Though nationalists, Trump and Putin do not understand nationalism

US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are notorious nationalists, and corrosively critical of the world order based on universal rules and norms. But quite ironically, they do not understand nationalism. They impose self-righteous greed on others under the name of nationalism, while dismissing the pressured or attacked nations’ quest of sovereignty and national pride. That is witnessed in Trump’s Donroe Doctrine and Putin’s Russkiy Mir ideology.

Now, ley me talk about Trump’s Western Hemisphere policy and trans-Atlantic disputes. As soon as reinaugurated, Trump declared to annex Greenland and Canada, and regain the ownership of Panama Canal, which startled the global community and spurred vehement criticism from NATO allies. Also, he argued that Ukraine concede its territory for Russia to end the war quickly, completely dismissing the principle of territorial integrity. In all cases, Trump treats national territory and sovereignty like transaction of real estate property.

I. Trump’s self-righteous nationalism and real estate instinct in clash with nationalism abroad
(1) Greenland:
Trump did not care about the long path of history in which indigenous people struggle against Denmark to win their autonomy. How would they accept sudden change of their status imposed by an erratic alien leader? Let me review its history. Since Erik the Red came to Greenland around 980, Norsemen found their settlements in Greenland. But as the Little Ice Age started in the 14th century, those settlements were gradually abandoned. Europeans recolonized Greenland after Denmark-Norway expedition in the 17th and the 18th century. After Denmark split from Norway during the Napoleonic War, Greenland became Danish territory. Since then, indigenous Innuits have struggled for their autonomy against Denmark. One of the most noticeable issues is the 1951 defense agreement with the United States, which forced local Innuits to leave their traditional hunting ground to expand the Thule base for the USAF.

The milestone of the postwar Danish rule in Greenland is the Constitutional Act in 1953, which aims at decolonization through integration. Greenland became a country within the Danish realm. Since then, rapid modernization, economic development, and Danification were pursued in the 1950s and the 60s. In the 1970s, further assimilation pressure was imposed on native Greenlanders. In the referendum about EEC membership in 1972, Greenland was forced to join despite opposition from its residents. They were concerned with negative impacts on their fishing rights and the cession of their political decision-making to the Danish government and Eurocrats in Brussels.

Increased frustration led indigenous Greenlanders to protest the Danish rule and EEC membership. Greenland and Denmark had lengthy talks about the autonomy and EC membership since 1975 through the Home Rule Commission. They were approved to leave the EC after a new referendum in 1982. Denmark went furthermore to ratify the Indigesous and Tribal Peoples Convention of 1989 at the UN level in 1996 to recognize cultural identity, socio-ecological rights, and political autonomy. (1)

Trump does not give even the slightest consideration to such historical backgrounds. As shown in his notorious phrase, “drill baby drill”, socio-ecological rights of indigenous people are none of his interest. Also, they were forced relocate their habitats for the USAF base in the past. Considering their historical grudge, Trump’s territorial claim could simply provoke anti-American sentiments among them. It seems that small nations and ethnic minorities are virtually nonexistent in his geopolitics.

(2) Canada:
Likewise, Trump showed no interest in Canada’s quest for distinct national identity both from Britain and America in history. In response to Trump’s outrageous pressure that Canada be merged with the United States to resolve the tariff war and to strengthen its national security, Prime Minister Mark Carney replied clearly “Canada is not for sale” like the White House and the Buckingham Palace. (2) In Trump’s real estate mindsets, national sovereignty and territorial integrity are no serious issues of concerns. Therefore, let me mention Canada’s historical pursuit of self-rule and diplomatic independence.

First, I talk about Canada’s path to independence from Britain. It began when the UK parliament adopted the British North America Act in 1867, to found a staunch confederation of Canada in view of the rise of America after the Civil War. It was Britain’s imperative to stop another Boston Tea Party in its white dominions to foster common imperial foreign policy. However, dominions became increasingly self-aware through their contribution to the victory in World War I. One of the noticeable examples is Canada’s concern with the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese alliance. The rise of Japan after the war was changing global balance of power so much, which made the United States, and also Canada, critically alarmed with that. As a result, Britain was forced to repeal the alliance with Japan. With the Statue of Westminster in 1931, Canada was approved to become an independent country within the British Commonwealth. (3)

As Canada was gaining equal status with Britain gradually, trade relations with the United States was splitting the nation toward the 20th century. Conservatives were pro-British and protectionist, while Liberals were pro-American and free trader. However, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930 strained bilateral relations through tariffs hikes, which pushed Canada to join the British imperial trade block. Though the relationship with the United States improved after it joined the Allied Forces in World War II, Canada continually had complicated relations with the big neighbor in the south. As British influence faded and American influence grew after the war, Canada became more conscious of its distinct identity.

Socio-culturally, Canada adopts bilingualism of English and French and multiculturalism. In domestic politics, American styled revolution and republicanism were not embraced, which led to less inclination to individualism and market economy, and more to governmental activism in this country. That has made Canada a welfare state with strict gun controls. These are completely at odds with MAGA dogmatism of anti-DEI, anti-welfare, and anti-gun control. Despite such historical backgrounds, Trump speaks about Canadian territory and sovereignty like real estate property and ownership, so lightheartedly.

In foreign policy, Canada places emphasis on soft power diplomacy, and focuses on foreign development aid for its political presence in the world, just as Nordic nations. That is starkly in contrast with hard power diplomacy of the United States and Britain. Though sharing Anglo Saxon culture, Canada has neither nuclear weapons nor power projection capabilities militarily. Therefore, this country use development aid as a strategic tool for trade and national security interests, (4) as well as for liberal values and humanitarianism. Like Nordic nations, Canada’s aid policies are founded on multilateralism, and conducted through close partnership with UN agencies. (5) Such strategic soft power diplomacy is something akin to Japan’s proactive pacifism. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech for a middle power coalition impressed the global public so strongly, but his idea was not suddenly made but deeply embedded in Canadian foreign and domestic policies for decades. Trump’s idea of annexing Canada is so impromptu and ridiculous.

(3) Panama:
In addition to Greenland and Canada, the annexation of the Panama Canal is the most critical strategic issue. Though Trump is wrong to claim that China controls the canal, its exit ports to the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans are managed by a subsidy container terminal operator of Hong Kong based conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings. That raises critical concerns of Chinese BRI outreach among American geo-strategists. (6) However, current Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino is conservative and pro-American, and therefore, it is quite unlikely that he tilts toward China at the expense of America.

Professor Javier Corrales of Amherst University and Senior Lecturer James Loxton of Sydney University criticize Trump’s bulldozing counterproductive in their joint article, from the following points. For Panama, a sovereign canal is the centerpiece of national identity, and unilateral bullying would boost anti-Americanism precipitously vis-à-vis China, though Latin Americans do not necessarily view this country favorably. Also, such sentiments would nurture guerilla violence throughout Latin America as it happened in the 1960s and 70s since the Cuban Revolution in 1959, typically seen in Columbia and Nicaragua. For fear of that, the United States started the canal talk with Panama in the Nixon era, which was concluded by the Carter administration. Finally, the canal dispute could lead to the emergence of an anti-American coalition of leftists and military dictatorship like the Torrijos administration in 1968. (7)

While Trump is obsessed with Chinese influence on the Panama Canal so much, he did not tell Brazilian President-then Jair Bolsonaro to stop China’s BRI invested highway and railway projects through the rainforests in the Amazon, despite environmental and geopolitical concerns. His Donroe Doctrine is so contradictory. That shows us that this America First nationalist is not only ignorant of nationalism abroad. Actually, he is not seriously interested in stopping China, not to mention saving the environment.

