The Corrosive Effect of Rightwing Populism on National Security

Notorious rightwing populists: Trump, Netanyahu, and Bolsonaro
Right-wingers frequently boasts their passion for patriotism and devotion to national defense over their political opponents at home. However, their self-righteous way of governing is prone to put the nation at risk. When Hamas invaded Israel to brutally kill and abuse kibbutz residents and music festival participants near the border of the Gaza Strip last October, Professor Yuval Noah Harari of Hebrew University who has written “Sapiens” and “Homo Deus” commented that it was the mismanagement of the government by the Netanyahu administration that created an information vacuum against terrorist intrusion. To begin with, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appointed his cabinet members based on loyalty, as he prioritizes his personal interests over the national interest. In his sixth term of his cabinet from December 2022, the team had become so extremist and religiously dogmatic that they were obsessed with blaming the “deep state” through agitating political divide and spreading conspiracy theories. Consequently, Netanyahu failed to gather necessary information about impending national security threats from security forces, intelligence agencies, and numerous experts. Through such corroded policy making interactions, Israel failed to take effective measures of deterrence against Hamas (“The Hamas horror is also a lesson on the price of populism”; Washington Post”; October 11, 2023). Former South Korean Unification Minister, Professor Kim Yeonchul at Inje University makes a similar point that the divide and rule technique simply agitates demonization of others among the public and obstructs intersectional communications within the government. In other words, Netanyahu’s failure of intelligence in the Hamas attack is an inevitable consequence of his failure in democracy (“Why is the far right so incompetent at national security?”; Hankyoreh Newspaper; October 30, 2023).

Furthermore, the Gaza war has revealed that Netanyahu self-deceived that Russia would hold tight grips on Iran, which enabled Israel to air raid Iranian proxies in Syria in 2015. Actually, Russian Predident Vladimir Putin just wanted to demonstrate Russian presence in the Middle East by striking a balance between Israel and its strategic enemies like Iran and Syria. In return, Israel refused to join Western sanction against Russian invasion of Crimea. But his friendship with Russia turned out empty when the war in Ukraine broke out, and the Kremlin was forced to depend on the Axis of Evil, notably, Iran, Syria and Hamas (“Israel and Russia: The End of a Friendship?”; Carnegie Politika; November 11, 2023). Former center left Zionist Union member of the Knesset Ksenia Svetlova comments that isolated Russia today needs Iran more than the other way around, and Israel has no reason to help Putin’s ambition lead the anti-Western bloc geopolitically (“Russia’s priorities are clear after Netanyahu-Putin call, and Israel isn’t one of them”; Times of Israel; 11 December, 2023). Netanyahu pursued pseudo-realism to deepen strategic relations with Russia while maintaining close ties with the United States, which made Israel a useful pawn for Putin’s manipulation to divide the Western alliance (“Putin’s Gaza front”; ICDS Estonia Commentary; October 30, 2023).

In the United States, rightwing populists misidentify the enemy likewise. Just as Netanyahu, Donald Trump is charmed by Putin so much that he even utters withdrawal from NATO. Also, they fondly resort to autocratic measures against democratic rule of law. Trump agitated the January 6 riot, and Netanyahu launched the “judicial reform” to enable the government to override the supreme court decision to implement his policy beyond checks and balances (“Israel judicial reform explained: What is the crisis about?”; BBC News; 11 September, 2023). Netanyahu wanted to advance Jewish settlement in the West Bank along with his coalition partner Religious Zionist Party, without judicial checks. Just as Trump’s credentials for primary candidacy is denied in Colorado and Maine, Netanyahu’s judicial reform has been turned down at the supreme court to defend the foundation of democratic governance of Israel (“Israel Supreme Court strikes down judicial reforms”; BBC News; 1 January, 2024). Remember that rightwing populists denounce responsible stakeholders of democracy the “enemy of the people” as communist revolutionaries do. That leads to critical failure of strategic communication among governmental and national security organizations once they take office, as mentioned by Harari and Kim.

With such mindsets, rightwing populists do not hesitate to prioritize their partisan agendas at the expense of national security. That is typically witnessed in the obstruction of military appointment by MAGA Republicans. The Republican Party had assumed their strength in defense before the Trump era. However, rightwing populists detest political correctness and human rights liberalism so much that they even dare to put critical national interest at risk in exchange for pushing their agendas to overjoy their rock-solid supporters. Notably, Senator Tommy Tuberville delayed military personnel nomination to defend “freedom” of white nationalist thoughts and to stop promotion of anti-abortion officers. As Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations comments, he is not interested in accelerating military personnel arrangement to defeat external threats, but defeating domestic opponents of the culture war within armed forces (“The GOP claims to be strong on defense. Tommy Tuberville shows otherwise.”; Washington Post; June 19, 2023). In addition, Retired Admiral James Stavridis of the US Navy deplores about Tuberville’s pork barreling as he manipulates to attract Space Force headquarters to his district Alabama, in obstruction of the military plan to build the facility in Colorado (“Tuberville slams lack of decision on Space Command headquarters, blames politics”; Stars and Stripes; July 26, 2023).

Much more problematically, far right House Republicans are blocking the budget deal for military aid to Ukraine and Israel in exchange for tightening border control at home. However, as Retired General Jack Keane of the US Army comments, both are different issues of their own, and the risk of Russian victory in Ukraine is critically great to national security (“What would a win in Ukraine look like? Retired Gen. Jack Keane explains.”; Washington Post; March 6, 2023). More deplorably, Representative Troy Nehls objects to Ukraine aid simply because he wants to stop reelection of President Joe Biden (“A border deal to nowhere? House GOP ready to reject Senate compromise on immigration”; CNN; January 3, 2024). Those moves are extremely partisan, and they are the conflict of interest with the state. It is such narrow-sighted partisanship that led to diplomatic vacuum when Hamas attacked Israel, because those right-wingers precluded the appointment of the ambassador to Jerusalem (“Jack Lew, Ambassador to Israel”; Wikipedia).

Furthermore, let me talk about the fallacy of perception on Ukraine, among the American rightwing. Former Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst, currently at the Atlantic Council, commented that a Putin victory in Ukraine would embolden Russia to reinfiltrate into the former Soviet republics and former Warsaw Pact nations, many of which are NATO members. He also stressed that it is NATO that has ensured security in Europe after two World Wars, which has ultimately ensured security of the United States. Therefore, Ukrainian victory is a vital national interest of America. Most importantly, he argues that an appeasement so as not to provoke Russia and China is the most provocative diplomacy because they count on weak leadership of America.



In the past, Republicans understood the principle that Herbst mentioned. But MAGA Republicans today have no hesitation to impress such weakness to the enemy as Nehls does in the House. More disastrously, Trump’s long-time desire of withdrawal from NATO raises critical concerns between America and Europe. Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Marco Rubio introduced a bipartisan bill to stop any US President from withdrawing from NATO, which has already passed at the Senate. But the problem is psychological, and allies would see America unreliable if Trump were elected, which would weaken deterrence of the Western alliance. In view of this, Anne Applebaum of the Atlantic quotes her interview with former US Ambassador to NATO Alexander Vershbow that Trump could paralyze NATO by obstructing meeting attendance of American diplomats and cutting the budget for its headquarters before stopped by the Congress (“Trump will abandon NATO”; Atlantic; December 4, 2023).

