of an iceberg to illustrate the “Obama Divide”.

Unlike European welfare states, America is a “Right Nation” as John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge argue in their book. Conservative movements are strong and widespread in the United States. Both British authors compare conservative political bases on both sides of the Atlantic, and they say the American side has more extensive grassroots network and highly esteemed think tanks. Barack Obama is an odd man out in a Right Nation.

The Obama Divide is being intensified in foreign policy as well. While some media regard Obama’s speeches in Prague and Cairo as a breakthrough to depart from Bush’ s cow boy diplomacy, conservative opinion leaders criticize them apologetic to American preeminence. At APEC summit in Singapore, Obama even said that America would welcome the rise of China. Though Obama tries to meddle his liberal thoughts and presidential duty as shown in the speech to commemorate the end of US combat mission in Iraq, it is very tough to soothe conservative and centrist suspicion to his “un-Americanness”. Koran burning reveals such deeply embedded sentiments among the public.

President Obama’s background needs to be examined to explore the reality behind the burning. Had the president come from electoral bases acceptable to conservatives, radical Christians would have stopped burning Koran. Yoshiki Hidaka, Visiting Fellow at the Hudson Institute, mentions Obama’s “dark personal contacts” with left wing extremists in his book “America has chosen a misfortune”. The famous cover page picture of the New Yorker, in which Obama and his wife Michelle wear Taliban clothes, illustrates deeply embedded suspicion to Obama among the American public. Actually savage behavior like burning did not happen during the Bush era.

I shall never support this sort of uncivilized middle age brutalism. Eminent leaders of counterterrorism allies in both the Afghan and the Iraq wars, notably, Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and NATO Secretary General Anders Fough Rasmussen denounced Koran burning. Blair’s Britain was the staunchest contributor to US-led War on Terror. Rasmussen was a leading proponent of the Iraq War as the prime minister of Denmark. Moreover, General David Petraeus who commands the war in Afghanistan denounced the burning. But I have to call an attention to the Obama Divide when we explore the background of fanatic hatred to specific religion.

According to a survey by AFL-CIO, Barack Obama was the most liberal senator. Can a “leftist extremist” Obama govern the Right Nation? The mid term election will be a critical occasion to evaluate the effect of the Obama Divide. Has America chosen a wrong president? That is the vital question.

The Prospect of Afghanistan by General Petraeus

2010-09-15T07:41:00.006+09:00

President Barack Obama announced that the United States would concentrate counterterrorism struggle on Afghanistan when he declared the end of combat missions in Iraq. Therefore, I would like to review commentaries by General David Petraeus and some articles to understand the Afghan War and explore the strategy.

First, let me present an overview of this war. As in Iraq, the Obama administration explores to transfer responsibility to local security forces and withdraw earlier. However, former commander General David McKiernan and current commander General David Petraeus opposed early transition to Afghan units, because the progress of training them is slower than expected. In order to improve the capability of Afghan forces more quickly, the coalition sent additional troops in December 2009. Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell of NATO Training Mission for Afghanistan said, "Our mission is about teaming with Afghans to build a bright, dynamic future for this sovereign nation."

Currently, Afghan Security Forces consist of the Army, the Air Force, and the National Police. Among them, the army is regarded as the most capable unit. Although the size of the Afghan Army expanded from 83,000 in March 2009 to 113,000, that is short of the requirement by Senator Joseph Lieberman to double the manpower. Also, it is slow to provide sufficient equipments to fight independently against terrorists for the Afghan army. One Afghan general said "I was much [better] equipped when we were fighting the Soviets." The Air Force remains infant level, but the Pentagon plans to make this force capable of providing air support from helicopters to the troops on the ground. As to the National Police, lack of professionalism is a critical problem. The Afghan Police misuse power over the public, abuse drug, and shoot their colleagues.

Currently, as in Iraq, General Petraeus endorses close partnership between the coalition forces and the Afghan troops. US and NATO teams expand their training programs through the Afghan Defense University. Governmental bureaucracy needs to be reformed as well. Judicial systems are still inept to enforce the rule of law, and the Ministry of Defense is split with ethnic friction and political fractionalis (“Backgrounder: Afghanistan's National Security Forces”; Council on Foreign Relations; August 19, 2010).

In view of the above mentioned overview, some experts point out fundamental differences between Afghanistan and Iraq when discussing the surge. While Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was resolute to defeat insurgents, Afghan President Hamid Karzai explores some compromises with Taliban. Also, Iraqi forces were permitted to more freedom than Afghan forces, which is necessary to take decisive actions to defeat enemies in case of emergency. It is troublesome that Afghan people are “not necessarily fond of the Taliban actions, do not seem to see huge differences between Taliban and government control” (“Realities, rules, relationships won't help surge succeed”; Iraq the Model; August 1, 2010).

However, Joshua Gross, ex-Media Relations Director of the Afghan Embassy in Washington, insists on the case for the surge and Western involvement in nation building. He points out that liberals have been ardent proponent for the Afghan War since 9-11, while they talk of early withdrawal today. Gross urges war opponents such as the Members of Progressive Caucus to remember vital values of this war, and points out that President Obama endorses the mission in Afghanistan. He argues against progressive claim that the war is an unwinnable quagmire, and the land is ungovernable. Afghanistan fell into turmoil since the United States withdrew support for the mujahedeen when their resistance against the Soviet Red Army ended.

