The Real Problem of Regional Integration in Europe

The fall of communism brought the market economy and free election to Eastern and Central Europe. However, in an interview with the German Marshall Fund on May 31, Kateryna Pishchikova, Junior Fellow at the Transatlantic Academy, comments that multi party systems and regular elections have not democratized former Warsaw Pact nations, because civil liberty and the rule of law are not guaranteed. She says that post communism regimes in those regions are something between Western democracy and Russo-Chinese autocracy, and calls them hybrid regimes.

The growth of hybrid regimes shows that the collapse of communist states has not led New Europe to become stable democracies. Instead, the rise of a new type of regimes erodes the legitimacy of promoting Western styled democracy. NATO and the EU has not succeeded in transforming them to real democracies at this stage.

See the video below.



 


Pishchikova’s viewpoints have global implications for regional integration, as free trade and democracy are key agendas beyond Europe. The European Union adopted the Copenhagen Criteria in 1993 to set the standard for new members to join the group, regarding human rights and the rule of law. Such criteria should be a guideline to help new comers improve their performance, rather than a bar to reject applicants bidding the membership.

Think of real meaning of regional integration from European experience.

Understanding Turkey from Turkish Viewpoints

Currently, Turkey is in the midst of a bitter backlash against Islamist foreign and domestic policies of the Erdoğan administration. It is a front line of the NATO operation against Assad’s Syria. More importantly, Turkey is a strategic linchpin in the trans Atlantic region, the Middle East, and Eurasia. Therefore, it is vital for American, European, and Japanese policymakers to understand Turkey’s position in the world and at home.

I would like to mention some articles in “The New Turkey” to explore Turkish foreign policy and current turmoil. The New Turkey is based in Ankara, and promotes Turkish perspectives on world affairs in English throughout the world. We are liable to see Turkey from foreign, particularly American and European standpoints. However, it is necessary to understand Turkey’s unique position between Islam and the West from Turkish viewpoints. The New Turkey presents Turkish perspectives on Turkey’s foreign policy, Middle East issues in general, and Central Asian and global security. Also, foreign opinion leaders such as Professor Jefrrey Sachs of Columbia University contribute articles to this journal (“Why Turkey is thriving?”; New Turkey; May 30, 2013).

To begin with, let me talk about Turkey’s position in the world of this century. Professor Talip Küçükcan of Marmara University in Istanbul and Müjge Küçükkeleş, Research Assistant at a Turkish think tank called the Foundation for the Political, Economic, and Social Research (SETA), present basic outline of Turkey’s foreign policy since the Kemal Revolution and Islamist diplomacy under the Erdoğan administration (“Understanding Turkish Foreign Policy”; New Turkey; May 17, 2013). Written before the Istanbul clash, this article says Turkey will implement more assertive foreign policy. Is this one of the reasons for Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan’s Islamist foreign policy?

For this purpose, we need to understand the outline of Turkish diplomatic history after Kemal Atatürk. During the interwar and World War II period after the revolution in 1923, Turkey retained neutral position. After the war, Turkey associated itself with the West under the Truman Doctrine. This is partly due to Kemalist Westernization in its nation building, in addition to Cold War geopolitics. At the first Asian-African Conference in Bandung in 1955, Turkey defended the West. Moreover, Turkey even supported the Anglo-French invasion in the Suez War, and other Western intervention in the Middle East. As a result, Turkey’s Middle East neighbors regarded this country as a Trojan horse of the West. However, Turkey’s Western alignment foreign policy was weakened in 1960 because the United States criticized Turkey’s intervention in ethnic conflicts in Cyprus and détente eased relations with the Soviet Union. The pendulum moved westward again in 1980, in view of the threat of Islamism by the Iranian revolution, and instability by the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan and the Iran Iraq War.

When the Cold War ended, then-President Turgut Özal initiated a new look of Turkish foreign policy to explore more assertive and multi dimensional diplomacies than those of the past. The Gulf War augmented the strategic importance of Turkey in the Middle East. Also, the collapse of the Soviet Union has raised awareness of historical ties among Turkey, Caucasus, and Central Asian nations. Özal launched a vision of “from the Adriatic to the Great Wall of China”, but post modern and civilian Europe is critically alert to the rise of authoritarian Turkey. Meanwhile, Islamists and Kurdish opposed mainstream Kemalists’ orientation to the West. Due to post Cold War self-assertism and AKP (Justice and Development Party) victory in 2002, Turkey reconsiders its identity in Europe, and defines itself as a linchpin of the Afro-Eurasian sphere. On the other hand, AKP has transformed into a liberal and market oriented party to live with the European Union. Küçükcan and Küçükkeleş argue that Europeans are too obsessed with Islamist aspects of AKP. At least, that is a Turkish viewpoint.