Quite importantly, some political scientists and historians in America say that the Republican Party was gradually returning isolationist after the Cold War. In such a circumstance, Dan Caldwell at pro-Trump Center for Renewing America comments that Republicans are increasingly supportive of the changing role of America in the world based on “realism and restraint”, instead of leading the free world. Accordingly, the Heritage Foundation once advocated Ronald Reagan’s “Strong America”, but today, its president Kevin Roberts not just opposes the Ukraine aid, and even argues for defense spending cuts. Such America First momentums has been resurging among conservatives, as typically seen in Pat Buchanan’s repeated bid for presidency in the 1990s, according to Associate Professor Nicole Hemmer of Vanderbilt University. Quite confusingly, some isolationist conservatives like Senator Josh Hawley insist “The problem is not there but here” to urge American foreign policy makers to disengage from Europe and to focus on Chinese infringement on the well-being of the middle class and the working class at home. That is a problem beyond the rivalry between trans-Atlanticist and Asia-Pacificist. China hawk views among those rightwing populists come from Trump-like cost and profit thinking, and thus, they regard allies as the burden to America. Their strategic shift to China just reflects the anger of the working class who feel themselves victimized by globalization. Foreign policy internationalists including Robert Kagan rightly refute their stupid idea (“A Republican ‘civil war’ on Ukraine erupts as Reagan’s example fades”; Washington Post; March 15, 2023). Also, ex-General David Petraeus spoke against their pseudo realism and fake small government thinking, both of which are based on property dealer’s cost and profit mindsets, when he visited the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The man who made America win in the War on Terror urges defense planner to upgrade the procurement system to manage multifaced threats around the world.




Rightwing arguments on China sound so NIMBY as those of Japan bashers from the 1960s to the 1980s. Asian allies should not trust those NIMBY China hawks who are willing to appease Putin and to abandon Ukraine and the whole of European allies. The Kishida administration of Japan is right not to bandwagon with them, as Foreign Minister Yoko Kamikawa correctly stated “the security of the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific are inseparable”, which is naturally interpreted “the security of Ukraine and East Asia are inseparable”, in the foreign policy speech at the Ordinary Session of the House on January 30. Deplorably, late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made a pseudo-realist mistake as Netanyahu of Israel did to befriend with that bloodthirsty Moscovite autocrat to counter the Chinese threat. The war in Ukraine has revealed that his assumption was wrong from the beginning.

FM Kamikawa adresses foreign policy of the Kishida administration at the Japanese diet.

Also, American right-wingers mishandled the Israel-Hamas war. When terrorists invaded Israel, Trump relinquished Netanyahu bluntly for his poor deterrence and preparation to fight against them. It has turned out that Netanyahu’s loyalty to Trump for shared rightwing values was one-sided, while Biden helps Israel’s fight against Hamas (“Trump’s turn against Israel offers stark reminder of what his diplomacy looks like”; CNN; October 13, 2023). But the problem was actually created by the Abrahams Accord which Trump boasts of his success. While urging Israel and Arab emirates to normalize diplomatic relations to encircle Iran, Trump aggravated Israeli-Palestinian tensions by endorsing Israeli right-wingers’ expansionism, notably, approving Israeli sovereignty in East Jerusalem, Jewish settlement in the West Bank, and the annexation of Golan Heights. Meanwhile, he cut American aid to Palestinians. Therefore, Max Boot commented in his Washington Post column that those Arab-Israeli normalizations do not resolve other grave conflicts in the Middle East, including those in Yemen, Syria, and Libya, and more importantly, the Israeli-Palestinian clash itself (“So much for the Abraham Accords. Trump made things worse in the Middle East.”; Washington Post; May 12, 2021). Despite that, Trump irresponsibly blamed Netanyahu when the war broke out. Trump and Netanyahu appeared like-minded, when the accord was reached, but their clash is a natural consequence of right-wing nature, which is to pursue maximum self-gain at the expense of others. That is not in fit for bilateral or multilateral partnership.

Some anti-globalists naïvely argue that rightwing populists are better than those of leftwing to deter China. That is too superficial. See what happens in Brazil. It was rightwing president Jair Bolsonaro who endorsed the Chinese plan to build the railway and the highway passing through Amazonian forests to Peru for the Belt and Road Initiative, which could be too destructive for the ecosystem for local flora and fauna and the livelihood of indigenous uncontacted peoples (“Proposed Brazil-Peru road through untouched Amazon gains momentum”; Diálogo Chino; March 10, 2022). Again, I have to stress that right-wingers are obsessed with pseudo-realism to edge out others for their tribal maximum gain, even though at the expense of indigenous people and ecosystem. Consequently, there is no reason for them care about security of other nations and the global community. It was leftwing President Lula da Silva who demanded China to reconsider those plans when he was reinaugurated in January last year (Opinion: Brazil can make green gains from China’s ‘ecological civilisation’ aims; Diálogo Chino; October 3, 2023). I do not necessarily favor leftist Lula over rightist Bolsonaro, as he revealed his indulgence in outdated anti-colonialism ideology to invite Putin to G20 and BRICS summits in Brazil this year. Remember even South Africa’s ANC-bound President Cyrill Ramaphosa gave up inviting that Russian criminal to the BRICS summit in Johannesburg, in face of fierce litigation by the Democratic Alliance to demand the government to abide by the rule of the International Criminal Court (“Lula invites Putin to Brazil, sidesteps on war crimes arrest”; Politico; December 4, 2023). It seems that both Bolsonaro and Lula are disrespectful to the rule of law, in view of their handling of Amazonian development and the BRICS summit in each. Actually, both populists are headaches for the Brazilian foreign service as they do not want unnecessary frictions with the West and indiscreet tilt to revisionist powers (“Can Brazil become a major power in international politics? Lula’s questionable tilt to authoritarian powers”; Brasil Nippou; September 26, 2023). After all, we have to bear in mind that the fear of China is no reason for taking side with rightwing populists.

Among rightwing populist threats worldwide, the US presidential election is the most critical case. How can America stop Trump from being reelected? Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution warns of pro-Trump fervors among Republican voters. No Republican rivals are capable of destroying Trump’s rock-solid base in the primary as he mentions. More problematically, MAGA Republicans justify everything of Trump, including the January 6 riot and other criminal cases on legal charges. Much more absurdly, they blame Biden for their supposed failure in Ukraine, Israel, and Afghanistan, although it is actually Trump who is really responsible for those fiascos. Sane Republicans are completely sidelined, and the “adults in the room” of the last Trump administration are reluctant to denounce him in public (“A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. We should stop pretending.”; Washington Post; November 30, 2023). In order to stop Trump, Kagan comments that Republicans, notably Nikki Haley, should question his electability for his disdain to the constitutional democracy. But all the Republican rivals think nothing of denying Trump’s credential, as they stress partisan loyalty if he were nominated. Quite noticeably, the more Trump portrays himself a victim of persecution, the more infuriated his supporters are with American judicial system and elite as a whole. Therefore, it is risky for Republicans to provoke those MAGA voters. In view of this, Kagan urges veteran Republican politicians such as Mitt Romney, Liz Cheyney, Condoleezza Rice, and James Baker, and also, former cabinet members like Mike Pence and John Kelly to lead a nationwide campaign to defend democracy in America (“The Trump dictatorship: How to stop it”’ Washington Post; December 7, 2023). After all, the key to stopping Trump is the will of orthodox Republicans. They have already launched such movements like the Lincoln Project, the Republican Accountability project, Republicans for the Rule of Law. How will veteran politicians join them?

The key to curb rightwing populism is the resilience of democracy. Last October, Keio Center for Strategy hosted an online dialogue between Professor Yuichi Hosoya of Keio University and Professor Maiko Ichihara of Hitotsubashi University to explore security implication of democratic recession in the world. In the dialogue, both scholars focused extensively on the vulnerability of Western democracy to disinformation by revisionist powers. Currently advanced democracies in Europe and North America are plagued with the rise of populism, which typically appears in the form of anti-establishment outrage and anti-immigrant nativism. Most notably, MAGA Republicans misapply small government ideals to boost hate ideology and to attack such socio-economically and culturally deprived people. Those who feel themselves victimized by globalization applaud rightwing demagogues for tough and resolute postures. But such “I alone can fix it” approaches simply make the government dysfunctional and the nation unsecured as Harari argues.




