European integration, that's terrible!

This picture is taken from the International Herald Tribune, June 23. (Also, from the Baltimore Sun, June 4)

See the monster. People are scared of the constitution, drafted by ENA bound bureaucrats.

This is the era of "The Case for Democracy." Elitists should understand it.

Reza Pahlavi comments on the Iranian election

Reza Pahlavi, former crown prince of Iran, comments critically on the presidential election in Iran. Just listen to the interview on the following web sites.

ＣＮＮ　June16

ＴＶ３, Spain　June 16
(Part 1)
(Part 2)

Misunderstandings on America and the Middle East

Conspiracy theorists associate everything bad in the Middle East with America’s ambition. But their viewpoints are dubious. I would like to correct these misunderstandings.

1. The United States had a honeymoon period with Saddam Hussein in the past.

Absolutely not.

During the Iran-Iraq War, the Reagan administration tried to use Iraq a buffer against the theocratic regime in Iran. However, it was very cautious. Baathist ideology is a combination of radical pan-Arab nationalism and socialism. This is hardly acceptable to the United States.
During the Cold War, Saddam Hussein was one of the most pro-Soviet leaders in the Arab world. The Iraqi forces in those days were armed with Soviet and French made weapons. It was Valéry Giscard d’Estaing who aided Iraq build a nuclear power plant, even though Saddam Hussein was suspected of his ambition to make a nuclear bomb.

2. Everything bad in the Middle East results from the Palestine problem.

Completely wrong.

Most of the problems are rooted in the Arabs themselves. Arab states fight against Arab states. Iraq invaded Kuwait, and Syria invaded Lebanon. Also, Arabs have clashes between modernization and tradition. Ethnic minorities, like Kurds, Barbers, and Turkmen are severely oppressed. These troubles are not related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Read the article “A World without Israel” by Joseph Joffe in Foreign Policy in January 2005. It is utterly wrong to blame America and Israel. You will understand it very well.

3. The United States should not have sponsored Afghan guerrillas. They caused the 9-11.

No way.

It is ridiculous. The United States should have allowed the Soviets to expand their influence throughout the Persian Gulf area and the Indian subcontinent? It is true that Islamic radicals have become the most serious threat to the United States and Free World. However, I have to remind you that the rise of such radicals dates from the Iranian Revolution. The Carter administration was excessively dovish against Shiite riots. Saddam Hussein would have never invaded an Iran, under the Pahlavi dynasty or pro-Western strong man. The loss of Iran has been critical to the Middle East security. People hardly criticize such a wimp foreign policy, although Islamic fundamentalists have been one of the most serious threats since then.

4. Middle East democracy is a plot driven by Bush, neocons, Jewish lobby, and oil industries, in order to maximize their business interest.

Are you kidding?

Whether liberal or conservative, it is American national interest to spread a stable democracy throughout the Middle East. Their disagreements lie only in the method to achieve this goal. The Iraqi National Congress, lead by Ahmad Chalabi, has been sponsored by the United States since the Clinton era. Moreover, non-partisan and liberal think tanks have been engaged in numerous researches on Middle East democratization.
It is America’s national project, and completely off the point to denounce Bush, neocons, Jewish lobby, and oil business.


Left-wingers and conspiracy theorists distort the public opinion. We need to have a balanced viewpoint.

NATO is Europe! Who cares EU constitution?

People talk too much about EU constitution, but it does not matter so much. NATO plays the most important role to decide the future of Europe, and the EU is the secondary actor. In other words, Europe must be open and Atlanticist. Today, European integration has expanded eastward. Also, Turkey is expected to join the EU in the future. However, I have to remind you that European integration is not entirely dependent on the Continental initiative. The United States has been endorsing this movement since the end of World War II. When the Cold War ended, NATO embraced “New Europe” and Turkey much earlier than the EU did. In view of these facts, we understand that European integration is a trans-Atlantic endeavor from the beginning. Expanded Europe is not homogeneous. It is not a good choice to impose a single constitution to the whole area of the Union, and interfere in the national sovereignty. NATO does not intervene in national politics. Furthermore, it is a friend in need to its member states, in case of crisis. Therefore, people do not have to worry so much about the ratification of EU constitution.
It is also important to notice substantial changes in the balance of power in Europe. The French referendum on May 29 voted against the constitution. As Charles Grant, Director of the Centre for European Reform, argues in his article in Foreign Affairs, there are two categories of states in Europe: core members like France and Germany, and peripheral members such as Britain, Poland, the Nordic, and the Baltic. In an expanded Europe, the influence of the Franco-German alliance will erode. The “non” vote will undermine French leadership in Europe furthermore. In addition, peripheral members enjoy buoyant economy these days, while core economies are stagnant. In a circumstance like this, initiatives by France, Germany, and Brussels bureaucrats are outdated.
Finally, it is necessary to understand why people voted against the constitution. First, people are scared of losing their national identity. Second, there is a clash between liberal expansionists and social integrationists. Finally, and the most importantly, European citizens distrust the constitution drafted by ENA bound elitists like Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, and Jaques Chirac. Also, people are skeptic to Brussels interference in national security and economy. This is an era of grassroots democracy, and people are getting increasingly antagonistic to bureaucratic rule all over the world.

From these points, EU constitution was destined to be rejected. However, it does not matter. NATO is Europe.

Nuclear Japan? Definitely not!