(4) Ukraine:
His poor understanding of nationalism was also witnessed in Ukraine when this country was not fighting the war advantageously against Russia. Last year when Ukraine was fighting an uphill battle against Russia, Trump told Ukraine to cede occupied lands and limit the size of armed forces to end the war without solid security guarantee. That raised critical concerns on both sides of the Atlantic, and his whimsical greed for the Nobel Peace Prize or some kind of legacy is harshly questioned. (8) Despite Trump’s lack of insight about Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, European officials were fully aware that American involvement was indispensable to manage Russian threats in Ukraine and the whole of Europe. (9)

Ex-Army Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg criticized that Trump confused business and the war as the former Special Envoy for Ukraine of his administration. While Trump regards the pace process just as a swap of lands and personal relationship as the cornerstone of diplomacy, KGB-minded Putin has no room for embracing such a real estate way of deal making. (10) I quote him to show how absurd Trump’s approach is even from right-winger like Kellogg who is one of the founders of the America First Policy Institute.

What Putin really wants is not tiny pieces of territories in Donbas and Crimea, but the annihilation of the Ukrainian sovereignty and statehood, according to Peter Dickinson of the Atlantic Council. A sovereign and independent Ukraine symbolizes the enthrallment of the former Soviet bloc and the victory of Western liberalism, which struck Putin as the most catastrophic humiliation in his life. His political manipulation history in Ukraine traces back to so early as 2004 when his attempt to install pro-Russian puppet was sidelined in the Orange Revolution, a decade ago from the annexation of Crimea. (11) Actually, the Special Military Operation was intended to replace President Volodymyr Zelensky immediately with pro-Russian puppet. However, Russia failed to seize Kyiv, and the war continues unexpectedly long for Putin. This is why Ukraine is fighting this war so unyieldingly.

Trump may have changed his approach for peace in Ukraine in view of their resilience, and he does not talk about territorial cession less frequently now. But it is quite unlikely that he has deepened his understanding of Ukrainian quest for freedom and he has changed real estate thinking in the war.

(5) Iran:
Trump recklessly talked about regime change without noticing Iran’s long history of nationalism to resist invaders. He may have thought this job would be done with just a few drops of bomb to kill Shia and IRGC leaders, but Iran has a huge reserve of élites to fill vacancies. His success in Venezuela is not applicable. Also, Trump belittled Iran’s grit to fight against the enemy. Remember, they overcame the supply chain crisis of strategic materials including weapons during the Iran Iraq war, as typically seen in the case of F-14 fighter jets. They were brand new weapons that the Shah invested a huge amount of petro dollars, but ever since American engineers had withdrawn, they faced severe lack of equipment and components for operation. Iranians barely managed to revive those “Persian Cats” to defend their airspace from Saddam Hussein’s air force.

From domestic politics to foreign affairs, Trump’s self-claimed “art of the deal”, which is poker game styled bluff to pretend his upper handedness, resorts to various verbal abuse and shaming, negative labelling like “communist” and “woke”, coercive measures like National Guard deployment and use of force pressure, to gain what he wants, without persuading others. Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations comments that such ways of bullying just boomeranged him as opponents and foreign nations take damaging retaliation, and Iran is no exception. Now, hardliners are invigorated in Tehran, and the Strait of Hormuz is the hostage of their “art of the deal”. (12)

Here again, Trump falls into real estate thinking as in Greenland, Canada, Panama, and Ukraine. He even mentioned his plan to annex the Strait of Hormuz, (13) but does not show the idea about how to defend there and ensure Persian Gulf security from Iranian drone attack in waves, which led to the defense pact among Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan. (14) Furthermore, Elliot Abrahams of the Council on Foreign Relations argues that US troops are considering relocating forward bases out of the Iranian drone range, as they are concentrated on the Gulf area for the War on Terror. (15) Trump may have been experienced in swapping lands in real estate business, but state territories are accompanied by nationalism, national security, and territorial integrity. He is even unlikely to be aware of the Atlantic Charter, which is the foundation of international rules and norms today.

II. Putin’s bogus vision of the Russkiy Mir and Ukraine
Prior to the invasion of Ukraine, Putin published the notorious essay, “On Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” in 2021. He assumes the Kievan Rus a rigidly monolithic ethnic entity, but they were a loose political federation, actually. Shortly after the publication of this controversial essay, Professor Andrew Wilson of the University College London, criticized that Putin confuses the Ancient Rus with Russian intentionally. Though Modern-day Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarussians descended from the Rus, they have had long history of separate nation building for centuries. In addition, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church had been influenced by the Renaissance and its subsequent religious movements, unlike isolated Russian Orthodox. From this point, I would argue that Ukraine’s tilt to the West is more natural than to Russia. Ukrainians have no reason to embrace Czar-worship among Russians.

Furthermore, Wilson flatly denies Putin’s claim of Russia’s historical territorial rights in Crimea, the annexation of which in 2014 was the precursor of the current war. This is a strategic location to control the Black Sea trade route to export agricultural products. Nevertheless, Putin mentions unproven history of Kievan Rus Prince Vladimir’s baptism in Crimea. Clearly, he wanted to impress spiritual value of Crimea to the Russian nation. The place of Prince Vladimir’s baptism is in dispute among historians, but Putin dismisses the fundamental point that Crimea was an alien land for both the Kievan Rus and modern-day Russians until colonized by Catherine the Great. Prior to her conquest, it was inhabited by Crimean Tatars, Greeks, Armenians, etc. (16)

Even if Russians and Ukrainians shared common language and culture as Putin says, I would argue that that does not necessarily substantiate his one nation theory. Canada have sought autonomy, sovereignty, identity from Britain and America. Putin’s ambition to exterminate Ukraine and Trump’s eagerness to merge Canada sound like Adolf Hitler’s annexation of Austria. Those poorly grounded one nation claims come from megalomania. Above all, Putin is not interested in academic integrity. That essay is a showcase of KGB bred disinformation.

III. Trump and Putin compared in personal backgrounds
Both Trump and Putin live in information bubble, but that is not the only reason why they dismiss nationalism against a repressive foreign power in other countries, while boastfully claim self-righteous one for their own countries. After all, they satisfy their nationalism through bullying others. They are extremely zero-sum minded from their life time experience in real estate business and intelligence service respectively. For further understanding, I would like to mention personality of both leaders respectively.

Trump lacks intellectual competence to understand foreign history and global affairs. When he was young, he boasted to have graduated first in his class from the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania, (17) but that was flatly denied by late Professor William T. Kelley, as he revealed that Trump was the dumbest goddamn student he ever had. (18) Wharton is a prestigious school, but as his academic performance there was so poor, he is not bright enough. No wonder he is so hateful to established intellectuals. Some commentator misunderstood Trump got an MBA degree. No, his achievement was so bad at the bachelor’s level. MAGA people are fond of politically incorrect attack regarding race and gender. Then, let’s fight back in their politically incorrect manner to mock Trump’s poor brain. Go for it!

On the other hand, Putin is molded into KGB-brained. Soviet elites were grouped by two pillars, and the Communist Party lost power, but the Cheka survived the collapse of the union. Ideologically, they have converted from Marxism for workers of the world to authoritarian nationalism of secret police. Senator John McCain talked about Putin, “I looked into his eyes and saw three letters, a K, a G and a B,” when he competed for the Republican Party nomination in the US presidential election in 2000. (19) His ideological opponent ex-Lieutenant General Kellogg, who believes in America First, firmly agrees with him about this. Anyone seriously committed to national security shares common views regardless of political position, but does Trump really understand this?

Ironically, Putin is prosecuted by the ICC now, which hindered him from attending the BRICS summit in South Africa and Brazil, though he focused on international law and trade at Leningrad State University (St Petersburg State University today), an archrival to Moscow State University. His KGB training was more influential in shaping his thoughts than his college education.

IV. Exploitative or predatory nationalism of Trump and Putin
Despite some differences in individual backgrounds, Trump and Putin are quite like-minded as they try to impose their tribalistic views on others by all means. They do not see the world from intellectual modesty, but from exploitative or predatory nationalism. They want to seize what they want whether legitimately or illegitimately. They do not care about moral and logical contradictions in what they claim. That leads them to repress liberal nationalists in other nations. Liberal nationalism rises from the quest for autonomy and freedom as seen in Greenland, Canada, Panama, and Ukraine. That is not an ideology of hate, which is favored among MAGA mobs and other Western right-wingers. It is not exploitative and predatory.

