The First Presidential Debate and Its Implications

The first debate for presidential election 2008 was held at the University of Mississippi on September 26, which was sponsored by CNN and moderated by Jim Lehrer (see the transcript and the video). Prior to the debate, the Washington Post reported that economic fears due to recent financial crisis give advantages to Senator Barack Obama over Senator John McCain (“Economic Fears Give Obama Clear Lead over McCain in Poll”; Washington Post; September 24, 2008). As I mentioned in a previous post “Strength and Weakness of McCain and Obama”, voters prefer Obama when the issue is on the economy, and they prefer McCain when it is on foreign policy. According to polls just after the debate, Obama leads McCain. Despite the impression on TV, has Barack Obama succeeded in convincing voters that he is ready to govern the nation?

It is critical that substantial percentages of voters are still undecided. BBC reports intensified rivalry between both candidates. According to this report, “CBS News found that 39% gave Mr. Obama victory, 25% thought John McCain had won, and 36% thought it was a draw.” Just before the day of TV debate, AP says that both candidates are competing to appeal for would-be Clinton voters, and 18% of voters are still undecided. Neither enjoys definite advantage over rival. The report says that swing voters see “McCain leads on Iraq, terrorism, taxes, corruption, immigration and gun rights, while Obama has an edge on health care, gay marriage, the environment, stem-cell research, racial equality and education” (“Poll finds 18 percent of voters undecided”; AP; September 25, 2008).

The first TV debate does not seem to change the trend so much. Senator Barack Obama may have impressed slightly better impression on voters, but BBC says neither he nor Senator John McCain succeeded in showing persuasive ideas on the economy. To the contrary, BBC comments “McCain wins on points.” This is quite noteworthy, because BBC is too well-known for its center left stances, as witnessed in the Falkland War, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War.

BBC reporter Kevin Connolly asserts “But in the foreign policy section of the debate, it seemed to me John McCain emerged a clear winner, although there were individual issues like Iraq on which the Democratic contender more or less held his own.” On Iran, John McCain suggested a new idea that the League of Democracies should contain the threat of the rogue regime, and asserted resolute attitude to defend Israel. Barack Obama did not impress such a clear attitude to Iranian threat. Also, Obama failed to address his own policy to curb Russian threat, and McCain argued him too naïve to manage a Russia increasingly moving toward czarist authoritarianism.

Only on Iraq, could Obama show difference from McCain’s policy. However, remember that Barack Obama modified his viewpoint of early withdrawal after he talked with General David Petraeus in Iraq. Actually, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari visited the United Nations, and requested US led coalition not to withdraw precipitously simply because of economic crisis. In addition, Foreign Minister Zebari said that the Iraqi government hopes to sign a security agreement with the United States before the presidential election on November 4. This implies that Iraqi leaders are gravely concerned with Barack Obama’s approach to Iraq (“Iraq hopes economic crisis won't affect US troops”; International Herald Tribune; September 27, 2008). As I have mentioned in a previous post, “The State of Iraq: By Gen. Jack Keane, Frederick Kagan, et al”, General Jack Keane and Frederick Kagan at the American Enterprise Institute have been insisting this.

At the first TV debate, neither candidate knocked out their opponent. Barack Obama may capture the heart of those who are annoyed with the Bush administration. But his weakness on foreign policy was reconfirmed. He is not ready to become the Commander in Chief. Remember! It is center left BBC that pointed this out.

Cricket, Peace, and Stable Indo-Pakistani Relations

Peace and stability on the Indo-Pakistani border is vital to nuclear non-proliferation and the War on Terror. The Indo-US nuclear deal has been activated, and Asif Zardari won presidential election in Pakistan this September.

In view of recent political progress in the Subcontinent, a stable Indo-Pakistani relationship is one of the keys to US led War on Terror, because the United States needs further commitment to both Iraq and Afghanistan. In an interview with BBC on September 12, General David Petraeus stressed that Western operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are interconnected. It is an interest for both Pakistan and India to defeat extremists and promote democracy in Afghanistan, as well as it is for the United States and Western allies.