I received some comments about possible Japanese nuclear deployment. Certainly, it is discussed among American foreign policy makers, saying that North Korean threat may lead Japan to possess nuclear deterrence. However, this does not help Japan’s national interest.
First, non-proliferation is the vital issue in US foreign policy. If Japan decides to have weapons of mass destruction, this will be a serious challenge to the United States. Currently, America regards China as the most critical security concern in the Far East. Due to rapid military build-up, human rights violations, high-handed diplomacy, and so forth, China has become a grave troublemaker in East Asia. A nuclear Japan will pose furthermore threat to the United States and the whole Asia-Pacific region. With advanced technology and larger economy, a Japan like this will appear more dangerous to the United States. In that case, America may have to choose China over Japan.
This is the worst scenario for Japan. During the World War II, Japan confronted the United States and China, the big two in the Asia-Pacific area, at the same time. This country must not make the same mistake again.
Second, military experts explore to change armed forces lighter, more agile, and more flexible these days. The Cold War is over. Regional conflicts and terrorism has become increasingly important issues. For a country like Japan, gigantic weapons, such as nuclear bombs, strategic missiles, and aircraft carriers, are not suitable for these requirements. When Japan sends armed forces abroad, it will participate the operation with the United States and its allies. American forces will control the air and the sea. It is Japan’s role to dispatch small, agile, and efficient combat units.
A comparison of Britain and France illustrates it very clearly. While Britain concentrates its nuclear power on US-made Trident missiles, France still maintains various kinds of strategic nuclear weapons. Moreover, the deployment of nuclear powered aircraft carrier turned out too costly for France. As a result, French forces were ridiculed backpackers in the Balkans, because its performance was too poor. On the other hand, Britain has been highly evaluated for its small and efficient armed forces.

Therefore, it is no Japanese interest to have its own nuclear weapons. But it is not stupid for Americans to think of possible nuclear development by Japan. While the South Korean government abides by the Non-Proliferation Treaty, scientists violated this pact. In any case, the Japanese nation will not be enthusiastic to possess such a dangerous weapon.

Listen Japan. Collective security, now!

Under the postwar pacifist diplomacy, Japan has been unwilling to make any kind of collective security deals. The trauma of World War II was so serious that the whole Japanese nation had been scared of military involvement abroad. Because of such a “splendid isolation” policy, Japan has no reliable partner except the United States. Though leftist criticize Japan’s excessive dependence on the United States, this reluctance to collective security has made Japan even more dependent on America.
Japan’s unwillingness to collective security has been damaging its relations with Asia-Pacific neighbors. While Asians and Japanese leftists insist that Japan apologize Asian neighbors, they tend to miss that actions for the future are more important than apology. Regrettably, there are no collective security regimes in the Asia-Pacific region. We should bear it in mind that Europeans embraced Germany, not because of its apology to its neighbors, but because of its wholehearted commitment to collective security organizations, like NATO and the EU.
When Japan is allowed to pursue its own economic growth like in the 60s and 70s, the world can accept the “splendid isolation.” In those days, global security was bipolar and very simple. Today, things have become more complicated, because we need to confront invisible threats like terrorists and other non-state actors. Also, WMD proliferation makes everything more and more entangled. Therefore, Japan needs to consider dedicated involvement in collective security regimes.

Regarding Japanese participation in collective security in the near future, I would like to argue the following issues and advantages.
First, in terms of Japan’s own national interest, active engagement in collective security will be an advantage. Currently, the United States is the only reliable partner to Japan. This is a handicap for Japan’s quest for world leadership and permanent seat at the UN Security Council. A true leader needs to be trusted by the global community. A participation in a collective security regime enables Japan to have more reliable partners other than the United States.
Second, it is necessary for the global community to establish collective security regimes to deal with present threats, such as terrorists, pirates, China, Russia, and the most imminently, North Korea. In order to manage these challenges, it is desirable that Japan be allied with NATO and Asia-Pacific neighbors. This will be advantageous for the United States as well. On her visit to Tokyo this spring, US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said that Japan and Australia were key allies in America’s endeavor to curb these threats. A collective security regime will make Japan a vital ally to the United States, just as Britain is.
One of the critical issues to be mentioned is dealing with anti-Japan sentiment. Currently, hate-Japan emotion is rampant in China, North Korea, and South Korea. Also, latent anti-Japan feeling is prevalent all over Asia. Here again, I insist that collective security is useful to resolve this problem. China and North Korea are national security threats to Japan, but South Korea and ASEAN nations can be embraced. With full commitment to collective security, Japan will be able to impress itself a friend in need to Asians, not a fascist enemy. More importantly, a collective security deal enables us to test Asian nations: whether they are with the United States and Japan, or China and North Korea. Particularly for South Korea, this test is important. At present, South Korea is balancing US-Japan and China-North Korea. Our free world must question such a lukewarm attitude, and we should not make South Korea choose between us and them.
Once Japan and its Western allies succeed in encircling embracable Asians, China and North Korea will lose their moral high ground to accuse Japanese Shintoist imperialism in the past.

With collective security, Japan can find reliable friends, like Australia, NATO, and Asian neighbors. This will reinforce the US-Japanese alliance. It is time to act for the future.

The BB duo: Senate Hearing Today

I found an interesting site, called “Thank you Tony.com.” Through this web page, you can send a message to thank Tony Blair’s involvement in America’ s war on terror.
See Thank you Tony .com. We definitely need Tony Blair now!

Also, the Senate hearing is held today. John Bolton is expected to win. But no one knows what will happen.