Leaders like Trump and Putin are highly conscious of the great power status of their countries so much that they are bulldozing the world with their exploitative and predatory greed, but not interested in providing global public goods or fulfilling responsibility to the world in accordance with their national power. Meanwhile, some middle power leaders like Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada stand against them with liberal nationalism for their own countries and liberal internationalism for the global community.

The balance of media reporting on modern history of Iran is questionable

I am opposed to the Trump and Netanyahu administrations waging war in Iran. However, regarding the country's modern history, which is deeply intertwined with the current war, if the only criticism focuses on the Pahlavi monarchy and social inequality created by the interests of the "West + Israel" alliance, without critical examination of the vested interests maintained by religious conservatives throughout history, it risks fostering biased public opinion among the public. Furthermore, regarding the Iranian oil industry nationalization dispute, we need to review the Mossadegh administration more critically, given its failure to consider the dynamics of the Cold War. While the Nissho Maru is often glorified in this case, which also involves Japan, a defeated nation whose dream of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere had just collapsed, was unlikely to have real intention of resisting the US and Britain.

First, the involvement of religious conservatives in the establishment of the Pahlavi dynasty is a fundamental aspect of modern Iranian history. Following the conquest by Arab Muslims, Iran, which regained the right to national self-determination for the first time in 10 centuries with the establishment of the Safavid dynasty in the 17th century, adopted a dual power system with the Shiite ayatollah and the secular shah, vis-à-vis the predominantly Sunni Muslims in the Arab world. Against this conservative system, Brigadier General Reza Khan of the Cossack Brigade staged a coup, aiming for national enrichment and military strengthening, modeled after Japan's Meiji Restoration and Turkey's Kemal Revolution. At this time, Brigadier General Khan intended to establish a republic similar to Turkey, but due to the wishes of religious conservatives who feared the loss of vested interests due to rapid reforms, the Pahlavi dynasty was established.

The problem is that the inequality brought about by privileged classes like these feudalistic landowners is ignored, while only the widening inequality caused by the Pahlavi monarchy and capitalists is critically reported. If Japanese media, including NHK, were to analyze the situation from an internationally liberal perspective, that would be fine. However, it is unfair to harshly criticize inequality caused by the monarchy and the global economy while ignoring inequality caused by the religious right and other feudalistic landlords. A real liberal would consistently criticize inequality caused by feudal landlords as well.

Furthermore, regarding the White Revolution, which was promoted under the Pahlavi regime at the recommendation of the Kennedy administration, the United States did not force it upon the Gulf Arab states, where religious conservative forces were too strong. During the Cold War, Iran was on the front lines of its strategy against the Soviet Union, and under its increasingly secularized regime, further modernization and military strengthening were desired. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia faced more threat from Pan-Arabism in Egypt, Syria, and Iraq than from the Soviet Union, and lacked political pluralism. This country had not reached the political and social maturity necessary to pursue secularization and defecation like the White Revolution. While rapid capitalist development certainly has the negative side of widening inequality, we must not forget that Iran, during the era when religious conservatives held vested interests, was also a society of inequality.

Also, from the geopolitical perspective mentioned above, the Mossadegh administration's rash move to approach the Soviet Union during the 1951 oil nationalization dispute, disregarding Cold War power politics, should be criticized more. While attention tends to focus on oil interests in this dispute, the reason for US intervention was to prevent the expansion of communism. First of all, it's important to remember that the withdrawal of Soviet troops, who stayed continually in northern Iran even after World War II, was on the agenda of the first UN Security Council meeting. Incidentally, Reza Shah, the first monarch of the Pahlavi dynasty, also committed a geopolitical blunder by aligning with Nazi Germany, leading to his dethronement through intervention by both Britain and the Soviet Union. Why did Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh fail to heed these geopolitical lessons?

Finally, regarding Japan's involvement in the Iranian oil nationalization dispute, it's crucial to recognize that the Nissho Maru was not the Ertuğrul. Idemitsu Kosan dispatched the Nissho Maru to prevent a slowdown in Japan's postwar economic recovery, which had only just begun after signing the San Francisco Peace Treaty. It was certainly not motivated by humanitarian sympathy for Iran's anti-colonial nationalism. If anyone were to find the same kind of philanthropic spirit in the dispatch of the Nissho Maru as in the rescue of Ottoman Turkish naval personnel by the Japanese during the Ertuğrul disaster, that would lead to a misunderstanding of the history of Japan-Iran relations.

As I wrote in my previous post, I am a Never Trumper and do not support the current war against Iran. Precisely because of this position, I cannot help but strongly question the historical perspective that, in its criticism of the current US and Israeli governments, overlooks the vested interests of Iran's religious conservatives as feudalistic landowners that they have maintained for centuries since the Safavid dynasty. We are a people who achieved national unification through the siege of Mount Hiei. Therefore, a calm and critical perspective is necessary regarding Iran's religious conservatives, and we should not excessively sympathize with the Mossadegh regime, which made the same geopolitical mistakes as Reza Shah in the oil nationalization dispute, when discussing the country's modern history. While criticizing both the Trump and Netanyahu administrations, we must not lose balance in our understanding of Iran's modern history.

Geopolitics and values behind King Charles III`s state visit to Trump’s America for the 250th anniversary

I have been watching Britain’s tightrope diplomacy between Trump’s America and Europe since last May. UK-US relations in Trump 2.0 started relatively friendly, but as the trans-Atlantic chasm grows due to the Donroe doctrine in the Western Hemisphere, Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran, the special relationship is critically questioned now. The British Royal Family is visiting Trump’s America in commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, when intergovernmental relations are in discord. And ironically, Donald Trump is the most unconstitutional president in history, as shown in National Guard and ICE deployment in Blue States, and tariff diplomacy, which are completely incompatible with the ideals of the Founding Fathers. Despite such controversies, King Charles III and Queen Camilla are scheduled to visit from April 27 to 30, and subsequently, the Prince and Princess of Wales are expected to visit in June or July.

1. [Britain’s royal diplomacy in America]
Prior to talking about current bilateral relations, let me mention the history of the royal family and the American people. The Boston Tea Party, which led to the American Revolutionary War, was not a protest against the British monarchy originally, but an appeal for the rights as Englishmen as declared “no taxation, without representation”. In the early days, newly independent America was anti-British, but as its democracy matured, its border dispute with Canada was settled, and its internationalism rose towards the new century, the Anglo-American relationship gradually developed into the special relationship of the latter days. Ever since the future Edward VII visited the United States as a prince in 1860, royal visits were very helpful in nurturing a favorable image of Britain among the American public. In 1939, when World War II was almost breaking out, George VI and the future Queen Mother Elizabeth met President Franklin Roosevelt to mitigate the epidemic of America First isolationism among American citizens.

Most importantly, Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip visited the United States in 1957 on the occasion of the 350th anniversary of the English settlement in Jamestown, to heal ruptured Anglo-American relations by the Suez Crisis. However, will King Charles and Prince William foster a friendship between the two countries? Remember, President Donald Trump mocked Prime Minister Keir Starmer during the Iran war. Trump called independently deployed Royal Navy aircraft carriers in the East Mediterranean toys, and denounced Starmer as a coward because he did not give complete permission for the USAF to use RAF air bases. (1) Ultimately, would the king give credit to Trump’s right-wing populism? To answer those questions, let me talk about British diplomacy with Trump’s America in his second term.

2. [The special relationship with America in Trump 2.0]
It was Britain’s imperative to stabilize the special relationship with the United States, no matter how disruptive the incoming president was, and repair the damage of Brexit in Europe, while the Russian invasion of Ukraine poses critical threats to the Euro-Atlantic sphere. In such a trans-Atlantic security environment, the Starmer administration was inaugurated shortly before Donald Trump was reelected. When Trump’s second term started, Britain reached relatively favorable agreements, compared with the EU and Japan. Notorious Trump tariffs were lower, and a huge US investment in the UK tech industry was agreed through the TPD (Technology Prosperity Deal). Furthermore, the invitation to the royal dinner at Buckingham Palace satisfied Trump’s childish vanity. It appeared that Starmer managed to stabilize the relationship with Trump’s America.