The Afro-Eurasian diplomacy concept was created by Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu when he was the chief foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Erdoğan. A typical attitude of this concept is shown that Turkey signed to become a partner to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) while staying as a member of NATO. Galip Dalay, PhD candidate at the Middle East Technical University, discusses this vital and compelling issue (“Turkey between Shanghai and Brussels”; New Turkey; May 14, 2013). It is generally believed that Turkey’s bid for SCO partnership is a compensation for the continual reluctance of the EU to accept Turkey’s long cherished desire for the membership. Turkey’s AKP administration stresses that SCO entry does not contradict with human rights and the rule of law standards of the Copenhagen Criteria for EU membership. On the other hand, Dalay admits that Turkey’s association with the EU helps democratization.

The focal point is, whether EU membership is still more attractive than other regional cooperation in Turkish foreign policy. Since the bid for EU membership has been rejected for many years, Turkey explores alternative systems to strengthen its global presence. However, the United States regards Turkey’s partnership with the SCO is incompatible with its NATO membership. Delay talks about an interesting comparison between Turkey and Britain regarding this issue. Even if Britain withdraws from the EU, its membership in NATO shall never be questioned. Erdoğan’s SCO bid can worsen Turkey’s relations with the EU, and ultimately, risks its position in NATO. Instead, Dalay suggests that Turkey explore realistic processes which do not rule out full EU membership in the future.

Turkey’s quest for increasing Afro-Eurasian presence and bolstering multidimensional foreign policy are accompanied by AKP’s Islamism in domestic politics. These factors lead to assertive diplomacy and Istanbul’s Olympic bid. However, the Erdoğan’s AKP administration faces domestic turmoil at present. What caused uprisings, and how will those have effects on foreign policy? Despite vehement criticism to the government on the street, Turkish analysts say AKP wins more solid popular support than widely thought among Western media and commentators. Let me mention some commentaries from Turkish viewpoints.

Despite civic protests, AKP won almost 50% of the vote in the last general election in 2011. Taha Özhan, Director General of SETA, comments that AKP tackles critical problems which oppositions are reluctant to do, such as changing the current constitution ratified undermilitary rule in 1982 and  initiating peace talks with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). He points out that “fear, feeling confined and repressed” does not explain civic protests, and more attention needs to be paid to socio-political transformation in Turkey (“The meaning of the protests”; NewTurkey; June 7, 2013). Quite interestingly, Hamza Taşdelen argues that AKP captures the heart of opposition electoral bases. While the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) rejects constitutional change, their grassroots supporters of nationalist conservatives in Central Anatolia approve of it. Also, AKP penetrates into supporters of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) by adopting social democratic approaches to tackle socioeconomic inequality  (“Being the opposition while in power”;New Turkey; May 28, 2013). Though wealthy Turkish do not vote for AKP, they say “Let Erdoğan win the elections because he is good for the economy, but let him not make any other political decisions.” Taha Özhan comments that secular oppositions cannot attract voters in such a political landscape (“What really happened in Turkey?”; New Turkey; June 7, 2013).

Of course, we must keep it in mind that the above scholars are excessively generous to AKP. Their analysis may have some points that we need to listen, but remember that the Erdoğan administration is critically challenged by popular discontent. There is no denying of it. Prime Minister Erdoğan has not stabilized Turkey secure enough for the Olympics. On the other hand, industrialized democracies should not be obsessed with the fear of Islam itself. Europe is extremely alert to Turkey’s Islamic socio-political culture, and that has pushed this country to find the position in alternative groups such as the Russo-Chinese led SCO rather than in Western democracies. Turkish experts make it clear that the public is disillusioned with the West, secular political parties, and also, military establishment who boast themselves the guardian of the current constitution. The United States fails to bridge the gap between Europe and Turkey.