In the dialogue, Ichihara explained how Russia and China seize those opportunities of disinformation to manipulate domestic politics in the West through effective use of digital technology. Both scholars agreed that democracies need countermeasures to defend themselves from enemy manipulation. Meanwhile, we have to notice that some democracies such as Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, are relatively successful in curbing rightwing populism. Particularly in Japan, people still trust the government, media, and established intellectuals, which deters dubious conspiracy theories from being propagated, as Hosoya mentioned.Also, I would call an attention to both Commonwealth dominions, as they are in the sphere of Anglo-American political culture, but not facing serious upsurge of demagogy. Can the three Pacific democracies show some hints of how to manage populism to the global community?

Democracy in Africa and Western countermeasures against Russian penetration

The global community has been astonished at unexpected influence of some pro-Russian and autocratic nations in Africa at UN General Assembly vote on the Ukrainian crisis. However, the African Union reaffirmed to suspend the membership of pro-Russian military dictatorship regimes in the Sahel region, that is, Burkina Faso, Mali, Guinea, and Sudan to show zero tolerance against unconstitutional changes of government at the 36th AU summit in Addis Ababa in February this year. Just before this summit, the ECOWAS also (Economic Community of West African States) announced to maintain halting the membership of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Guinea (“African Union reaffirms suspension of Burkina Faso, Mali, Guinea and Sudan”; Africa News; 20 February, 2023). Those actions by the AU and the ECOWAS are hopeful signs for democracy in Africa. Therefore, we should not fall into “pessimistic realism” to embrace the fall of democracy and the fall of the West in a supposedly forthcoming multipolar world. In a revisionist world order that Russia and China uphold, our history would devolve and degrade into repression and chaos. The consequence of our defeatism would be fatal to the global community. We have to reconfirm that values of democracy, freedom, and human rights are not restricted within the West, and not completely alien to Africa.

To begin with, we have to understand the overview of democracy in Africa. According to Freedom House, freedom index in Africa has been declining for years recently, as with the case of the trend worldwide. That is in resonance with penetration of Russia and China in this region. However, “African countries have also showed signs of improvement and resilience”, according to Tiseke Kasambala, Director of Africa Programs, though resurgence of military dictatorship, particularly in the Sahel, destabilizes the continent. Quite importantly, the AU adopted the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights in 1981, which is supposed to be very progressive to defend human rights, but many member states are reluctant to implement it. Meanwhile, the government is weakening constitutional rule of law in South Africa, although it was invited to the Democracy Summit by US President Joe Biden both in 2021 and 2023. However, the judiciary, civil society, and media barely manage to maintain democracy collectively, against populist autocratic attempts by the ruling ANC (“How African Democracies Can Rise and Thrive Amid Instability, Militarization, and Interference”; Freedom House Perspectives; September 1, 2022). In view of long one-party rule after the fall of apartheid, more attention needs to be paid to the Ramaphosa administration’s invitation of Russian President Vladimir Putin to the BRICS summit in Johannesburg this August, to assess the rule of law in this country as a member of the International Criminal Court.

Interestingly, a reverse of world history is witnessed in Africa, that is Russian penetration. Remember that shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall, East European nations including some former Soviet republics jumped into joining the EU and NATO. That is entirely their own sovereign preference. Rationally, nothing of Russia is appealing in view of its poor governance, economy, technology, and also, its anachronistic neo-Eurasianism. But strangely, African countries do not necessarily think so. At the UN General Assembly on Russian invasion of Ukraine in March last year, nearly half of African nations did not support the resolution to condemn the aggression. Some ruling élites in southern Africa feel nostalgic of their cooperation with the Soviet Union in their struggle against colonialism and apartheid during the Cold War era, but that is merely at the governmental level. Unlike commonly believed, Africans are not necessarily obsessed with anti-colonialism today. Also, they are not concerned with the great power conflict on geopolitics and ideology in Europe and Asia. They choose partners through their perceived self-interest, whether Russia, China, or the West. Regarding African views on Russia and the ongioing invasion of Ukraine, the Economist and Premise conducted opinion polls in six leading African nations including Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya, Uganda, Côte d'Ivoire, and Mali, which reveals that people in those countries do not necessarily agree to foreign policy direction of their government. While South Africa, Uganda, and Mali abstained from the UNGA vote to condemn Russian invasion of Ukraine, the rest of them approved it. Among those ruled by pro-Russian government, South Africa is a sample of democracy in southern Africa where the ruling party is engrossed in anti-apartheid nostalgia, while Mali is a sample of military dictatorship in the Sahel where anti-Western regime depends on Wagner in counterterrorism.

As shown in Table 1, the approval rate of Russian invasion of Ukraine is the lowest in democratic South Africa, but highest in Wagner sponsored Mali. Also, as shown in Table 2, people in Mali are the most likely to blame the West for the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, those in South Africa are the least likely to blame NATO and the United States (“Why Russia wins some sympathy in Africa and the Middle East”; Economist; March 12, 2022).

TABLE 1

TABLE 2

After the military coup d’état in 2020, Mali has been isolated from the global community, as France withdrew counterterrorism troops and the membership of the AU and the ECOWAS was suspended. Wagner seized this opportunity to infiltrate there. Impoverished and poorly educated people are easily misled by propagandas that Russia and the military regime spread.

That is not the case with South Africa, where checks and balances by parliamentary opposition, the judiciary, and the media are balking the ANC’s revisionist foreign and domestic policies. Particularly, the Democratic Alliance (DA) which succeeds from anti-apartheid white liberal Progressive Party, is launching a fierce campaign against President Cyril Ramaphosa’s invitation of Russian President Vladimir Putin to the BRICS summit in Johannesburg this August. The DA applied for litigation so that the Gauteng High Court can enforce the ICC rule to arrest Putin upon his arrival to South Africa to attend the BRICS summit (“DA launches court application to compel the arrest of Putin in South Africa”; DA News; 30 May, 2023). Also, DA leader John Steenhuisen even warned that the ANC administration sent some weapons to Russia in an interview with CNN, according to Briefly News, a South African digital media, which displays “Stand with Ukraine” banner on its web site (“John Steenhuisen Says President Cyril Ramaphosa Is a “Political Swindler” Who Fooled the Country”; Briefly.co.za; June 1, 2023). Furthermore, he criticizes Ramaphosa’s intermediation between Russia and Ukraine as a waste of taxpayers’ money and diplomatic stunt. More importantly, the DA blames the ANC’s close association with autocracy like Putin’s Russia (“How much did South Africans pay for Ramaphosa’s failed diplomatic PR stunt?”; DA News; 17 June, 2023). As shown in the recent draft of race quotas for water use, which would impose huge burden on farmland owners that consume 60% of the resource, the ANC seems to be obsessed with an ideology of class struggle and victimhood (“Parched Earth: ANC introduces Race Quotas for water use”; DA News; 1 June, 2023). Right or left, such victimhood minded populists would easily befriend dictators like Putin.

We should also discuss the Russian presence in Africa from Russian perspective. Joseph Siegle at the Africa Center for Strategic Studies testified about Russian activities in Africa at the hearing of the US House of Representatives. He mentioned three main pillars of Russian strategy in Africa. The fist pillar is to gain influence on the sea lane from southern Mediterranean to the Red Sea through Suez and Djibouti. The second pillar is to remove Western influence from the continent. Wagner activities in Central Africa and Mali are one of the most noticeable. The third pillar is to reshape rule-based world order, by disrespecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of member states, which is displayed in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Kremlin’s involvement in Africa pleases only autocrats and disinformed people, as its strategy of those pillars just destabilizes political economy of this region (“Russia’s Strategic Objectives and Influences in Africa”; Africa Center for Strategic Studies; July 14, 2022). After all, Russia hardly cares about local development, empowerment, and well-being and simply wants to make use of Africa for siloviki’s perceived national interests. That is entirely at odds with the ideal of the AU, the ECOWAS, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Most fundamentally, Paul Stronski at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace quotes a speech by US Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Mills that Wagner presence in the Sahel aggravates human sufferings without resolving real causes of instability, such as poor governance, broken institutions, long term displacement, and armed groups proliferation (“Russia’s Growing Footprint in Africa’s Sahel Region”; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; February 28, 2023).