However, towards the end of the last year, Trump resorted to assaults on NATO allies increasingly, such as claiming annexation of Canada and Greenland, raising tariffs furthermore, and withdrawing support for Ukraine. The regime ousting of Venezuela was done almost effortlessly, and Starmer embraced the consequence. But he suspended intelligence sharing with the United States, because global concerns were raised about the legality of US attacks on a Venezuelan drug smuggling boat in the Caribbean Sea, where Britain and other European nations have overseas territories. (2) And then, the war in Iran inflicted a fatal blow on UK-US relations. Globally, Trump’s attack on Iran is criticized for a lack of international legal grounds, poorly defined strategic goals of the war, Israeli influence on American decision-making, and so forth.

Along with problems such as asymmetric warfare, energy price, and the Hormuz Strait, Peter Ricketts, who served as the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee of the Blair administration and the National Security Advisor of the Cameron administration, comments that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to eliminate the threats of Iran and its proxies for the legislative elections by late this October. (3) Meanwhile, Trump’s first-term National Security Advisor John Bolton says that Trump wanted a quick and efficient war against Iran as he did in Venezuela for the midterm elections this November. (4) Though both leaders do not share the same intention, we have to remember that they are quite election-oriented.

From British perspectives, Trump’s war against Iran is disrespectful to postwar Anglo-American relations. Jean-Marc Vigilant at the French Institute for International and Strategic Affairs (IRIS) contrasts British and French trans-Atlantic strategy after the Suez Crisis. In order to avoid an unexpected clash. Britain stepped toward close strategic contacts with the United States to have some influence on its decision-making and keep its military presence in Europe. On the other hand, France sought strategic autonomy from the United States by developing its sovereign and independent nuclear weapons and withdrawing from NATO's integrated military command. (5) In the Gulf War by George H. W. Bush and the Iraq War by George W. Bush, Britain was in strategic contact with America. But in the Iran War, Trump talked with Netanyahu only, and Britain was sidelined. Why should Starmer help him?

Quite importantly, the Iran War is so unpopular in Europe that any support for Trump and Netanyahu could ruin the pledge to increase defense spending against Russia among NATO allies. (6) Therefore, Britain is taking increasingly French-styled strategic autonomy and hosted a conference on freedom of navigation in the Hormuz Strait. (7) Pro-Trump MPs such as Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage and Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch demanded that Starmer join the war for the special relationship when it broke out, but now, they have withdrawn their support for Trump. This is also the case with ex-Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is a senior executive of Trump’s controversial Board of Peace. (8) They should have remembered that even a Thatcherite Lord Chris Patten argues that Britain should not assume the special relationship with Trump’s America. (9)

3. [America and the world order in chaos]
Furthermore, I would like to mention American foreign policy. Last June, when the war in Iran was not imminent, Robert Kagan at the Brookings Institution commented that Trump turned the US military into his private army when he deployed National Guard and ICE in Blue States unconstitutionally. Also, he aligns with Netanyahu as both share ethnoreligious nationalism, which is completely at odds with universal liberal values of the Founding Fathers. As Kagan argues, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is advancing anti-DEI initiatives in the US military, and he even likens the war in Iran to a crusade, both of which are deeply rooted in white Christian nationalism. Therefore, Kagan concludes that any success Trump claims in Iran will be a victory for autocracies around the world. (10) Continual frictions between Trump and US allies make China and Russia pleased. America has lost trust from allies, furthermore, in the Iran War. This would accelerate not only the isolation of America in geopolitics but also the fall of the Enlightenment, which would turn the world, including America itself, less secure. (11)

To my eyes, ex-President Barack Obama was also too post-American, but his foreign policy could have been compatible with the world order of the middle power alignment, which was proposed by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. On the other hand, Trump is excessively post-Enlightenment, which has made America completely isolated. That is savage enough to return the world really to the Stone Age. In his latest article of the Atlantic Journal, Kagan calls Trump’s America a rogue superpower. He mentions the ongoing war, “The Iran war is global intervention “America First”–style: no public debate, no vote in Congress, no cooperation or, in many cases, even consultation with allies other than Israel, and, apparently, no concern for potential consequences to the region and the world.” That makes America lonely and dangerous, but never great. (12) Thereby, Trump destroys the world order that has brought innumerable benefits to the United States and its allies.

4. [The post-Enlightenment trend and the rise of the civilizational state]
The final point of the discussion is the political transition in the global context. Aaron McKeil at the London School of Economics mentions that in the post-Enlightenment era, as seen in viral right-wing populism in the West and geopolitical challenges by authoritarian powers, civilizational state values would replace liberal cosmopolitan ideals. Then what is a civilizational state? It is a kind of ethnocultural sphere of influence claimed by a great power or a regional power as a body of governance beyond its own territory. This is typically seen in Russia’s Russkiy Mir and China’s “Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation". Domestically, a civilizational state focuses on national unity through ethnocentric traditionalism. Trump has trashed America’s hegemonic advantage in universal cosmopolitan ideals with White Christian nationalism and turned it into an authoritarian civilizational state like Russia and China. Those civilizational state advocates are not necessarily retrospective, according to McKeil. They are often aligned with new techno futurists who are keen on winning the great power rivalry in the tech industry. (13) This is typically seen in the TPD in current Anglo-American relations.

[Conclusion]
Deplorably, America elected the least qualified president to commemorate the 250th anniversary, though King Charles is visiting this historic landmark of democracy in America. The shift of Starmer’s diplomatic stances shows us that it is no use flattering Trump just to avoid a clash with him. Even pro-Trump Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni rejects Trump’s demand to admit the USAF to use air bases in Italy. In domestic politics, Trump fired so many loyalists. Returns are hardly expected through sycophancy. Among G7 leaders, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi is so eager to conform to Trump. Her crazy dance was ridiculed both at bilateral meetings in Tokyo and Washington, DC. But I would rather call attention to her impolite laugh at the autopen portrait of former President Joe Biden. That implicitly indicates that she lost the sense of political balance. I would suggest that Takaichi rename herself MAGAichi, as she is dishonorably fascinated with Trump so much.

Among the British public, this visit is unpopular, and they want the King to cancel the tour, according to the You.gov poll last March. (14) Considering the nature of the Trump administration and his character, even this state visit is unlikely to improve the state-to-state relations of both countries. Therefore, there is no need for King Charles to make an impression as if giving credit to Trump. Meanwhile, Britain’s royal diplomacy has nurtured a friendship with the United States for more than a century. Focusing on people, instead of Trump, the King’s visit for the 250th anniversary would be an opportunity for them to recall the ideals of the Founding Fathers. The British royal family is popular among Americans, historically.

Since Trump’s America is a civilizational state incorporating new techno futurism, a huge business deal such as the TPD will be a “hostage” to stop Trump from fatally breaking up the bilateral relationship, even though he escalates blaming Starmer as relations with Britain grow worse. He never suggested withdrawing this tech deal, despite his penchant for madman diplomacy. This is a lesson for world leaders who want to stabilize the relationship with Trump’s America through flattery.