On the other hand, Japan is too naïve to “pro Japanese” Turkey. But has Japan done anything for this country? Most of the Japanese are so uninterested in Turkey, and so ignorant of this country. Few of Japanese opinion leaders are in a position to criticize Governor Naoki Inose for his improper remark in the Olympic bid to stress Tokyo’s advantage over Istanbul. The Turkish public may have a favorable impression to Japan, but when their country faces a real crisis, there is no doubt that Turkish people ask help to America and Europe, rather than Japan, as seen in the Syrian crisis. Japanese policymakers should bear it in mind, and reconsider foreign policy approaches to this country.

There is nothing wrong to endorse secular democracy itself, in view of the quest for freedom in neighboring Arab nations. The global community needs to understand the nature of ongoing political transition in Turkey. Currently, Brazil faces a similar sort of unprecedented burst of civic energy over the Rio de Janeiro World Cup Soccer.  Are there something common in emerging powers? Unlike Turkish experts, Americans, Europeans, and Japanese are in no position of hailing AKP, but it is necessary to examine Turkish viewpoints carefully. We cannot dismiss that oppositions are not sufficiently attractive to win a nationwide support among the public. The New Turkey will give some clues to foresee Turkish political transition.

Facebook Movements for Secular Democracy of Iran

We remember the Facebook revolution that began from Tunisia, and then, spread to Egypt and Libya in December 2010. Currently, some of the global public is disappointed with the Arab Spring, in view of the rise of Islamists. From this point, Facebook movements for Iranian freedom is worthy of attention as it pursues secular democracy. Various associations create pages and groups on Facebook to promote freedom movements of Iran.

Let me explain pages and groups. On Facebook, there are two types of communications. "Page" is a one way communication in which a handful of administrators send messages to those who expressed support for them by clicking “like”. On the other hand, “group” is a mutual communication between administrators and members. Once the membership is approved, anyone can write a wall post of the group. Through both ways, Iran’s democracy rallies are launched one after another. There is no way of knowing whether their rallies will succeed like those in Tunisia, but it is apparent that the theocratic government in Tehran cannot control Internet movements.

Unlike those in Tunisia and Egypt, Iranian Facebook movements are strongly secular, because they fight against theocracy instead of military rule. While the Arab Spring was driven by a loose network of students, Iranian movements are more cohesive. This is a vital point, because student activities were hijacked by Islamists, particularly in Egypt. In case of Iranian movements, Former Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi plays a pivotal role. He may not return to the throne, but as often witnessed in Europe, monarchy is a built in stabilizer against religious fanaticism and military dictatorship.

Currently, Pahlavi lives in Bethesda, Maryland, and urges Western civil societies to support Iranian freedom through the media on both sides of the Atlantic. His official page on Facebook draws nearly 158 thousand “like” clicks from all over the world, the most of them are from Tehran despite severe Internet censorship. In addition to his own official page, his supporters created “Prince Reza Pahlavi Fan Page”. Through pages and groups on Facebook, Iranian democracy proponents exchange information and opinions, promote values, and create a sense of unity around the globe. Quite a few individuals use photos of the Pahlavi family members for their profile picture.

 Shir o Khorshid or the Lion and the Sun, is another symbol among Iranian freedom fighters. It has been a traditional mark of Iran since the Sassanid era, and various dynasties used this emblem until the fall of the Pahlavi regime. After the Iranian revolution, Shiite theocrats adopted more Islamic symbol of four crescents and a line to represent Tawhid or monotheism. As a result, Iranian protesters use their traditional national emblem to show patriotism and resistance to the theocracy. Some pages and groups like “Official Page of Reza Pahlavi” and “Iranian and their Friends” use Shir o Khorshid cover photos. Compare Iranian national flags before and after the revolution.

                                                                             Before

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　                  After 

Politically, those pages and groups show strong solidarities with the United States and Israel. Some of them are closely tied to conservative American civil networks for their detestation of Islamism and Sharia rule. While most of the participants seem to be Americans and Iranians in exile in the West, a substantial number of Iranians living in Iran join freedom networks despite strict censorship under a repressive regime at home. As witnessed in the Green Movement in 2009, Iranian freedom activists and general public are craving for American help. But why Israel? Historically, Iran was in good relations with Jewish people. It is Cyrus the Great who relieved ancient Hebrews from Babylonian oppression. Today, Iran has the largest Jewishpopulation in the Middle East. Moreover, Former Israeli President Moshe Katsavwas born in Iran, and Iranians are proud of it. Current theocracy ruins such ancient and deep friendship with Israel.