Russia is too opportunist in its charm offensive in Africa, because its influence is declining in former Soviet CIS, Eurasian Economic Union, and CSTO, since the invasion of Ukraine, but the Kremlin still wants to display their diplomatic power in a multipolar rivalry of geopolitics in this century. That is the background of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to seven African countries including South Africa, Eswatini, Mali, Mauritania, and Sudan early this year. However, Vadim Zaytsev, an independent expert on Russian policy in Africa, comments that most of the African nations take cautious neutrality, and do not want to risk their ties with the West, although they rhetorically resonate with Russia’s contradictory denouncement of neocolonialism that dismisses the colonial nature of the invasion of Ukraine (“What’s Behind Russia’s Charm Offensive in Africa?”; Carnegie Politika; 17 February, 2023). It is not only Western experts who are critical to Russian penetration. African experts also warn the danger of Russian presence. Peter Fabricius at a South African think tank Institute for Security Studies (ISS) comments that Russia deepens its relations with Africa through military dimensions, rather than increasing the amount of trade and investment. He argues that Russia penetrates in Africa through exploiting instability in the target country. In Mali and Burkina Faso, Wagner filled the vacuum after the withdrawal of French troops. That weakens AU deterrence against military dictatorship. Meanwhile in Cameroon, Russia provokes separatists in the Anglophone region. It is likely that they want to overturn the regime to use this country a gateway to export natural resources from the Central African Republic. Such natural resource export is one of the means for Russia to finance its war in Ukraine and elsewhere, along with organized crimes such as trade of illegal weapons and drugs, money laundering, hacking to cryptocurrency, etc (“Africa shouldn’t ignore Russia’s destabilising influence”; ISS Today; 24 February, 2023). Fabricius is a white South African, and submitted some policy recommendations on African development to the World Economic Forum from African point of view.

After the Prigozhin mutiny, the foresight of Wagner activities and Russian influence in Africa is unpredictable. Kimberly Marten at Columbia University comments that it would be relatively easy for the Russian defense establishment to replace Yevgeny Prigozhin with someone else. Meanwhile, Jędrzej Czerep at the Polish Institute of International Affairs argues that everything depends on whether African clients perceive Russia strong and reliable enough to achieve their goals (“What next for Wagner’s African empire?”; Economist; June 27, 2023). Either way, what should America and its allies do to edge out Russia from Africa? Last August, the Biden administration released “US Strategy toward Sub-Saharan Africa” to address new opportunities and partnership between the United States and African nations. Joseph Sany at the US Institute of Peace comments the following. Not only does it pledge aid surge to resolve regional problems such as food security, agriculture, supply chains, and climate change, but also stresses the necessity of listening to Africans. Thus, US embassies need sufficient work force led by accredited ambassadors. Furthermore, he argues that America enable African nations to resolve their problems by their own initiative (“The New U.S. Africa Strategy Is a Moment We Must Seize”; USIP; August 11, 2022). Regarding Wagner presence, Sany says that moral condemnation does not work. African clients are forced to sign with brutal Wagner out of desperation because international counterinsurgency operations have not wiped-out terrorism. But he mentions that bipartisan American policymakers have found past US policies are too myopic and too narrowly focused on military aspects, without giving sufficient consideration to governance and the economy of target countries (“In Africa, Here’s How to Respond to Russia’s Brutal Wagner Group”; USIP; April 6, 2023).

Despite Russian penetration through Wagner, Africa shares our values of freedom and democracy. At G7 Hiroshima, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida may have had to invite AU Chairman Azali Assoumani and South African DA leader John Steenhuisen to confirm this, rather than Wagner supported Mozambiquan President Filipe Nyusi. In order to deepen partnership with this region, the Western alliance needs to upgrade their diplomatic presence. For this objective, the United States should reconsider the Jacksonian system of political appointment of ambassadors. Senate confirmations are delayed frequently, and appointed ambassadors are not necessarily well qualified. One of such examples is Lana Marks, a handbag designer, whom the Trump administration nominated to the ambassador to South Africa for her contribution to their election campaign. Remember, those who make great contribution to the campaign are not necessarily well-acquainted with foreign policy. Some of them are narrow-sighted vote grubbers. I would like to talk about such an example from my experience. In the past, I had some opportunity to see a Japanese LDP diet member’s office from inside. One day, when a senior staff of the office was watching TV news during the lunch break, and he paid keen attention to reports about Nagata-cho politics and domestic election, but no sooner had the news reported about international affairs than he shut out information from the TV with contempt. It was very startling, and he appeared quite a strange creature for me. Though he graduated from Kyoto University, he behaved like a poorly educated bumpkin. Therefore, any US president should abstain from appointing such an irresponsible vote grubber to the ambassador. After all, it is our firm commitment that would enable us to outcompete with Russia in Africa.

The ANC’s pro-Russian Diplomacy is a Sheer Betrayal to Their Fellow Blacks in the West

TrumPutin: The axis of racists between Russia and the Western far right

Despite unprecedented confrontation with the West since the invasion of Ukraine, Russia keeps close relations with African nations, and nearly half of them have abstained from denouncing and imposing sanctions on the Russian aggression at UN General Assemblies. Among them, South Africa is a critical focus because ruling ANC makes a fatal and completely self-defeating mistake, as they maintain friendly relationship with Russia, even though this country is the worst racist regime in the world under the Putin administration.

The ANC is wrong and self-defeating to pursue pro-Russian diplomacy, ideologically. We all know that this party had fought against apartheid for decades until the end of the Cold War. Their fellow blacks in Europe and America showed strong solidarity with their anti-racism struggle. However, as if they had forgotten their long history of resistance, current ANC is befriending racist Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. This is an innocent betrayal to those who supported their effort for multi-racial democracy, because Russian President Vladimir Putin is the most notorious sponsor for the far right in the West to weaken liberal democracy, which led to Russian election interferences for Brexit and the Trump presidency. Even after the worldwide shock of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, some of those rightwing populists still resonate with Putin in order to propagate their aversion to socio-cultural diversity associated with globalization and devotion to White Christian nationalism. The party that advocates racial egalitarianism should never forget murky ties between Russia and Western racists.


Deplorably, the ANC betrays them unconciously.

Those pro-Russian right-wingers earn a horrible reputation in the United States. MAGA Republicans claim that America disengage from the conflict with Russia over Ukraine in the name of a “small government” ideal. Such right-wingers in the House are Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG), Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar, Maddison Cawthorn, etc. In addition, former Trump administration officials, including ex-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, ex-White House Advisor Peter Navarro, and ex-Senior Councilor to the President Steve Bannon justify Putin’s aggression of Ukraine, as if they spoke on behalf of the Kremlin. Some of those extremists ridiculously regard Volodymyr Zelensky as “a globalist puppet for Soros and the Clintons.” Above all, Donald Trump himself praised Putin a genius when he invaded Ukraine (“Meet the pro-Putin Republicans and conservatives”; Republican Accountability Project). There is nothing Reaganite in their national security visions.

Also in Europe, some far right politicians still show pro-Putin posture, even though their countries face more direct threat of Russia than their fellows in America. After the Italian general election this September, newly-elected Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni from neo-fascist Brothers of Italy have overturned her position regarding Russia, but her right-wing colleagues in the cabinet such as Matteo Salvini and Silvio Berlusconi still remain pro-Putin (“Putin’s Friends? The Complex Balance Inside Italy’s Far-Right Government Coalition”; IFRI; November 28, 2022). Russia was also behind the German far right coup attempt led by Heinrich XIII this December. One of the suspects was approaching Russia on behalf of Heinrich (“Germany arrests 25 accused of plotting coup”; BBC News; 7 December, 2022). Pro-Russian demagogues and arsonists are found in the right wing media as well. Tucker Carlson of FOX News tells his TV audiences to take sides with Russia over Ukraine. Ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage of GB News speaks more discreetly to support Russia indirectly by propagating skepticism about Zelensky’s competence to govern the nation.