In this historic event, despite the chaos that Trump brings at home and worldwide, will King Charles III have a favorable impact on democracy in America and trans-Atlantic relations? The king spoke of the late Queen Elizabeth II’s legacy of optimism that "goodness will always prevail and that a brighter dawn is never far from the horizon", before the state visit to the United States of America. (15)




Footnotes:

(1) “As a state visit looms … can King Charles tame Trump?”; Guardian; 4 April. 2026

(2) “U.K. withholds intelligence on alleged drug boats over U.S. strikes, sources say”; NBC News; November 13, 2025

(3) PeterRicketts, BBC Breakfast; 4 March, 2026

(4) “John Bolton Warns How Trump’s Big Mouth Has Weakened U.S.” Daily Beast; April 20, 2026

(5) “Europeanising” NATO: A Utopia or an Obvious Necessity for Europeans?”; IRIS; 16 May 2025

(6) “Trump wants to strongarm NATO into a new Gulf war. Here’s why Europe must resist”; Centre for European Reform; 18 March 2026

(7) “Joint statement from the leaders of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada, and others on the Strait of Hormuz”: UK Government Press Release; 19 March 2026

(8) “The UK’s right wing is suddenly silent about supporting war in Iran”; News Agents; 11 March, 2026

(9) "Britain Must Downgrade the Special Relationship"; Project Syndicate; February 28, 2025

(10) “American Democracy Might Not Survive a War With Iran”; Atlantic Journal; June 21, 2025

(11) “America vs. the World”; Atlantic Journal; January 18, 2026

(12) “America Is Now a Rogue Superpower”; Atlantic Journal; March 30, 2026

(13) “How to navigate global disorder”; Engelsberg IDEAS; March 23, 2026

(14) “By 49% to 33%, Britons say King Charles should cancel official visit to USA”;You.gov; 26 March 2026

(15) “William and Catherine praise late Queen's 'lifetime of duty'”; BBC News; 22 April, 2026

Real national defense capability matters rather than the GDP ratio of spending

Ever since the Cold War, the United States has been urging its allies to increase defense spending for burden sharing, whether it acts as the world policeman or America First. However, I have always wondered why people talk about the amount of money to be spent so much, while hardly paying attention to how it is spent and implemented. A discrepancy in defense strategy and procurement could weaken collective defense. Quite recently, retired British Army General Richard Barrons raised a serious concern about this point that I have thought of for years.

Prior to mentioning his article in detail, we have to review the security environment of the world today. The latest NSS of the Trump administration emphasizes America First more than ever, and urges allies to assume more defense burdens. The paper even bluffs that the United States will withdraw from the alliance unless its members increase defense spending more drastically. As a result, liberal democracies in Europe and Asia are forced to pursue independent and multilateral security policy coordination, with the surge in defense budgets. In addition, wise spending must be considered to arrange such new security framework more effective. Both in Europe and Asia, President Donald Trump takes an Obama-style “offshore balancer” stance in Ukraine and Taiwan, while acting predatory in the Western Hemisphere, as seen typically in Venezuela and Greenland. He gives priority to making a deal of the mining business in Donbas rather than settling the territory and sovereignty issues with Russia. Also, in the recent Sino-Japanese conflict over Taiwan, he prioritized trade talks with China rather than geopolitical checks against its expansionism. Trump would be happy with a spending increase among allies and a decrease in the burden of American security commitments from his business acumen. It seems that he does not care about the use of increased spending, nor the division of roles with allies.

In view of such a global security environment, let me talk about ex-General Barrons’s commentary about the UK-German strategic discrepancy in defense spending objectives. As one of the leaders of the Strategic Defence Review 2025, he considered two points, which are the strategic requirements in deterrence and fighting, and financial capacity over the next decade (1). In addition, Britain, like other European nations, is forced to increase its military budget within such constraints in the face of Trump’s pressure. Therefore, wise spending for the properly focused objective is critical. While Britain is investing in technological innovation to resolve financial and personnel restrictions, Germany is building the strongest conventional army in Europe by overturning fiscal authority, and even by reintroducing conscription (2). Meanwhile, Britain’s military manpower is shrinking year by year despite its global commitment.

Contrary to Germany, Britain is pursuing tech-based military reform through combat lessons from Ukraine. Newly established digital targeting web will connect any UK troop sensors through AI-managed cloud to connect any of its weapons whether locally or globally (3). Such approaches require an innovative industrial base. The SDR 2025 even states “Defence also has <> at the heart of the UK’s economic strategy (4).” The Starmer administration’s TPD (Technology Prosperity Deal) with Trump’s America draws $350 billion in investments from U.S. firms into the UK's technology ecosystem, particularly in AI, quantum computing, and civil nuclear energy (5). Defence Secretary John Healey commented proudly that the deal would boost Britain’s leadership in defense, data and AI technology and as an ideal location for investment (6).

On the other hand, Britain`s ambitious scheme is not necessarily praise worthy. Barrons urges the British authority to fund and implement the project quickly, as Germany is building a conventional army rapidly. He recommends that Britain’s conceptual innovation and Germany’s efficient bureaucracy be combined to strengthen European defense capability. He criticizes the bureaucratic sectionalism of Whitehall for the delay. There is no denying that conventional plans are quicker to start than future-oriented ones. However, strategic rationality and efficiency are not the only reasons that determine the use of defense spending. The political culture of each country also matters. The primary focus of Germany’s national defense is urgent territorial defense in view of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. For this objective, the Merz administration prioritized immediate military buildup, rather than future-oriented military reform. Furthermore, ethical hurdles make Germany cautious to use AI for military objectives, from the historical experience of authoritarian surveillance by Nazi and the Stasi. The German military prioritizes human control of technology and bans fully operational LAWS (Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems) but admits human-overseen AI systems (7).

Such a discrepancy is found in the GCAP as well. While Britain was inclined to the command center version which is networked with ACPs (Autonomous Collaborative Platforms) or loyal wingman drones for multirole combat missions to increase combat mass and reduce damage risks, Japan prefers the manned version to replace aging F-2 immediately, which is equipped with more advanced sensors and networking technology than the F-35. Meanwhile, Italy is dissatisfied with the extremely high cost and tight restrictions for the technological transfer of the F-35. GCAP partners reached an agreement to fill these R&D objective gaps by making common manned aircraft and then, adapt them to the requirements of each air force (8).

However, the war in Ukraine has changed military tactics so drastically that the above discrepancies between Britain and Japan could shrink faster than expected. Following the New Year visit to Ise Shrine on January 5, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi said that her cabinet would revise the National Security Documents by the Kishida administration to focus much more on drone and AI networking systems (9). Also, she said a stronger defense industry would be a new locomotive to boost the Japanese economy in this century. Those points somewhat similar to what is stated in Britain’s SDR 2025. That could make Japan’s position in the GCAP more in line with the UK. Unlike Germany, Japan has little ethical hurdles for AI weapons.

In an era of more self-interested America with the Donroe Doctrine, the target of increased defense spending has become more important than ever. Ex-General Barrons raises a critical question as he compares defense plan of Britain and Germany. We have to consider strategic rationality and political culture of partners in mini or multilateral policy coordination. Different priorities between Britan and Germany, and Britain and Japan, are just a tip of the iceberg among numerous cases. We tend to talk about the size of firepower and weapon of choice when we boost national defense, but don’t dismiss AI networking system and problems associated with that as it is emerging increasingly important. How should we spend increased defense budget? Each nation should think again.



Footnotes:
(1) "The UK and Germany should combine their strengths to address weaknesses in European defence"; Chatham House; 19 November, 2025

(2) "Germany votes to bring in voluntary military service programme for 18-year-olds"; BBC News; 6 December 2025

(3) "I wrote the UK defence review: Britain must accelerate reform if it is to help guarantee Ukraine’s security"; Chatham House; 25 September, 2025

(4) "The Strategic Defence Review 2025"; UK Government;8 July 2025

(5) "Trump, Starmer sign $350B tech deal to spur AI, nuclear energy and quantum computing"; New York Post; September 18, 2025

(6) "New strategic partnership to unlock billions and boost military AI and innovation"; UK Government Press Release;18 September 2025

(7) "Ethical and Operational"; German Council on Foreign Relations; November 09, 2022

"AI – its risks and possible side effects"; German Ethics Council; 4 April, 2023

"Chapter 8: Privacy and Security: German Perspectives, European Trends and Ethical Implications"; Ethical Issues in Covert, Security and Surveillance Research; 2021

(8) "The New Partnership among Italy,Japan and the UK on the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP)"; Istituto Affari Internazionali; 3 March, 2023

"Forget F-35, F-47 and FCAS: The GCAP Fighter Is Coming"; 1945; December 26, 2025

(9) Takaichi Security Revise; NHK World; January 5, 2026

Again, never nominate President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize

At the plenary session of the House of Representatives on November 4th, Constitutional Democratic Party leader Yoshihiko Noda asked Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi a question about the endorsement of U.S. President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. Takaichi cunningly avoided replying in detail. We must not allow this matter to be closed with such underhanded tactics. After all, Takaichi even went so far as to mimic President Trump's "eat cats and dogs" remark by using the "kick the deer" trope. Furthermore, in the LDP presidential election and the prime ministerial nomination elections for both the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors, no other candidate resorted to such Trump-style demagoguery. It appears Takaichi is strongly MAGA-brained.