The Internet is not the only way for Iranian freedom activists. Iranian Americans a held an event called the PersianParade on April 14 this year in New York. Originally, the parade started to celebrate Nowruz in 2004. Though primary objective of this event is to enhance unity among Iranians living in the United States and promote understandings in traditional Persian culture, Iranian freedom activists advertise the event to raise awareness to their advocacy for regime change at home. The Persian Parade is entirely run by grassroots, without depending on opposition celebrities like Reza Pahlavi, Mariam Rajavi, and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi. In the parade, American mounted policemen march, raising the Shir o Khorshid and the Stars and Stripes side by side. This is a visual appeal of close ties between Iranian freedom movements and American civil societies. See the photo below.

Shir o Khorshid and the Stars and Stripes march side by side.

Secular democracy in Iran will have significant implication from Africa to China. Currently, Islamists rise in Egypt and Turkey, and Al Qaeda found their safe havens in the Sahel area, the Caucasus, and throughout the Middle East. However, Al Qaeda’s sphere of influence has not expanded in both East and West Turkestan (“The al QaedaFranchise Threat”; Wall Street Journal; April 30, 2013). Sponsoring secular democracy movements for Iran will help promote democracy free of religious biases from North Africa to Xinjiang, beyond the Arab regions. Particularly, Persian cultural traditions are strong in Iranian and Turkic peoples in Central Asia. Therefore, once positive dominos of democracy without religious fanaticism spread, things across Eurasia will be strategically advantageous for free nations, including East Asia. Once secular democracy takes root in Turkestan, the West need not compromise with China in the War on Terror, which enables free nations to stand steadfast against  China’s maritime expansionism and human rights abuse. Therefore , I hope this post will be of some help to draw worldwide attention to Iranian freedom movements.

Japan as the Bulwark against Red China to Defend US and Asia Pacific Nations

China’s expansionist ambition and North Korea’s nuclear brinkmanship diplomacy intensify tension in East Asia. Particularly, tightrope foreign policy is required to manage China. While exploring some security cooperation and economic ties, the United States and Asia Pacific nations must be well aware of the danger of this country. A strong Japan will serve as a bulwark against Red China, which will serve the interests of nations in this region, whether engaging or confronting the Beijing regime.

The problem is, the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia often appears just rhetorical, and throwing away America’s special role in the Middle East. That can lead to a super power suicide. Current US policy in East Asia must be understood in a global context, beyond Sino-Japanese geopolitical rivalries. Those who endorse America’s role in the Middle East are steadfast against Chinese expansionism. In an era of rising isolationism in the United States, as witnessed in the sequestration, we must keep it in mind.

Why America and Asia Pacific nations need a strong Japan? Vance Serchuk, Former staff of Ex-Senator Joseph Lieberman tells why in his recent article (“An ascendant Japan would boost U.S. interests”; WashingtonPost; April 19, 2013). Lieberman and former Senator Jon Kyl contributed an article with to make the case against isolationism (“Thedanger of repeating the cycle of American isolationism”; Washington Post; April25, 2013), and launched the “American Internationalism Project” in the American Enterprise Institute. Therefore, Serchuck’s policy analysis presents insights to see the Obama administration’s Asia policy critically, and assess the strategic importance of Japan to the United States and Asia Pacific allies.

Let me see Serchuck’s view on East Asia and Sino-Japanese rivalries. Regarding regional security, the United States may have to ask China’s cooperation on North Korea to curb its nuclear threats. However, China does not necessarily share vital interests of nonproliferation with the global community, and more concerned with the collapse of the regime in North Korea. Also, China’s cyber threat and maritime expansionism are critical concerns. Japan has a great potential to become a reliable security partner to those who face such threats. Despite a mere 1% of GDP in defense spending, Japan’s military capability is the most advanced in Asia. In addition, he points out that the Abe administration is willing to assume more security responsibility as tensions grow in Asia.

Does the Obama administration understand those arguments? Let me see a commentary regarding Secretary of State John Kerry’ visit to East Asia last April by Christopher Griffin, Executive Director, and Robert Zarate, Policy Director, both at the Foreign Policy Initiative (“What John Kerry is Doing Rightand Wrong in East Asia”; Diplomat Magazine; April 18, 2013). Secretary Kerry articulated to defend Japan and the Asian sea lane, in case of aggressive intrusion by China. But we have to remember that eight Republican senators wrote to Kerry on April 12 to call an attention to the dangerous adventurism of China and strategic importance of Japan. Signatories of this letter were Marco Rubio, John Cornyn, James M. Inhofe, James E. Risch, Kelly Ayotte, Robert Corker, John Barrasso, Saxby Chambliss, and John McCain. 

