Secretary Panetta’s First Press Briefing on US Defense Expenditure

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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.