Today, geopolitical paradigm shifts are frequently discussed in international politics, but if Trump were to win the Nobel Peace Prize, it could even lead to a paradigm shift in values, in which universal international norms are disregarded. The spread of right-wing populism today poses a threat to international security comparable to the intensifying interstate conflicts. Japan also nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize during the Abe era, but at the time, that president's childish displays of vanity were seen as a kind of joke. However, in his second term, it should be noted that Trump's personal desires have taken on a powerful tinge of madness.

In my previous post, I explained at length why I oppose nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. In this article, I would like to focus on the following three points.

First, the Trump administration's deployment of troops at home has been severely criticized by the public. Proper use of military forces is fundamental to national governance, and politicians who cannot do so are unlikely to achieve peace. In any country, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces must use military force in accordance with due process. In an attempt to exert political pressure on Democratic state and city governments, Trump has mobilized the National Guard across the country under the pretext of eradicating crime and undocumented immigrants. His overly heavy-handed tactics have led to growing criticism that the military is pointing its guns at its own citizens. President Trump with military command authority is like "a madman with a knife." As a result, courts across the United States have ruled that the deployment of the National Guard is illegal. A familiar story, even in Japan, is that NDLON (National Day Laborers Organizing Network) submitted numerous signatures to the Los Angeles Dodgers, this year's World Series champions, in protest of anti-immigration sentiment, calling for them to decline to meet with President Trump.

Second, President Trump has announced a plan to restart nuclear testing, a move that will set back long-standing momentum toward nuclear disarmament. Trump administration Secretary of Energy Chris Wright announced that the resumption of testing would involve subcritical nuclear tests that do not involve a nuclear explosion. Although this may not be prohibited by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, Russia shortly thereafter also announced a resumption of nuclear testing. There are concerns that other nuclear-weapon states, such as China, may follow suit. A president who claims America First and disregards international cooperation is unworthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Third, we must consider the negative impact of President Trump's triumphant self-promotion once he were awarded. Given his brash and strong attention seeking character, Trump may use this as an opportunity to further his insistence on running for a third term. He is a man who has a penchant for pushing everything hard, even inciting the January 6th riot after losing the 2020 presidential election. Japan must not give a hand to the deterioration of democracy in crisis caused by such right-wing populism.

However, Takaichi is also said to be stubborn and unyielding in her own opinions. Given this, only very prominent politicians would be able to advise the current prime minister. Of the three issues mentioned above, there are former prime ministers with extensive knowledge of the first and second points. Former Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has made nuclear disarmament his lifework, and former Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba is known as a military geek. Up to now, neither of these former prime ministers is implicated in the "politics and money" scandals that contributed to the LDP's downturn. This may also be a strength of both of them.

As my primary focus is international politics, partisan politics and factional power politics within Nagatacho are secondary or thirdly interests for me. I view the destruction of the world order and the potential of paradigm shift in universal values and norms caused by the spread of right-wing populism as a serious threat to international security. From this standpoint, I urge that the issue of the Japanese government's nomination of U.S. President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize must not be dismissed.

The case against Prime Minister Takaichi’s flattery to MAGA

I was appalled when newly appointed Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi endorsed US President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize at the last US-Japanese summit. I was preparing to post about another issue, but this incident was too critical for me to dismiss, and therefore, I've decided to postpone the previously planned post, and instead write about this unexpectedly emerging agenda.

I've always viewed Takaichi's behavior as dangerous, ever since the last LDP presidential election. The most desirable candidate for the LDP president was then-Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi. What sparked my growing view of Takaichi as a danger was her "deer kicking" remark. The remark was criticized as xenophobic, and she was forced to withdraw it. However, the look in Takaichi's eyes when she made that remark instinctively filled me with fear. It was suggesting as if she was determined to beat her rivals by arguing them down and agitating the public by all means, whether fairly or unfairly. In order to understand this, further expert analysis by psychologists is required. In any case, this kind of nonsensical demagogy in order to seize power is in line with Trump's "cats and dogs eating" remarks. Right-wing populism is really scary.

And shortly after taking office, the new LDP president even held coalition talks with Sanseito. Although this did not come true, it demonstrated the right-wing nature of the Takaichi administration. The endorsement of Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize is in line with these words and deeds. This is why I was appalled by Takaichi's flattery to MAGA at the last US-Japanese summit.

But does Trump deserve a Nobel Peace Prize? First, if we evaluate his achievements in the international community, the two major issues are the peace settlements in Gaza and Ukraine, but there is no sign of peacebuilding in either case. In Gaza, Trump made a big show of exchanging hostages between Israel and Hamas boastfully, but there is no prospect of Hamas disarming since then. The Biden administration has actually released more Israeli hostages. And in Ukraine, Russian attacks show no signs of abating. The good personal chemistry between President Vladimir Putin and President Trump is completely useless in promoting peace. In the Indo-Pakistani conflict, Pakistan is satisfied, but India is dissatisfied with Trump's mediation. Trump's other mediation efforts have not completely resolved the problem. He has not achieved any results worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.

And what countries are nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize? None of them are among the world's most highly accredited liberal democracies. First, Israel claims to be the only democratic nation in the Middle East, but the Netanyahu administration's attacks on Gaza have been internationally condemned for their humanitarian impact due to the disproportionate damage to civilians. Other supporters are all autocratic states or countries governed by right-wing populism. These include Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Gabon, Rwanda, Argentina, Hungary, Guinea-Bissau, and Senegal. Since the Meiji Restoration, Japan has striven to join the ranks of the world's civilized and first-class nations. Prime Minister Takaichi's declaration to recommend the Nobel Peace Prize runs counter to modern Japan's historical direction and places Japan in the "Shameless League."

The most troubling aspect of Trump's eligibility for the Nobel Peace Prize is that he does not know how to use armed forces properly. This hardly makes him a politician of peace. President Trump has mobilized the military in the domestic political struggle over undocumented immigration, but this disqualifies his leadership whether for war or peace. As the famous Latin proverb goes, "Si vis pacem, para bellum" (If you want peace, prepare for war), there can be no peace with the misuse of military force. The Trump administration has deployed the National Guard to Democratic cities like Chicago and Portland, ostensibly to combat crime and undocumented immigration. Such deployments should not be possible on the president's unilateral orders. Furthermore, under the pretext of combating drugs, the administration has attacked Venezuelan ships without congressional approval. The Trump administration claims the right to kill anyone, anywhere, without reason, evidence, or accountability to Congress and the public. Such arguments have been harshly criticized by William Kristol, a leading conservative Never Trump commentator. In any case, such a president would easily resume nuclear testing without consideration to others. President Trump is unworthy of the Nobel Peace Prize, not only from the perspective of international politics but also from the perspective of domestic politics. Why is Prime Minister Takaichi so willing to nominate such a person? If Japan's top leader has already fallen into MAGA-taste thinking and emotions, this is a serious problem.