Actually, the eight senators who sent the reminder to Secretary Kerry are seriously critical of Obama’s Middle East policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iran. From this fact, you will understand that Obama’s disengagement in the Middle East does not necessarily mean strong commitment to Asia. An appeasing America in the Middle East is also an appeasing America in Asia. Policymakers in Japan and the rest of the Asia Pacific should keep it in mind, rather than welcoming the pivot to Asia naïvely. 

Meanwhile, Kerry even thinks of soliciting Chinese cooperation to manage North Korea in exchange for removal of US missile defense system. Though China is an indispensable partner on North Korea, it is a nuclear power challenging the world order of Western democracies. Removing deterrence will not be in favor of America’s interest in the Asia Pacific. At the meeting between the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, and the Head of PLA General Staff department Fang Fenghui, the Chinese side mentioned three obstacles in US-Chinese military cooperations: US arms deals with Taiwan, reconnaissance against Chinese targets, and arms embargo against China. Furthermore, in the recent PLA white paper, China denounces implicitly that the United States augments regional tensions (“US,China military top brass take aim”; Asia Times; April 26, 2013).

But it is China that intensifies tensions across the globe and the region, notably by aggressive maritime intimidation in the East and the South China Seas, and cyber attacks. As Senator John McCain argues, Asians still want to "live in a world shaped by American power, American values, and American leadership” (“Why Asia Wants America”; Diplomat Magazine; May 22, 2012), but China defies American supremacy. Though politicians are cautious to avoid provocative words to China, Joseph Bosco, former staff at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, clearly states China is a threat. He warns that China has grown wealthy, strong, overconfident, and defiant under the benefits of the international system and generous Western engagement. This is typically witnessed in China’s aggression to the freedom of navigation in international waters in the Asia Pacific region (“Red China Remains a Threat”; WeeklyStandard; November 26, 2011). Japan is the most ideally located to stop China in terms of geography.

Humanitarian aspect is another issue to manage Chinese expansionism in Asia. Kılıç Kanat, Assistant Professor at Pennsylvania State University, comments that the United States and Western allies should not dismiss China’s repression against Uyghur people as typically seen in the clash in Kashgar this April. Kanat says that the pivot to Asia putting heavy emphasis on commercial interests without giving consideration to human rights and liberty “will create not only a humanitarian disaster in the region but will also pave the way for a crisis of legitimacy for the policies of Western democracies” (“The Kashgar incident andChina’s Uyghur question”; The New Turkey; May 9, 2013). This message is primarily addressed to Americans and Europeans, but Japanese and Asian policymakers should also keep it in mind. In the Security Diamond Strategy launched by the Abe administration, humanitarian values are the key (“Shinzo Abe’s Strategic Diamond”; DiplomatMagazine; January 15, 2013).

Above all, we should not welcome the pivot to Asia so naïvely for simplistic fear of China. As shown in the case of the letter by the eight senators, America's disengagement in the Middle East leads to appeasement in Asia. In parallel with contacting incumbent Obama administration, Japanese policymakers need to found strong ties with defense hawks and global interventionists in the United States who are critically concerned with the superpower suicide. That serves the key interest of the United States, Japan, and Asia Pacific democracies.

A Map of Iran’s Nuclear Facilities

While the world pays close attention to North Korean missiles, Iran test fired missiles to threaten Israel ("Iran test-fires three new missile types"; Times of Israel; April 13, 2013). Now, see the map below to know where Iran’s nuclear facilities are.

Source: Al Arabiya

Bushehr plant managed to survive the earthquake of magnitude 6.3 few days ago (Quake Hits Southwest Iran, Killing 37; Radio Free Europe; 9 April, 2013)

Japan Needs US Ambassador of Military Veteran, not Caroline Kennedy

It seems that the Obama administration’s appointment of Caroline Kennedy is taken favorably among the public on both sides of the Pacific. As shown in the following video, of CBS News on April 2, the family name of Kennedy nurtures charismatic romanticism which is associated with the tragic legend of an idealist president John F. Kennedy. On this program, historian Robert Dallek commented that the Ambassador Kennedy would represent the best of American culture.