However, Gross points out that Afghanistan was relatively peaceful from late 19th century to early 1970s. And Afghan security is improving and its economic reconstruction is making progress little by little. Therefore, he insists that Afghanistan is governable. More importantly, Gross argues that America must not discourage reform minded Afghans through premature withdrawal (”Liberals stand with Afghanistan”; Politico; August 17, 2010).

As shown in the video below, General Petraeus argues against skepticism to the Afghan mission, and told that NATO forces overturned momentums for Taliban in key areas such as central Helmand province. Also he stressed that this was a necessary war to defend free citizens around the world from transnational extremists’ attack. In addition, General says that this is a war to save Afghan people from mediaeval oppression by Taliban (NATO Channel; August 31, 2010).

Although President Obama asserts his commitment to the Afghan War, his deadline of July 2011 raises concerns among policymakers and military strategists. Senator John McCain said "You cannot tell the enemy you're going to leave and expect to succeed" (FOX News Sunday; September 5, 2010). Marine Corps Commander General James Conway warned that the withdrawal deadline suggested by President Obama would boost Taliban’s morale, and he expected the Marine Corps to stay to complete the mission (“Obama's Afghanistan deadline gives Taliban sustenance, US general warns”; Guardian; 25 August 2010). To placate such worries, General Petraeus said that the White House understands unpredictable nature of the war, in an interview with David Gregory (“Meet the Press”; NBC News; August 13, 2010).

For successful mission in Afghanistan, the coalition forces revised both military and non-military approaches. General Petraeus intensified counterinsurgent attacks by special operation forces, and 235 enemy leaders were killed or captured. In parallel, the general said that the special operation forces have made contributions to community building, such as key leader engagements and medical exercises. Socio-economic improvements will discourage terrorists to claim the area as their safe haven or sanctuary (“Petraeus Explains Afghanistan Strategy”; Small Wars Journal; September 3, 2010). Understanding local community is critically important. However, General Petraeus points out that the United States did not know about Afghan tribes and tribal leaders to well enough to deepen cooperation in community building, unlike Iraq (“Petraeus: U.S. Lacks Afghan Tribal Knowledge”; Wall Street Journal; September 2, 2010). External threats are also important. Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his National Security Advisor Rangin Dadfar Spanta insist that the United States focus more on remote control to Afghan terrorists from Pakistan. Petraeus say their concerns are legitimate (“Petraeus: Karzai concerns about Pakistan 'legitimate'”; Hill; August 31, 2010).

In an interview with John Noonan, Max Boot, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations said that cross-organizational coordination, not only between US military and the Embassy, but also between foreign contributors, the UN, and NGOs, is a key to success（”FPI Policy Advisor John Noonan interviews CFR Senior Fellow Max Boot”; Foreign Policy Initiative; September 8, 2010).

The Afghan War is winnable and the land is governable. Prior to NATO Summit in Lisbon on November 19 to 20 this year to discuss transition of responsibilities in Afghanistan, General Petraeus requested 2,000 additional troops to train Afghan security forces (“Gen Petraeus requests 2,000 more troops for Afghanistan”; daily Telegraph; 6 September 2010). The victory in the Afghan War requires consummate skill to coordinate American and international agencies, local authorities and tribes and so forth. General Petraeus has shown competence in managing delicate political interactions in Iraq.　The most important point is President Barack Obama’s leadership. As shown in his speeches in Prague, Cairo, and Singapore, the President is too shy of endorsing American preeminence. This may be one of the reasons why he hints early pull out and focusing on the economy. That is a dangerous temptation.

A Review of Ex-PM Blair’s Commentary on Iraq and the War on Terror

2010-09-05T16:11:00.005+09:00

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has released a new book, entitled “A Journey” on the day when President Barack Obama announced the end of the Iraq War. Is it a coincidence? Even if it is not, the book has appeared at a turning point when Obama decided to turn the page (“Was Obama's speech 'Mission Accomplished'?”; Washington Post; September 1, 2010). Though Obama was an opponent to this war as a presidential candidate, FPI Director William Kristol says the President was respectful to soldiers in his speech (“A Note to My Fellow Hawks: It wasn't a bad speech”; Weekly Standard Blog; August 31, 2010). Anyway, Obama tried to strike a delicate balance between his liberal belief and the duty as the President. Since the Commander in Chief does not have confidence in the mission in Iraq, it is vital to review the new book, in order to understand why Tony Blair fought the Iraq War along with George W. Bush. Also, I would like to refer to some articles by Blair to explore how major democracies lead the global community in the War on Terror.

As the Prime Minister, Blair insisted that Iraq and Afghanistan was beyond security and military issue but they were starting points to win the War on Terror in terms of values. Extremists want stable democracy to fail, and drive the Islamic world back to semi-feudal religious autocracy. Also, Blair said clearly that Iraq was a vital threat to global security, though WMDs were not found. Iraq invaded Kuwait and Iran, and murdered the Kurds with chemical weapons. The United Nations issued 14 resolutions against the Baathist regime (“A Battle for Global Values”; Foreign Affairs; January/February 2007).