Do we really, wholly trust Volodymyr Zelenskyy?

pic.twitter.com/5kKWWugcEU

— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) November 16, 2022

The list of those Western far right on both sides of the Atlantic is filled with creepy and scary people. Why should a party of black empowerment associate with the axis of “TrumPutin” racists? Remember, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed wholehearted sympathy to white nationalists in the United States this April, as he blamed “anti-white aggressions” (“Russia Warns of Anti-White 'Aggression' in U.S.”; Moscow Times; April 1, 2021). Actually, it is not just racism, anti-feminism, and anti-LGBT values that the Kremlin and the Western far right is in agreement. Putin’s Russia and Western racists share much more deeply fundamental values, which is called nationalist democracy by Israeli rightist historian Yoram Hazony, and sovereign democracy by former Russian Presidential Advisor Vladislav Surkov. That is an ideology totally in denial of the universal value of liberal democracy, and strongly nativist and anti-modernist. Those “TrumPutin” racists detest enlightenment and globalism, both of which are strongly endorsed by the Western establishment.

Furthermore, Putin’s aggression of Ukraine has also revealed domestic racism his country. The casualty rate of soldiers of ethnic minorities such as Mongolian Buryats and Caucasus Muslim Daghestanis is much higher than that of Russians (“Young, poor and from minorities: the Russian troops killed in Ukraine”; France 24; 17 May, 2022). More critically, I suspect that Putin’s interpretation and implementation of the Russky Mir notion reflects his racist vision of the world. In the well-known article “On Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”, he expresses deep-rooted grudge against Western superiority in the post-Cold War international politics and sheer disrespect to Ukrainian culture and history to deny their independence and sovereignty. With such contemptuous attitude, there is no wonder why the Russian troops have committed so many crimes in Ukraine, including rape, burgling, torture, murder, and any other kind of violence. Appallingly, Putin awarded a prize to those shameless rapists of Bucha (“Putin honors brigade accused of war crimes in Bucha”; Washington Post; April 19, 2022).

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the ANC owed significantly to Soviet help in the past in their struggle against apartheid. As in the United States, racial equality activists had almost no choice but leaning to the left. Their alignment with the communist super power was a natural option in those days, but that was too provocative for both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, in view of the Soviet-Cuban presence in Angola and Mozambique. Fortunately, the party leader Nelson Mandela proved that he could be in partnership with the West and white South Africans to develop multi-racial democracy, and won support from the global community. After all, the Soviet regime had collapsed, but the ANC leaders still seem to feel emotional and nostalgic ties with Russia.

It seems that Africans share the same kind of sentimentalism with Japanese. Typically speaking, late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe pursued his father Shintaro’s unfinished job to settle the peace treaty with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev by having the Norther Territories returned. Abe sought to develop economic cooperation with post-Communist Russia. However, his wishful dream ended in failure, because he dismissed ruthless nature of Putin’s rule of power. Putin is not Gorbachev. From the current Kremlin’s point of view, Japan is just a subordinate ally of the United States, and Russia does not have to return the territory in consideration of economic cooperation. The problem is not just reciprocity. Ideologically, the old Soviet Union and current Russia are completely at odds, as the former sponsored communists worldwide while the latter sponsors far right racists in the West. Therefore, it does not make sense that the ANC still regards Putin’s Russia as their friend. Like Abe, they see Russia very illusionally. Think again. America and Israel were on very friendly terms with Iran ruled by modernist Shah, but both countries shall never treat current Shia theocracy of this country as such. A different regime makes a totally different country.

Rather than befriending Russia, the ANC is in a good position to denounce Putin’s nuclear blackmail racism. His Russky Mir essay shows an implicit sense of Russian superiority to Ukrainians, and it is such disdainful thinking that makes him so cruel to the enemy whether Chechnyans, Syrians, or Ukrainians. Without Western deterrence, he would not mind mass murder against any enemies who deny his Russky Mir values. To the contrary, South Africa is the only sovereign state that has abolished nuclear weapons by itself, while autocracies in the Global South such as Iran and North Korea commit nuclear proliferation. Remember, both of them help Putin’s savage invasion of Ukraine. Why should a party of multi-racial democracy make friends with the axis of racists, anti-globalists, and anti-enlightenment, which is primarily constituted of Putin’s Russia and Western far right?

Deplorably, most of the media do not criticize tremendous contradictions associated with the ANC’s unconscious betrayal to racial egalitarians around the world. It is no use to report their historical relations with the Soviet Russia so “sympathetically”. Putin’s Russia no longer upholds the value, “Workers of the world, unite!” In the name of traditionalism, his Russia provokes racist unrest in the West.

Among African nations, South Africa draws my attention from the following reasons. This country is located in a position to link the Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific area, which is quite important in the 21st century geostrategy. Also, the prospect of multi-racial democracy in this country is a global attention. In addition, this country belongs to the Anglo-Saxon politico-cultural sphere, since it was founded as a white dominion of the British Empire historically. Therefore, South Africa stimulates my interest, as my main focuses are the United States and Britain. And therefore, I would like to call an attention from the media and academics around the world to review fatal contradictions of pro-Russian diplomacy of the ANC more critically.

Nuclear Proliferation among Regional Powers Shall Never Work as Deterrence

Some people in the world believe that nuclear possession would boost independent deterrence of their countries. In reality, nuclear arms are no guarantee of deterrence, but simply intensify tensions among regional powers. In order to make nuclear deterrence reliable, sufficient second strike capability and effective systems like hotlines are necessary. However, except nuclear superpowers like the United States and Russia, most of the regional powers cannot afford to possess a huge amount of nuclear weapons, and thus, they are vulnerable to the first attack by the enemy. How these regional powers, including potential nuclear possessors, pursue reliable deterrence against the rival, with limited capability? I would like to mention some cases below.

Currently, the Indian subcontinent is the only place where antagonistic nuclear powers, India and Pakistan, are located side by side along the border. Tensions can arise anytime. Particularly, terrorists’ acquisition of nuclear materials from Pakistan is a critical concern, for fear of a dirty bomb attack in India. In the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament by Laskar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, India failed to react quickly to deploy troops against Pakistan, which was supposed to sponsor these terrorists. In order to manage such fragile nuclear security environment, the Indian government contrived the Cold Start doctrine, which is a massive and quick response with conventional forces to prevent nuclear attack by Pakistan. In response, Pakistan developed tactical nuclear weapons to stop Indian aggression. The problem is, this mutual deterrence is quite feeble, compared with the US-Soviet or Russian MAD, despite the hotline between two countries. If terrorists plotted to attack India from Pakistani territory, this would trigger India’s Cold Start attack and Pakistan’s response with tactical nuclear weapons, in theory (“Are Pakistan's Nuclear Assets Under Threat?”; Diplomat; April 28, 2016). As shown in the tension after the Mumbai terrorist attacks in 2008, mutual distrust between India and Pakistan is still deep. Only an external power, notably the United States, is the last intermediary to prevent a nuclear war between both nations.

Likewise, possible nuclear arms build up of Japan and South Korea would not be helpful deterrence against North Korea, as their second strike capability would be limited. More importantly, both Japan and South Korea would have to rely on American satellite for surveillance against North Korea. In addition to deterrence capability of Japan and South Korea, their bilateral relation is a serious problem. The Japanese-South Korean relationship is not the Anglo-French relationship. No one expects nuclear tension across the Dover Strait, but diplomacy across the Tsushima Strait is extremely sensitive. As commonly known, both countries frequently bicker over colonial history, and seemingly trivial gaffes could easily intensify bilateral tensions. Moreover, South Korea still sees Japan a kind of threat. In other words, Japanese-South Korean relations are more like Indo-Pakistani relations. American security umbrella has made a significant contribution to prevent the conflict across the Tsushima Strait from growing too serious. Therefore, if both countries were to have independent nuclear arms, they might target each other, rather than deter North Korea. Donald Trump is extremely incognisant of such sensitive Far Eastern affairs.