A recently founded professional cricket league will be able to nurture friendship between India and Pakistan, which will contribute to the development of Indo-Pakistani relations.

In India, there are two professional cricket leagues: the Indian Cricket League (ICL) and the Indian Premier League (IPL). Just as US Major League Baseball has an outpost in Canada, so does ICL in Pakistan (and also in Bangladesh).

ICL was found in 2007 to bolster the level of Indian cricket to succeed in the World Cup. Currently, there are nine teams as the following:

Mumbai Champs
Chennai Superstars
Chandigarh Lions
Hyderabad Heroes
Kolkata Bengal Tigers
Delhi Giants
Ahmedabad Rockets

in Pakistan
Lahore Badshahs

in Bangladesh
Dhaka Warriors

There are some Anglo-Irish names in the rooster of each ICL team. This is just like Japanese professional baseball. Indian cricket teams employ players from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Britain, and Ireland; just as Japanese baseball teams sign contracts with American players. Therefore, I feel some sort of common bonds with Indians.

Among ICL teams, the Lahore Badshahs is quite unique as it is solely composed of Pakistani players who have previously played for their National team. This is quite like one Japanese baseball team. During its heyday from mid 1960s to early 1970s, the Yomiuri Giants of Tokyo boasted that they did not need to rely on the Anglo-Irish, because their line-up was consisted of the crème de la crème of Japanese players.

Will cricket contribute to peace between India and Pakistan? International media tend to focus on nuclear bombs and terrorism, but grassroots interactions are no less important. Stability between both nations is critical to success of the war in Afghanistan. As long as Pakistan is well-governed enough for people to enjoy ICL cricket games, US-led coalition can maintain sufficient level of forces in Iraq.

Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are becoming increasingly interconnected. Therefore, stability in the Indian subcontinent has grown more important than ever. It is worthy of talking about the Indo-Pakistani relationship from completely different perspectives from those of major international media.

My Opinion Poll

I have started surveys of public opinions among Japanese citizens on Yoron Chosa.net (Opinion Poll.net) from this September. There are numerous questionnaires on this website, from the viewpoint of common citizens, ranging from politics and current affairs to social life and hobbies. Anyone can participate in this survey, if he or she understands Japanese.

This is the link to the page of my questions. As mentioned there, you will find various questionnaires, from expert issues to soft questions. Of course, you need to understand Japanese to answer these questionnaires.

You can also join the discussion forum through leaving a comment to each questionnaire. Come and join the forum, and express your ideas that you have in your mind in your daily life. If you understand Japanese, as it is a Japanese Language website.

Photo: Regulus of the Leo
The light of liberty and civilization, burning bright! In the forest of night!

Pakistan after Musharraf

I have written a post on turmoil in Pakistan shortly after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. It is very important to review how things have gone through since then. Despite severe criticism to President Pervez Musharraf, the United States has a dilemma in dealing with him as he is a key ally in the War on Terror. Peter Beinart, Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations warned that failure to deal with the turmoil would make this county another Iran. Robert Kagan, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, commented that the United States not stick to Musharraf because there were pro-American alternatives to him in Pakistan.

Since then, Musharraf is compelled step down, though he barely managed to stay in power for more than half a year. Just after the assassination turmoil, the United States and Britain urged opposition leaders such as Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif to work with Pevez Musharraf, for political stability in Pakistan (“Coming to Terms”; Economist; February 28, 2008).

However, Musharraf’s authoritarian rule led Zardari and Sharif to impeach him. Musharraf sacked Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry who invalidated his October reelection as the President in uniform. Zardari and Sharif blamed this extra-constitutional behavior, and demanded him to resign.

The Economist argues “Pervez Musharraf’s exit should be seen as an opportunity for his Western allies, not a setback” (“Another Bushman down”; Economist; August 21, 2008). Musharraf is neither liberal nor secular, as he sponsored Taliban until 9-11. More importantly, Musharraf’s unelected presidency undermines democratic legitimacy, which is a handicap to fight against extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Actually, right after the assassination of Bhutto, the International Crisis Group recommended that Musharraf resign and Pakistan restore constitutional rule (“After Bhutto's Murder: A Way Forward for Pakistan”; Asia Briefing; 2 Jamuary, 2008).