In his latest book, Blair talks about WMD information prior to the Iraq War. Though the media and antiwar activists blamed intelligence mistake, Blair says they would have accepted the war, had WMDs been found. In addition, Blair wonders why Saddam acted as if he had been hiding nuclear weapons. However, he still believes that the decision was right. Though Saddam faced tough sanctions, and it was a compelling priority to remove them to save the economy, Iraq still craved for dominance in the Middle East. Nuclear acquisition was vital for his ambition to overshadow Iran and Israel. I believe this is a critical point to evaluate whether American and British attack was right or not. Saddam mocked UN inspectors, because he did not give up such megalomaniac greed. Remember this when we deal with current proliferators like Iran and North Korea.

The threat of Baathist Iraq is not the only problem. Tony Blair mentions the number of Iraqi people who were killed by Saddam Hussein as shown below.

• Iran–Iraq War, 1980–8: 600,000–1.1 million total fatalities from both countries
(Anthony Cordesman, The Lessons of Modern War, Vol. II, p. 3)

• Anfal Campaign against Kurds, 1988: up to 100,000 Kurdish fatalities; many more injuries and displaced persons
(Human Rights Watch, ‘Genocide in Iraq’, 2003)

• 1991 Invasion of Kuwait/Gulf War: 75,000 fatalities
(Milton Leitenberg, ‘Deaths in Wars and Conflicts in the 20th Century’, Cornell University, Peace Studies Program)

• 1991 campaigns/reprisals against Shia: 50,000 fatalities
(Leitenberg)

• Other political killings over the years: 100,000 or more
(Human Rights Watch, ‘Justice Needed for Iraqi Government Crimes’, December 2002)

Moreover, Blair points out that international sanctions inflicted significant impacts on health and sanitation for Iraqi citizens.

The Iraq War is just one case of the battle against extremist and autocracy. Blair insists that military intervention to rogue regimes has become increasingly required due to globalization. Among those regimes, Iran is the most critical. Blair comments, “Iran is a far more immediate threat to its Arab neighbours than it is to America ... That's why Iran matters. Iran with a nuclear bomb would mean others in the region acquiring the same capability; it would dramatically alter the balance of power in the region, but also within Islam." He concludes "I wouldn't take the risk of Iran with a nuclear weapon" (“Tony Blair: military intervention in rogue regimes 'more necessary than ever'”; Guardian; 1 September 2010).

As Barack Obama pulled US combat troops out of Iraq, it is time to explore rights and wrongs in the Iraq War, and learn lessons to defeat dangerous ambitions of terrorists, extremists, and rogue states. Tony Blair presents us invaluable suggestions.

The US-Japanese Friendship Festival at Yokota Air Base

2010-08-26T19:59:00.014+09:00

I went to the US-Japanese Friendship Festival at Yokota US Air Force Base in Fussa city, north west of Tokyo, on August 22. The festival is held once a year, co-hosted by the US Forces in Japan and Fussa Tourism Association. Yokota Air Base is a keystone of US military operations in the Asia-Pacific region, and the headquarters of the US Forces in Japan is located there.

During the festival, the air base is open to the public, and visitors enjoy shop stands and aircraft exhibitions. For Japanese people, it is a good opportunity to enjoy American culture and life style close at hand, and 130,000 visitors came to the air base. I was marveled to see a sheer number of people coming to Yokota. The festival lasts for two days, and various entertainment attractions are performed on the stage.

As soon as I arrived at the base, I walked around shop stands to buy lunch. I had a BLT (bacon, lettuce, tomato) sandwich and soft drink. Although both dollar and yen were used at the shop, the change bills in yen I received were wrinkled. This is very American, because people receive neatly pressed bills at the shop and the bank in Japan.

Having eaten lunch, I walked toward the airfield to see military planes of the US armed forces and the Japanese Self Defense Force. The aircrafts displayed were F4, F15, F16, and F22 fighters; A10 attackers; SH60 and UH60 helicopters; and so forth. F22 stealth fighters were very popular. They came from Okinawa.

F22 Raptor, very popular

Quite interestingly, I found four short vinyl strings in the hind part of the helicopter. I asked a US serviceman what they were. He told me that they were electric wires to release static electricity. Those wires are not equipped with jet fighters, according to him. Seeing is believing! I would not have found such an interesting fact, even if I made well-designed plastic models.

Visitors were not necessarily military manias. I saw innumerable families, couples, and so forth. Some of them came to the base only to see fireworks at night. It was extremely hot, atomospheric temprature of 35℃ or 95°F, and there were hardly any shades in a vast and open asphalt air field. I was impressed with physical endurance of American soldiers because they were not exhausted by the heat wave at all. No wonder they can fight anywhere in the world once ordered by the president.

Strangely enough, I did not find any leftist rallies. At Yokota, tens of thousand of visitors enjoyed the festival. Can people in Okinawa enjoy some events like this? There seems to be a huge perception gap between mainland Japanese and Okinawans, as to US bases in Japan.