However, since the Trump administration is based on the rock-solid MAGA base that harbors paranoia about globalization, it is conceivable that a certain degree of appeasement will be unavoidable in reaching a deal with them. Japanese liberals are so naïve as to dismiss this, and simply criticize "submission to America." Trump himself and those who wear bright red MAGA hats and vent their anti-globalist and anti-elite sentiment are truly difficult to deal with. In the tariff disputes launched by the Trump administration around the world, the Starmer administration in the UK managed to reach deals on relatively favorable terms. However, the reciprocal tariff was raised to 10%, which is higher than before.

Of particular note is the tech investment agreement and state guest treatment Trump received during his recent visit to the UK. This tech agreement has divided public opinion in the UK. The idea of boosting the tech industry by attracting investment from the US, supported by former Conservative Foreign Secretary William Hague, is clearly a bipartisan national policy. On the other hand, former Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, who served as Deputy Prime Minister in the Cameron coalition administration, expressed concern that the deal would not lead to support for domestic startups and would only turn the UK into a data center for major US tech companies. Despite this divided public opinion, it should not be forgotten that the Lee Jae-myung administration of South Korea also reached a tech investment deal during President Trump's last visit.

Furthermore, while Trump shamelessly flaunts his childish vanity over his pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Starmer administration satisfied his vulgar greed with royal hospitality. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, a Labour politician with a serious personality, would not have been a good match for President Trump, either in terms of ideology or personal chemistry. Therefore, it was quite likely that the series of negotiations and reception required considerable patience. However, it was in line with the fundamental direction of postwar British foreign policy, which emphasizes relations with the United States regardless of party affiliation or ideology. Even Britain, which is said to have reached a relatively favorable deal, had to proceed the talks like this. Other countries needed more struggling to strike a deal with the Trump administration, which views the world through idiosyncratic, and rigid perspective. Are Japanese liberals who criticize the "subservience to the United States" at the last summit so knowledgeable about the specific issues under negotiation? If so, they need to be more focused in their criticism. Whether you like or dislike Prime Minister Takaichi, such vague criticism is meaningless. It should be noted that former British Deputy Prime Minister Clegg, mentioned above, focused on specific points when he criticized the UK-US agreement. Above all, even with such a humble stance, I would like to reemphasize that Starmer does not endorse Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.

In any case, the Nobel Peace Prize nomination issue is intertwined with Takaichi's right-wing words and deeds, so the argument that the "glass ceiling" has been broken in Japanese politics is questionable. Right-wing politicians tend to be authoritarian, like autocrats. Under their rule, the glass ceilings based on gender, race, and so forth, are rarely broken. Reviewing history, the reign of Russia's enlightened despot, Catherine the Great, did not break any glass ceilings. As is well known, Catherine the Great's authoritarian domestic and foreign policies have served as a model for the Putin administration, which is invading Ukraine under the ideology of Russkiy Mir. It should also be noted that the current Kremlin is remarkably machismo-oriented, even by global standards. Therefore, there is absolutely no need to treat Prime Minister Takaichi as a female politician with any special consideration. The new prime minister's leadership should be examined objectively, focusing on her governance, ideology, and demagoguery techniques. Just like when discussing Catherine the Great or President Vladimir Putin.

The right-wing authoritarian Prime Minister Takaichi advocated a "work, work, work, work" political stance during the last LDP presidential election. However, as in the case of the Nobel Prize endorsement, if a leader is leading the country in a negative direction, it is preferable for them not to work too hard. Indeed, Prime Minister Hideki Tojo during World War II "worked, worked, worked, worked hard," which caused devastating damage to the Japanese nation and its people. While Trump may hold the position of President of the United States, he is essentially merely the president of MAGA. Therefore, such an unprincipled Nobel Prize recommendation seems like a challenge to anti-MAGA Americans. Currently, in Japan, as in European countries, there is discussion about the risk hedge from Trump's diplomacy by lowering Japan's security dependence on the United States. However, as a "Fragile Blossom" militarily, it is difficult to imagine Japan implementing sovereign and independent defense, and we cannot place excessive expectations on multilateral partnerships with Europe and Indo-Pacific countries without the United States. In this sense, cooperation with anti-MAGA Americans. could be seen as the strongest risk hedge against Trump's diplomacy. From this perspective, excessive prostration toward President Trump should be reconsidered.

At the last US-Japanese summit, the Abe legacy was repeatedly emphasized, and it seems that the Japanese government and media placed excessive emphasis on the personal chemistry between the two leaders. However, as the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe himself wrote in his memoir, that is completely unreliable. In fact, Trump has been ruthless in cutting off his loyalists, both in domestic and international politics. Among the leaders of powerful countries, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India had been in a good relationship with Trump during his first term, but that has deteriorated during his second term. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Starmer is striving to maintain a good relationship with the administration. In light of the trends in the U.S. and around the world described in this post, I hope Prime Minister Takaichi to withdraw her endorsement of the Nobel Peace Prize for President Trump.

The last House of Councillors election and Japanese internationalism

The results of the last House of Councillors election on July 20th were quite like a vulgar reality show. Right-wing populist party Sanseito made great gains, but like the Trump administration and its like-minded far-right groups in Europe and the United States, they are shouting xenophobia and inciting hatred toward those who oppose them based on a "thin centered ideology ". To prevent such extremists from taking over our nation, I call for trans-partisan solidarity among internationalists.

As seen in most of the issues that I usually take up, I am not a Nagatacho watcher. Japanese domestic politics is not my primary focus. Therefore, this post will neither analyze the recent election nor discuss the prospect political interactions. Nor will I question whether Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba should remain in office or not. Here, I would like to explore what Japan's internationalism should be, how it should be reflected in domestic and foreign policy, and how we should counter xenophobic and hate-based populism. Shortly after the House of Councillors election, Nagatacho is currently in a "storm in a teacup", rife with partisan politics. However, I cannot remain silent and ignore right-wing populism, which has now become a disruptor of the world order. While the rise of Sanseito drew attention in the last election, numerous other right-wing nationalist parties, such as the Conservative Party of Japan, the Japan Seishinkai, and the NHK Party, have also sprung up like mushrooms after a rain.

Japan's prosperity and stability require a free and open society, both externally and internally. The free movement of people, goods, and capital that such a society brings has enriched the quality and quantity of people's lives. Furthermore, both Japan's domestic and foreign policies have benefited greatly from the postwar liberal world order. Ever since Alexander the Great's conquest of the Persian Empire brought about the glory of Hellenistic civilization, globalization has driven the evolution of human history. Conversely, an era of anti-globalization has seen a regression of history. Examples include Europe after the fall of Rome and China, which was left behind by the Ming Dynasty's maritime ban. Even in modern-day Japan, we cannot sit idly by and watch the rise of xenophobia, which is bringing about a devolution of history.

What's so bad about radical nationalism is that it's based on a sense of exclusion toward others. In other words, a zero-sum worldview—"we sacrifice, they gain"—is at the heart of their thinking. This sense of exclusion extends not only to foreigners but also to their fellow citizens. During the recent House of Councillors election, Sohei Kamiya, leader of Sanseito, sparked controversy with his statement, "Only young women can give birth. Men, and I'm sorry to say, older women, can't have children." I immediately recognized that this was not just a women's issue; it suggested something extraordinary. That is, those who are not involved in reproduction and production are a burden to the state and should not receive the country's welfare benefits. Kamiya's thinking echoes the actions of the Nazis, who labeled the physically and intellectually handicapped as the social misfit and sent them to concentration camps. His advocacy of "Japanese First" is as blatantly exclusionary as U.S. President Donald Trump's "America First," even toward his own people.