The post-Musharraf election will be held on September 6, and competed primarily between Asif Zardari, widower of late Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, and Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister before Musharraf’s coup d’état in 1999. Are they ready to save a terrorist roaming country?

Prior to talking of the election, let me mention briefly about political parties in Pakistan. An article by Jayshree Bajoria, Staff Writer at the Council on Foreign Relations, will be helpful for basic understanding (“Pakistan's Institutions and Civil Society”; Backgrounder; August 25, 2008).

Pakistani People’s Party (PPP):
Led by Asif Zardari. A center-left party founded by Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, father of Benazir Bhutto, in 1967. Member of Socialist International.

Pakistan's Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N):
Led by Nawaz Sharif. Originates from the Muslim League founded under the British Raj, by Mohammad Ali Jinnah who is the father of Pakistani independence. In 1999 when Prime Minister then Nawaz Sharif was ousted, PML was divided into PML-Nawaz and pro-Musharraf PML- Quaid-e-Azam or PML-Q.

For the prospect of the post-Musharraf Pakistan, I would like to mention a blog by a Pakistani political scientist, entitled Watandost, which means “friend of the country” in Urdu and Farsi. This blog is published by Hassan Abbas, Research Fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Harvard University, who worked for both democratic leader Benazir Bhutto and military dictator Pervez Musharraf.

In his contribution to the International Herald Tribune, Abbas says that Pakistan will overcome the chaos after Musharraf, despite recent beak up of the Zardari-Sharif coalition. Democratic institutions in Pakistan will manage the country better than dictatorship, and Abbas insists that the West support them with patience.

Come to think of it, America had been tolerant to authoritarian or corrupt dictatorship during the Cold War. In the War on Terror, promotion of American ideal is a critical agenda. Pakistan is a typical case of such a policy change.

On the other hand, Pakistanis must remember: it was incompetence of parliamentary politicians that triggered military coup d’ état so frequently in the past. This was also the case with the collapse of the Weimar Democracy in Germany and the Taisho Democracy in Japan. Post Musharraf leaders should not repeat the same mistake again. Otherwise, Pakistan will fall into the hands of extremists such as Al Qaeda and Taliban.

The next administration in Pakistan must work closely with the West, regarding counter terrorism strategy and empowerment.

A Recommended Site to Understand the Russo-Georgian Conflict

Things in Georgia change rapidly day by day. A recently founded think tank in Washington DC, called the Institute for the Study of War, has launched a special report on the Russo-Georgian conflict on the web. This report, entitled “Situation Report, Russo-Georgian Conflict”, is a daily update of analysis and overview on political and military interactions among Russia, Georgia, the United States, NATO allies, and neighbor nations.

In addition to the Russo-Western contests in the former Soviet Union, the special report has published an update on Poland over the Missile Defense. The deployment of US anti-ballistic missiles in Eastern Europe makes the Russo-Western interactions furthermore complicated.

This report is written by Frederick Kagan, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He is too well-known for drafting the surge in Iraq with General Jack Keane. As mentioned in his personal history, Frederick Kagan received his degrees, from BA to PhD, in Russian and East European Studies from Yale University. His elder brother Robert Kagan evaluates highly of his competence as a military strategist. There is no wonder why his surge in Iraq has succeeded. There is no doubt that he will present critical insights in this report.

In the reference list, Frederick Kagan includes numerous sources in Russian. This is an invaluable help for those who understand the language. Even those who don’t (including myself), they can learn a lot about Russian viewpoints.

Therefore, I recommend this site.

Russian Ambition beyond Georgia

Figure 1 (Source: "Situation Report, Russo-Georgian Conflict", Institute for the Study of War)













The Russo-Georgian conflict will impose further impact across Eurasia. This is not just a skirmish over South Ossetia, but strategic contests between Russia and the West over geopolitics, democracy promotion, and energy.