As I mention some cases here, it would not help boost deterrence, if the global community permitted regional powers to possess nuclear weapons. They pursue nuclear arms, because the security environment in their neighborhood is unstable. If not, they do not have to spend on these arsenals. This is typically seen in South Africa’s denuclearization after the fall of apartheid. But regional nuclear rivalries simply make their own security worse. This is particularly true in the Middle East, where ethno-sectarian conflicts are intertwined with terrorism. As India invented an indigenous strategic theory of deterrence, others would do. However, I can hardly imagine that their strategies will be reliable deterrence as those of established nuclear powers like the Big Five, notably the US-Russian MAD. Therefore, it is our imperative to sustain and strengthen the NPT regime, and America should revitalize its role as the world policeman.

Both Leaders and the Public Need Understandings on Crisis Management

In view of increasingly diversifying nature of security threats to untraditional areas, crisis management capability has become an important credential for national and corporate leaders. However, they learn it on OJT basis mostly, and fundamental concept of it is not sufficiently taught in college and graduate courses. Come to think of it, basic notions of other policy agendas, such as economics, foreign policy, defense, public administration, and so forth, are core subjects of social science in higher education. New security concepts after the Cold War necessitates more understandings on crisis management prevailed among the global public.

The way of dealing with crisis differs by actors by actors. Stark differences are seen between state actors and non state actors. State actors are authorized to use force as the last resort to resolve the crisis. On the other hand, unlike the East India Company in the era of colonial mercantilism, non state actors today are not armed to defeat insurgents, terrorists, and whoever threatens their vital interests. Therefore, sovereign state has ultimate resources in crisis management. The public needs to be well educated to watch, exert influence on, and cooperate with the government.

Let me talk about two cases. One is a natural disaster without precedence, which is the Fukushima accident in 2011, following the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. This is the first incident of human history that nuclear power plant was hit by natural disaster, and unlike Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, no instruction manuals assumed such a thing. Criticism to Japanese Prime Minister-then Naoto Kan spurred as the media and the public were upset with the crisis. They were obsessed with specific errors in his conducts, but failed to discuss his policy and administration skill to manage the crisis.

The other case is a man-made disaster, which is the In Aménas hostage crisis in Algeria this year. Though victims were multinational, the Bouteflika administration of Algeria attacked the site to defeat terrorists without sufficient consideration to global standards for safety of the captive. The Algerian government did not even consider requesting foreign intervention to help their troops, though American, British, and French Special Forces are more skilled to execute the mission to balance counterterrorism and hostage safety.

We, including the media know too little about crisis management. Thus, we may make a wrong judgment about the conduct of leaders in crisis. In other words, we can evaluate on going situations quite emotionally. Therefore, it is necessary to promote understanding and awareness on crisis management. Think tanks and private foundations can host forums and lectures on to educate the public. Preferably, these events should be open to anyone through internet videos, not just accessible to closed members. Also, fundamental concepts of crisis management should be taught in more college courses from undergraduate level. Good national and corporate leaders need comprehensive and systematic understanding of this area. It is too dangerous that training for crisis management is substantially dependent on OJT. 

Freedom House Trend Review: Improvements and Declines in Democracy

This is a post script of the last post, and let me tell briefly about the Freedom House report. The Arab Spring is moving democracy in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya forward. Also, it is noteworthy that Myanmar, one of the most terrible Asian autocracies, eased restrictions in public discussion and media reports of politics. Thailand made progress, too, due to free and fair election in July last year.

However, counteractions to the Arab Spring were witnessed in many courtiers of the Middle East. Civil movements face violent repression by the government in Bahrain, Lebanon, Syria, UAE, and Yemen. In Saudi Arabia, restrictions on public speeches and media reports were tightened. In Asia, China strengthened online censorship and innumerable number of freedom activists.

There are some unexpected cases that need more attention. In Africa, the Ethiopian government abused antiterrorism legislation to repress political oppositions. Since the Assad administration of Syria adopts the same logic to murder freedom fighters there, this case cannot be dismissed. In Latin America, Puerto Rico lowered the grade though it is under US sovereignty, because of police brutality. Surprisingly enough, civil liberty recedes in post-communist Europe like Hungary, though this country was regarded as the role model in the shift toward democracy and the market economy.

The trend mentioned in the report will be a guideline for foreign policy of leading democracies such as the United States, Europe, and Japan. See which countries gain and lose their credits in democracy from this link. 

The Western Alliance Must Reunite to Overturn Democracy Decline

The Facebook Revolution in Tunisia and Egypt triggered the Arab Spring last year, which has overthrown autocrats to pave the way for long pursued democracy in the Middle East. However, the Freedom House has released a warning report that democracy is in decline worldwide, particularly in Asia, Latin America, and Southern Africa (“Democracy declined worldwide in 2011, Arab Spring nationsat risk: report”; Reuters; September 17, 2012).

In view of the rise of autocratic powers, this is a critical problem. China shows no hesitation for expansionism in the East Asian sphere. In Russia, President Vladimir Putin denounced American “manipulation” to sponsor against Kremlin votes in the presidential election this year (“Russiasays U.S.aid mission sought to sway elections”; Reuters; September 19, 2012). And also, Iran is acquiring nuclear weapons.

Let me review the report briefly. “Freedomin the World 2012” states that despite progress in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, repressive responses against civic movements are rampant in Syria, Bahrain, and Yemen. Therefore, Middle East democratization, which is a key global security agenda since the out break of the War on Terror, is seriously challenged. Also, governmental propaganda in China and Russia agitates fears against civic protests, in order to prevent the spread of the Jasmine Revolution in their countries. China boasts their most sophisticated system of media repression to control news reports and censor information. Other authoritarian regimes like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela develop various techniques to control the media and blogs.

Currently, the Western alliance just sits still and watches such gloomy trends. But it is established democracies, notably the United States, Europe, and Japan, that can take leadership to overturn global trend of moving back toward autocracy. Freedom activists against authoritarian regimes are disappointed with the Western alliance for petty realism and appeasement policies at the expense of their hope. They are right, in view of the trend stated in the Freedom House report.

For advancing democracy, the Middle East is a key area. While the Freedom House evaluates the transition in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya positively, democracy in those countries are still fragile. Also, some conservatives in the United States and Europe are afraid of the rise of Islamism as typically shown in the enforcement of Sharia law. However, Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki comments that the Arab Spring is neither anti-West nor pro-West. Nor is it a matter of religion or Sharia Law, but of social justice. Marzouki admits that democratization allowed some extremists to free ride liberal political system. However, he stresses that the real objective of religious extremists is not political participation, but creating chaos. They attacked Tunisian symbols like national flag and anthem, before attacking American symbols, according to Marzouki (“The Arab SpringStill Blooms”; New York Times; September 27, 2012).

We have to watch carefully how much Islamists respect universal value of modern enlightenment. But President Marzouki’s article is noteworthy, because social justice in one country poses significant influences to its behavior on the global stage. This is the vital reason why the Western alliance needs to be re-invigorated to manage the resurgence of autocracies. We must remember that democracy promotion for good governance is one of vital objectives in the War on Terror, in order to wipe out the root causes of violence and extremism.

Currently, the Atlantic alliance is centrifuged as seen in the Chicago NATO Summit. Also, the US-Japanese alliance faces a critical test on Okinawa. Autocracies and extremists seize opportunities like this. In order to bounce back from democracy decline and endorse Middle East freedom, major democracies need to redesign strategic partnership to launch initiatives to promote liberal values throughout the world. These initiatives are beyond the United States, Europe, and Japan. Once the strategic partnership is found, then, we can enlarge this to include emerging democracies like India, Australia, Israel, South Korea, and so forth. Freedom House report is a reminder to tell us how seriously unsecured our liberal society is in the world today.

The State of World Nuclear Weapons

See the chart below.

Nuclear armed nations are appearing, but only Big 5 have operational nuclear warheads.