In the last House of Councillors election, it's said that conservative votes flowed to right-wing populist parties because the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) is no longer a conservative party that is supposed to be. However, from a global perspective, the definition of conservatism is swinging. In exploring the notion of Japan's internationalism in this post, I would like to begin my discussion with this point in mind. A major difference can be seen between the conservatism of the Reagan-Thatcher era and that of the Trump era. The former conservatism is not based on xenophobia and a victimhood mindset, while the latter is openly xenophobic and victimhood mentality. This is why, in a contribution to Project Syndicate, Lord Chris Patten, who held key positions under the Thatcher administration (and was the last Governor of Hong Kong under the successor Major administration), valued the transatlantic alliance with "Reagan's America" but was skeptical of relations with "Trump's America." Given the above-mentioned flip-flops in the definition of conservatism around the world, I would like to question the argument that the LDP's defeat in the last House of Councillors election was due to an outflow of conservative votes to right-wing parties such as Sanseito. Also, the mainstream conservatism of the LDP in Japan is the loyal heir of the Yoshida Doctrine, and its direction of international cooperation, which advocates Japan as a major trading nation. Rather, while historical LDP prime ministers and party leaders have assumed themselves mainstream conservatives, haven't their actual policies been consistently quite liberal?

To answer these questions, I applied the four archetypes of American foreign policy proposed by Walter Russell Mead of the Hudson Institute to past LDP prime ministers and party leaders. They all fall into the "Hamiltonian" category. Prime Ministers Shigeru Yoshida and Hayato Ikeda are typical examples. Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi, known as the "Ghost of the Showa Era," may have been an imperial nationalist at heart, but his actual policies were based on developing trade-oriented nation. The same can be said of Kishi's grandson, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. In other words, the LDP's mainstream conservative base was strongly liberal by nature. The conservative votes that supposedly flowed out in the last House of Councillors election were not the LDP's core supporters, but rather its outliers. Among the right-wing LDP candidates who lost their seats as a result, Mio Sugita was too controversial due to her extreme nationalism and discriminatory profanity, and she was a candidate whom the LDP's core supporters disliked. Politicians like Sugita, whose ideology is considered closer to that of Sanseito, are "Jacksonians" who aggressively proclaim their own country's interests and are not afraid to incur friction with the international community. Indeed, President Andrew Jackson was infamous for his support of slavery and the genocide of Native Americans, and is considered one of the most racist figures in U.S. history. The Japanese equivalent of the liberal "Jeffersonians," who advocate international non-interventionism, is the left-wing constitutionalists who advocate unilateral pacifism.

Regarding "Wilsonian" who advocates the realization of universal human ideals through active international intervention by the United States, there are no corresponding politicians in Japan. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has advocated a "free and open Indo-Pacific," and Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has proclaimed that "Ukraine today may be East Asia tomorrow." However, neither of these approaches is strong enough to enable Japan to lead the international public interest. While Abe's vision appears to aim to strengthen the liberal world order, it is also blended with the nationalist and realist perspectives of his grandfather, Prime Minister Kishi. During Kishida's state visit to the United States at the end of his term, he called for the continuation of American internationalism in Congress. However, his success did not garner the same level of internationalist support as did World War II hero UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill. As with the case of postwar LDP prime ministers and party leaders, both remain within the "Hamiltonian" category. Based on the above discussion, the view that the loss of fringe nationalist votes was a blow to the LDP needs to be reconsidered.

Based on this classification, what should Japan's version of internationalism be? Prior to answering this question, let me review it in other countries briefly. To begin with, American internationalism emerged during the eras of Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, which came from a growing call for the United States to move beyond its traditional isolationism and assume a role in international politics befitting a major power. As a result, they explored to prevail American values, such as freedom and democracy. However, as the Trump administration dismisses human rights issues, the uniquely American approach to value-based diplomacy is fading. In contrast, Europe, having experienced two world wars, sought regional integration based on multilateralism and a break with the colonial empires of the past. In the UK, a latecomer to the EC, rising nationalist sentiment led to Brexit. However, subsequent Conservative administrations led by pro-Brexit prime ministers also adopted internationalist foreign policies in the name of Global Britain, including a strategic tilt toward the Indo-Pacific region and leading support for Ukraine. Since Starmer's Labour administration came to power, relations with Germany, France, and other European countries have improved, partly due to their response to the Ukraine crisis, although they have not yet rejoined the EU. Brexit does not necessarily bring a decline of internationalism.

So, what kind of ideals should Japan's version of internationalism, one that transcends party lines, look like? In recent years, growing threats from neighboring countries have led the Japanese people to reevaluate postwar pacifism. Even so, Japan's forte remains soft power, centered on non-military matters, rather than hard power diplomacy. As seen in Japan's diplomacy surrounding the FOIP and the war in Ukraine, it will likely also emphasize universal principles such as the rule of law and the denial of the use of force to change the status quo. Despite the recent signing of the first-ever large-scale arms export contract to Australia for the Mogami-class frigates, Japan's foreign policy will likely remain fundamentally Hamiltonian. However, it should move beyond its traditional position as a trading nation friendly to the world and lean more toward a Wilsonian approach that advocates adherence to the principles of the international order. However, Japan will likely not become a "world policeman," as American neoconservatives and others advocate for foreign policy of their country.

While Japan is expected to demonstrate leadership in non-military areas such as development aid and empowerment, the validity of the argument for a stronger international presence on gender issues is questionable. Japan's ranking in the women's power index is lower than that of major developed countries, even developing countries. Meanwhile, there is a survey results showing that “women, the elder, and the poorly educated” are happier than “men, younger, and highly educated” in Japan, a finding that contradicts global trends. While these contradictory results raise doubts about the notion of international leadership on gender issues, they also raise the possibility that this could be an important issue for Japan's soft power diplomacy.

It is important to note here that the women’s power index statistical data focuses only on a select few who have achieved success through social advancement. For the vast majority, these figures are completely unrelated. In the 2016 US presidential election, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton attracted worldwide attention as a potential first female president. However, it should not be forgotten that many rural female voters in the US viewed this as an issue for elites like Clinton, and that it had nothing to do with them. On the other hand, when it comes to happiness statistics, the background to the results is not clearly explained. In any case, Japan's leadership on gender issues has many unexplored issues.

Internationalism is not limited to foreign policy. In domestic politics, the influx of foreign capital and foreign labor was a major issue in the recent House of Councillors election. Both are essential for the country's economic development, and hate is ethically unacceptable. However, concerns about national security and domestic public security should be wiped out. Aside from these practical issues, I would like to propose that, in order to counter the nationalist sentiment fueled by the recent election results, we adopt the argument for making English an official language, as advocated by then Asahi Shimbun editorial board member Yoichi Funabashi during the Obuchi era. The direct goal of this would be to maintain an open society while also satisfying security and public order demands. Making Chinese an official language would be just problematic in the latter two points. Therefore, Japanese society should present a desirable image of foreigners. This should be a clear, hate-free standard: "Regardless of blood and color, they should be legitimate members of global society in taste, opinions, morals, and intellect." Making English an official language is the first step toward this goal.

There are competent people in Japanese politics who can support internationalism. It wouldn't be surprising if political heavyweights like LDP Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi, former Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi, and Democratic Party for the People leader Yuichiro Tamaki formed a Harvard University faction that transcends party lines. As for other prestigious overseas universities, former Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Seiji Kihara, who served as a policy advisor for the Kishida administration, is an alumnus of the London School of Economics. While there are such cabal of people to support Japanese-style internationalism across party lines, right-wing populist leader Sohei Kamiya of the Sanseito graduated from Kansai University's law school. While Kamiya majored in law, his proposed constitutional amendments lacked the fundamentals of modern constitutions, such as the guarantee of fundamental human rights, freedom of thought and conscience, and freedom of religion. This is not even a question of Kamiya's vision of the nation. Incidentally, I did not major in law both as an undergraduate and a graduate student, but even so, I understand just how terrible his mistakes were. What exactly did Kamiya study at law school?

It hasn't been long since the last election, and lawmakers in Nagatacho seem busy debating who will be prime minister and how to form party alliances. In any case, it is strange that politics of this country is being swayed by someone like the party leader Kamiya. It's said that Sanseito will eventually lose momentum, but we mustn't forget that the recent election saw a proliferation of right-wing populist parties spring up like mushrooms after a rain. To defeat them, we must explore a trans-partisan internationalism of Japanese version in both domestic and foreign affairs. Every policy will be valid only when it is made with a solid foundation of principles.