The Economist argues that the West make it clear not to accommodate Russian expansionism and authoritarianism (“The War in Georgia: Russia Resurgent”; Economist; August 14, 2008). Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt denounced Russian claim to save its citizens as Hitler’s justification of Nazi invasions. The Economist says it is Russia that triggered the South Ossetian dispute. Unlike Iraq, President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia has never been regarded a threat the region.

In response to such an intolerable act, the West must impose pressure on Russia, through restricting Russian access to international clubs such as OECD, WTO, and G8. More importantly, the Economist insists that the West not delay NATO membership of Georgia and Ukraine. I would argue that this is a vital point in post Cold War democracy promotion in Eastern Europe.

From this perspective, Leon Aron, Director of Russian Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, comments about the peril of Russian czarism (“What Russia's War Reveals”; USA Today; August 13, 2008). Aron points out that Russia has been restrained enough not to punish pro-Western regimes in the Baltic, Ukraine, and Georgia, until quite recently, despite increasingly authoritarian trend under Putin. But Kremlin has crossed the line, and assault on Georgia inflicts substantial impact on former Soviet states.

Aron warns that Ukraine would be the next target for Russian assault. He mentions Putin’s remark at the NATO summit in Bucharest this April, “George (US President Bush), Ukraine is not even a real state!” This implies that Prime Minister Putin does not respect Ukrainian sovereignty at all. This is a critical challenge to the United States and NATO allies as Georgian Rose Revolution and Ukrainian Orange Revolution are successful case of democratization through Western influence. Therefore, Leon Aron urges that the next US president be ready against Russian ambition in former Soviet republics.





Figure 2 (Source: “The Dangers of the Safe Route: Caucasian Pipelines”; Economist; August 14, 2008)


Martha Brill Olcott, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, points out that Russian aggression will have implications to elsewhere in the Trans-Caspian region ("Beyond Georgia: The Ripple Effects of Russia's Attack"; Plank; August 11, 2008) . Azerbaijan will need to seek Russian support regarding territorial dispute with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh. Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan may explore closer relations with a pro-Russian regime if Mikheil Saakashvili were ousted. This will have a vital impact on power contests in oil abundant Central Asia.

Furthermore, the Economist points out that Georgia offers pipeline to the West bypassing Russia and Iran (“The Dangers of the Safe Route: Caucasian Pipelines”; Economist; August 14, 2008). Figure 2 illustrates this.

Russian ambition is beyond Georgia. Also, problems are beyond geopolitics, energy, and democracy. Russia intimidates a small democracy which is no threat to the region including Russia itself. America and Europe should not tolerate Putin’s czarist adventure, even though Russia is an indispensable partner in non-proliferation talks with Iran and North Korea.

More dreadfully, increasingly self-assertive Russo-Chinese alliance will challenge our liberal world order. Is the Russian assault on Georgia a dawn of conflict between liberal democracy and authoritarian capitalism? The Georgian conflict has so many implications to global security.

A Pro-American and Liberal Imperialist Advocacy Group Incorporated

I posted some notices regarding incorporation of an advocacy organization, and the procedure has been completed on August 7 at Tanashi Office of the Tokyo Legal Affairs Bureau. The formal name of this group is “Unlimited Responsibility Intermediate Incorporation New Global America” (New GEAR).

At first, I thought of applying for establishing an NPO, but the official who met me at the Tokyo Metropolitan Government said that political advocacy is not suitable for the standard of Tokyo Prefecture to found an NPO, even though that is related to public interest. Therefore, I decided to apply for intermediate incorporation.

Though the procedure has been completed, the new incorporation does not have enough capital and manpower. It is critical how to upgrade this advocacy activity furthermore. Also, as intermediate incorporation system will expire next year, it is necessary to step up this organization into a social incorporation during the transition period. In any case, I would like to make use of this official launch of intermediate incorporation for the future.

Finally, I would like to mention that Global American Discourse is published without anonymity, as the name, personal history, and a portrait of the blog administrator are shown on the regular styled website which is linked to this blog. I use blog display name and avatar, simply in accordance with widespread custom among bloggers. Therefore, this blog is posting political commentaries without hiding identification of blog authors.

I sincerely hope that judicial incorporation will facilitate arranging sufficient capital and manpower, which will improve the quality of advocacy activities.