Some proliferators like Iran and North Korea are not ready to fire warheads immediately. They claim nuclear power status, primarily for brinkmanship diplomacy and sponsoring terrorism. Senator Bob Casey testified “A nuclear Iran would feel empowered to conduct more terrorist attacks against U.S. and Israeli targets, provide more lethal assistance to Hezbollah and Palestinian militant groups, and give the Quds Force greater freedom to support terrorist groups across the Middle East,” at a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee (“USSenators Examine Iranian Involvement with Terrorism”; VOA News; July 25, 2012). North Korea will act similarly to Japan, South Korea, and the United States.

Also, we have to note that lack of transparency with Chinese nuclear weapons. It is unknown how many warheads are operational for strategic and tactical use. Such a big power has not joined nuclear arms cut negotiations, and leaves the responsibility to the United States and Russia. Beijing Communist Party should disclose more information about their nuclear weapons.

Still, Islamic Extremists Are Greater Threats than Ultra Rightists

7-22 massacre in Norway by Anders Behring Breivik is too horrible. I agree with those who argue that policymakers are obsessed with Islamic extremists when it comes to counterterrorism but they need to pay more attention to Christian and Judaist far rights. However, in terms of national and global security, Islamic extremists are far more dangerous than ultra rightists such as Christian and Judaist extremists and white supremacists. Therefore, it is taken for granted that counterterrorism policy focuses primarily on Islamic radicals. Of course, we must not allow prejudices and segregations to Muslims.

Why is the threat of radical Muslim greater than that of ultra rightists? I would like to mention the following points. First, Islamic terrorists have larger and more global organizations. Islamic radicals such as Al Qaeda, the Haqqani Network, Lashkar e Taiba, and so forth have international connections, and they launch aggressive campaigns to expand huge basis of supporters. Notably, they recruit Muslim youngsters living in the West. Also, Islamic extremists have mutual interconnections. On the other hand, since the far right has a manifesto of radical chauvinism in view of “defending our nation”, it hardly has transnational connections. Ultra rightists, including KKK and WAR of the United States, the National Front of Britain, and Neo Nazi in Germany, hardly act together beyond national boundaries. Speaking of the scale of a terrorist organization, state sponsorship cannot be dismissed. It is well known that Iran supports Hezbollah in Lebanon. In addition, terrorists in southern Iraq and Afghanistan are sponsored by Iran. On the other hand, virtually none of far right terrorists are sponsored by the state.

Second, we should keep in mind ”With us, or against us” perspective, which Former President George W. Bush said in his speech just before the Iraq War. Islamic extremists do not hesitate to execute large scale destructions in big cities in developed countries. Those terrorists have no hesitation to pursue mass murder of ordinary citizens as long as they are enemy to those radicals, and the symbolic landmark that their enemy takes pride in will be a key target for destruction. 9-11 is the most notable case. On the other hand, as ultra rightists are jingoists, it is quite unlikely that they commit large scale destructions of big cities in their own country, including the symbolic landmark that their country takes pride in. Though the massacre by Breivik is horrible, none of Norwegian monuments were destroyed in this incident. He just killed people those who appeared to “vilify the tradition of his country” in his eyes. In other words, destructive behavior by jingoists to their own country is somewhat restrained.

Third, let me mention weapons of mass destruction, particularly the use of nuclear weapons. This is deeply interrelated to the first and the second points. Non-proliferation of nuclear weapon is one of vital issues of national and global security today. In the past, the Khan Network was supposed to have ties with Iran, North Korea, Libya, and Al Qaeda. Islamic extremists can easily find ties with such international network, but it is difficult for the far right to join the “Axis of Evil” because of its chauvinist nature. What will happen, should terrorists acquire nuclear weapons? There is nothing strange that Islamic radicals use acquired nuclear bombs to destroy the whole of the city itself. This is sufficiently possible, in view of the scale of 9-11 destruction. On the other hand, though rightwing acquisition of nuclear weapon is dangerous, it is quite unlikely that they destroy the whole of the city itself, considering their ideological standpoints.

I discussed which is more serious threat, whether Western far right or Islamic extremists. There is an analogy between the far right and the far left in Japan. Since ultra rightists uphold imperial divinity nationalism, it is unlikely that they destroy Tokyo along with the Imperial Place and the Yasukuni Shrine, but it is quite likely that ultra leftists destroy the whole of the city along with such symbolic landmarks once they acquire WMDs like nuclear weapons. Actually, ultra leftists helped abduction of Japanese citizens by North Korea in the past. The above mentioned three points are helpful to judge which terrorists are more critical threat to us.

Now, let’s get back to Western far right and Islamic radicals. Based on the above three points, the former can be managed through the police. On the other hand, in the War on Terror with the latter, the world’s best armed forces and a Guinness Book class sniper fight against them. Apparently, Islamic extremists are far more dangerous threats than ultra rightists. The Breivik incident is too horrible, and we should wipe out prejudices against Muslims and other minorities. I strongly agree to this opinion. However, there is nothing wrong that policymakers focus much more on Islamic extremists than ultra rightists in counterterrorism policy.

Shut down Nuclear Plants? Wait!: Peaceful Use and Non-proliferation

After the Fukushima shock, an increasing number of people insist that nuclear power plants be shut down immediately to avoid radioactive pollution to the environment. Some say that renewable resource such as biomass, geothermal, solar, wind, and tidal energy, supplant atomic power as post-petroleum energy resource. However, we should remember that technological assistance to build nuclear reactors for peaceful use is a bargaining tool for nonproliferation. Atomic energy and nuclear weapons are deeply correlated. Therefore, complete elimination of nuclear power plants can remove constraints to rising proliferators, which will lead to more nuclear tests and more radioactive contamination. This paradox is very important when we think of peaceful use of nuclear energy and nonproliferation of nuclear weapons after Fukushima.

Relations between peaceful use of atomic energy and nonproliferation of nuclear weapons can be described from the following points. First, established nuclear great powers like P5 and developed nations offer technological assistance for otherwise proliferators to build nuclear reactors. In return, countries accepting the assistance are demanded to stop developing or proliferating nuclear weapons. Once developed nations shut down nuclear power plants, they will lose this vital bargaining tool. Second, providers of technological assistance can demand verification, even though the customer country is out of the NPT regime.

The US-Indian nuclear deal is the most successful case of reactor for nonproliferation. In return for technological help, India accepted to stop nuclear tests. This deal has become a paradigm for other industrialized and emerging economies keen to pioneer the Indian market. Among them, Japan finally decided to shed anti-nuclear sentiments through Hiroshima-Nagasaki experience, and join the nuclear deal with India. Despite pacifist emotion, Japanese companies such as Hitachi, Toshiba, and Japan Steel Works subcontract General Electric and Areva to build nuclear reactors (“U.S., France press for Japan-India nuclear deal – Nikkei”; Reuters; June 9, 2010).

Reactor for nonproliferation deal is also explored in negotiations with Iran and North Korea. Whether we can talk with them or not, helping reactor building is one of carrots accompanied by a stick of economic sanction. As nuclear power plant projects are suspended in developed countries, negotiations with Iran and North Korea will be stalled.

It is too naïve to demand nuclear power plans be shut down immediately. Once we shut down, we will lose a means to bind potential nuclear proliferators. While the tsunami was a natural disaster once in a thousand years of Japanese history, nuclear testing is an act of human will that can happen anytime. Rising proliferators have poor technological solutions to manage the testing site, which would result in more serious radioactive pollution on the earth.

If we stop peaceful use of nuclear power, the problem will grow beyond energy and the environment. It is regretful that opinion leaders fail to discuss the impact of the Fukushima accident on nuclear arms control and nonproliferation.

New Year Question 2: Can Interdependence Prevent International Conflicts?

World history has been repeating conflicts among nations. Interactions in the economy, culture, social activities and so forth have not prevented wars and bloodsheds by themselves. Regarding the “peaceful rise” of China, dovish opinion leaders argue that interdependence in the economy and tourism will ease tensions with the West. However, history dose not support the idea that human interactions stop clashes among nations and civilizations. Once strategic interests are threatened, or fundamental values are defied, every nation confronts each other.