 

 

 

Jun Okumura, Senior Analyst at the Eurasia Group, mentions furthermore, “In this age of rapid communications, the real decisions are made at home anyway,” and “The ambassadors are largely symbols these days. What it does say is that there are no major problems in the Japan-US relationship; it’s still a safe appointment, like to Britain or France” (“Why CarolineKennedy is likely to get a warm welcome in Japan”; Christian Science Monitor;April 2, 2013). Certainly, American presidents appointed political fundraisers to the ambassadors to Britain in reward of contribution to their election victory, as typically seen in the case of Joseph Kennedy.

However, in view of growing security challenges of China and North Korea, and complexity of Okinawa US base issues, some opinion leaders prefer much more professional ambassador to Tokyo. Remember that the Ambassador to Japan represents America’s strategic interests beyond Japan. No other places in the world are so ideally located than the Japanese archipelago to watch security challenges from Hawaii to the Indian Ocean. Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage is right to emphasize such strategic value repeatedly. Newly appointed ambassador must be well aware of this.

Despite Kennedy’s popularity, some concerns are raised as she has no experience in diplomacy and public administration. Republican member of the House Foregin relations Committee Dana Rohrabackher says, “It thought it was an April Fool’s joke when I first heard about it, Our economic and national security are based on good will toward Japan. I have nothing against Caroline Kennedy becoming ambassador to, say, Barbados. But Japan is too important for somebody with no experience” (“Kennedy asJapan ambassador raises concerns amid N. Korea tensions”; FOX News;April 3, 2013). Even Clyde Prestowitz, President of the Economic Strategy Institute, who supported Obama in presidential elections, comments this critically. Compared with past ambassadors, Caroline Kennedy is no political heavy weight, and has little knowledge and experience in diplomacy and foreign affairs. Also, he says that she knows too little about Japanese culture and language (“Caroline Kennedy's appointment is not very Kennedyesque”; Foreign Policy--Clyde Prestowitz; April 2, 2013).

I agree to most of the above criticism, in view of Japan’s mistake to appoint Uichiro Niwa, former chairman of a Japanese general trading company Itochu Corporation, to the ambassador to China. But I do not think familiarity with Japanese language and culture so important as Prestowitz says, because current Japanese speak English more fluently and know American culture much more than those in the Edwin Reischauer days. Rather, we have focus on knowledge in security and skills in diplomacy and administration, particularly crisis management. From this point of view, I would argue that the next ambassador to Tokyo be selected from military veterans. Among military veterans, there are so many good candidates who inspire awe and respect to America, from Hawaii to the Indian Ocean.

The armed forces are landmines of good candidates, such as Admiral Michael Mullen, General David Petraeus, General Raymond Odierno, and so forth. If knowledge in Japanese affairs matters, then, Richard Armitage will be on the top list. Even among those who are unknown to the public, many generals and admirals are well qualified to outstare any security challenges rising in the Pacific and the Indian Oceans from Tokyo. Unknown man can become famous instantly, when he accomplishes great achievement. There is no reason to give special preferences for a celebrity. Since current US defense capabilities are shrinking due to budget cut and sequestration, such loss needs to be compensated with knowledge, skills, and personality of politicians and diplomats. Let me show a good example. People see current Russia much greater power than it actually is, and that owes to strenuous image of a KGB veteran Vladimir Putin. A US ambassador to Japan must be a John Wayne to demonstrate American prestige and strength, in order to overcome global and domestic difficulties. This is why I believe military veterans are more preferable to Caroline Kennedy for the ambassador to Japan.

                                             The next ambassador must speak softly, and carry a big stick

Whoever comes to Tokyo, the Japanese side is not in a position to call new ambassador persona non grata, unless he or she is seriously problematic to assume the mission. However, I believe it necessary to reconsider Kennedy’s job credentials on both sides of the Pacific. Some opinion leaders say being a woman is an advantage to deepen bilateral friendship, but gender equality is no priority issue between Japan and the United States today. Nor, do I believe that a princess of hereditary power represents the best of American culture. It is globally understood that a person who really represent the best of American culture and image is a man of man as typically portrayed by John Wayne. In other words, Tokyo needs a US ambassador who speaks softly while carrying a big stick. Remember that South Korea sends Lee Byung Kee, foreign policy advisor to President Park Guen Hye. Whose interest is it, if US ambassador is eclipsed by such brilliant diplomats from all over the world? For vital interests of Japan and the United States, the selection of the ambassador must be reconsidered.