To begin with, I would like to talk of Britain and Germany before the World War Ⅰ. Despite intensifying rivalries in colonial geopolitics and manufacturing, both great powers were very friendly from late 19th century to early 20th century. Queen Victoria herself was a German descendant. Prince Consort Albert came from the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld in Germany. Some of her children, including Princess Royal Victoria, married German princes and princess.

Quite interestingly, when Cecil Rhodes founded the Rhodes Scholarship with his fortune through successful business and political career in South Africa, he granted students from Germany, along with British colonies and dominions and the United States, to study at Oxford University. Germany is the only non-English speaking country among them. This implies that a British imperialist Rhodes envisioned close Anglo-German ties for a stable and prosperous world order in those days.

Unfortunately, Kaiser Wilhelm Ⅱ ruined such beautiful interdependence, because his expansionist policy was excessively provocative to threaten the vital interests of the British Empire. When Kaiser invaded Belgium, British Prime Minister Herbert Henry Asquith had no other choice but fight against Germany in World War Ⅰ.

Economic interdependence did not stop the Pearl Harbor attack. When the Pacific War broke out, Japan imported key natural resource such as oil, rubber, tin and scrapped iron from the United States and British and Dutch colonies in South East Asia. Also, the United States was the primary export market for Japanese silk and other textile industries. A war with America was fatal to the Japanese economy. Despite this, Japan fought against the United States, as the military regime in Tokyo thought strategic gap with Washington on the issue of Manchuria and China would not be filled. Even though the Babe Ruth baseball exhibition in 1934 nurtured temporary friendship and eased the tension between Japan and the United States ("Year Of The Babe"; Sports Illustrated; November 14, 1955) , it did not stop the war 7 years later.

When we talk of current challengers such as China, Russia, Islamic terrorists, and rogue states, it is a wishful thinking that we assume interdependence can tame them. Post Cold War holidays from history fed these monsters. Particularly, China exploits our liberal world order, in order to maximize survival chances of autocratic leaders. In other words, their codes of conducts are completely different from ours. Do you still expect interdependence to tame them, without building up military deterrence and strengthening security partnership with allies? Learn lessons from history.

The Clash between the West and Emerging Economies

The media and business societies talk about emerging economies these days, because they see new market opportunities in those countries, which should not be missed. But are emerging economies really the hope for the future? Contrary to myopic commercialism, they pose critical challenges to liberal world order of the global political economy. Developed nations face severe competitions against cheap labor rivals. Some of emerging economies defy Western-led liberal system to defend their autocracy.

Emerging economies consist of BRICs, ASEAN, South Korea, Mexico, South Africa, and so forth. They are not uniformly the same. Some are democratic and pro-West, while others advocate completely new world order, as expressed in China’s “peaceful rise”.

Among rising economies, the most important group is BRICs, because they have political aspirations for greater influence, based on their economic prosperity. While Russia and China explore “leading” position through challenging the West, India pursues the rise through strategic partnership with the United States. Brazil may have tried to meddle Iran and the global community in cooperation with Turkey, but it does not challenge American preeminence. Therefore, we have to pay special attention to China and Russia.

When I attended a policy round table on APEC by the Japan Forum on International Relations on October 15, I mentioned three problems of political environment in China. I wonder why so many businessmen explore market opportunities in this country, without solid assurance for economic freedom for foreign business. First, China is notorious for currency manipulation to win global competition unfairly. Second, human rights problems are serious risks. In the Senkaku dispute, the Chinese authority has no hesitation for retaliatory arrests of Japanese businessmen working for Fujita Construction Company. Third, due to information control by the Communist Party, Google has withdrawn from China.

Remember that Western great powers refused Meiji Japan’s request to improve the “unequal treaty” in the 19th century, because Japanese legal system was not well arranged, which could have led to human rights abuse to Europeans and Americans in Japan. Only when Meiji Japan persuaded Western great powers that it had become “civilized” enough, did they accept Japanese request for equal partnership. For foreign business, political environment in current China is more dreadful than Tokugawa and early Meiji Japan.

While advocates for mutual dependence insist that engagement with China and Russia will tame them regardless of their regimes, they make use of our liberal world order to exploit us. Chinese capitalists buy strategic industries in America, Europe, and Japan to pirate the knowledge and to dominate the world economy, in close cooperation with the Communist Party. Russian oligarchs buy luxurious condominiums in South Kensington, which made it easier for FSB agents to lurk in London to assassinate Alexander Litvinenko. Through close cooperation between authoritarian government and privileged business, both countries make money for military build-up, which will ultimately pose threats to free nations. During the bubble economy, Japanese bid for the Rockefeller Center in New York annoyed Americans. It is understandable that people hate such a Shylockian behavior, but it was no threat at all as “no one can take the Rockefeller Center to anywhere”. But Chinese and Russian capitalists openly defy Western liberal capitalism.

In addition to regime and great power rivalries, nationalism is another problem. In the 1990s, South East Asian nations advocated “Asian values” to legitimize their paternalistic authoritarianism of the state over citizens. Booming economy in those days strengthened their confidence, which led them to defy Western preeminence. Only when hit by the Asian financial crisis, did they stop claiming Asian values against Western liberalism.

As to economic aspects, competitive advantage of cheap labor is not the only problem when we talk of emerging nations. Stephen King, chief economist of HSBC, warns that competition for scare resource will be intensified between the West and emerging nations. With the rise of living standard and the demand, emerging economies will increase more influence on price setting of natural resource. While globalization makes world economy overall grow, cheap labor subcontracts with emerging economies erodes consumer confidence in the West. Though free market is expected to be a built-in-stabilizer to avoid resource conflict as seen in World War Ⅱ, autocrats in Russia and China simply want higher growth through capitalist economy, while strengthening their political positions by manipulating the market (“Stephen King on scarce resources”; The Economist Online; October 13, 2010). Actually, China announced to reduce export of rare earth materials when the Senkaku conflict with Japan broke out this October.

The most critical problem with the rise of emerging economies is erosion of liberal world order. Ian Bremmer, President of Eurasia Group, and Nouriel Roubini, Professor of Economics at the Stern Business School of New York University, raise serious concerns that the world is changing from unipolar hegemonic stability to nonpolar irresponsible instability (“Paradise Lost: Why Fallen Markets Will Never Be the Same”; Institutional Investor; September 2010). Seeing from the theory of hegemonic stability, only a liberalist nation can provide the global public goods of liberal world order. The hegemonic state may have to share responsibility with other powerful stakeholders as Britain explored “bi-gemonic” stability with America during the interwar period. However, burden sharing states must be free nations, and just simply being powerful is not enough. Britain never thought of sharing hegemonic responsibilities with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. None of current emerging economies are well qualified to share responsibilities with the United States, Europe, and Japan, and there is no wonder why G20 policy coordination works so poorly.

Of course, we need to respect their aspiration for equal relations with the West. What really matters is the nature of their regimes. Particularly, we need to pay attention to fundamental ideals of their nation building. While the “peaceful rise” of Maoist China is dangerous, the competitive rise of democratic India is peaceful. Since the independence, India has been pursuing economic development in Fabianism, which is the core value of British Labour Party. Therefore, we can welcome the rise of India, but not China.

Myopic businessmen need to see the world from “Country First” viewpoints. It is necessary to evaluate emerging economies who they are. Multinational corporations doing business with dangerous regimes may earn profit for a short term, but in the long run, they will lose. In the past, the Ohira administration of Japan continued the IJPC petro-chemical project with Iran when the United States and European allies imposed economic sanctions against the hostage crisis of the US embassy in Tehran. Business with the rogue regime ended is failure as the Iran-Iraq War broke out.

It is too naïve or Shylockian to regard emerging economies just simply as new market opportunities. They can be economic rivals, security threats, or anything that will destroy our liberal world order.　Leaders of America, Europe, and Japan must think again how to deal with emerging economies.