This is the first post on India in Global American Discourse. Considering its importance in security of the Middle East and the Asia Pacific region, it is quite late to post the first article on this country in October. I have written some posts on the US-India nuclear deal in the past. This is controversial but a key to the Bush administration’s strategy in the Middle East and Asia.
Regarding this deal, Japan faces a serious dilemma whether to support it or not, because India is out of the NPT (Non-proliferation Treaty) and CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty). In an article, entitled “Japan’s New Prime Minister Faces India Dilemma” in the Asia Times on September 28, Masako Toki, Research Associate of the James Martin Center for Non-proliferation Studies at Monterey, California, raises a serious concern that approval to the US-India deal could ruin Japan’s accumulated credentials in non-proliferation and disarmament. Toki points out that the US-India agreement has no countermeasure against possible nuclear test by India, and this is the most worrisome point for Japan.
Also, it is necessary to mention that the Japanese public is extremely sensitive to nuclear issues. This summer, the then Defense Minister Akio Kyuma was harshly criticized for his careless comment, “The United States had no choice but nuclear attack against Japan in order to end the war quickly.” Both the media and the public condemned this remark an insult to atomic bomb victims.
Despite such widespread anti-nuclear emotion, the Japanese government has been extremely cautious to articulate its stance on this deal. Toki says “Tokyo has been wise enough to avoid further controversy but not strong enough to maintain its stance as a champion of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.” While Masako Toki insists that Japan not accept exception of NPT regulation like the US-India deal, new Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda is likely to strengthen strategic partnership with India as his predecessor Shinzo Abe was, following recommendations in the Armitage Report 2007.
Toki argues that Japan needs to articulate its commitment to disarmament and nonproliferation, even if this leads to short term conflict with India and the United States. She says “In the long run, a commitment to non-proliferation and disarmament remains the most important element of Japan's national identity and interest.”
For me, her recommendation sounds too idealistic. It is necessary to understand India’s strategic partnership with the United States and NATO. India is a key ally in the War on Terror. Regarding the US-Indian strategic partnership, Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee said “The new challenges that are emerging, including protecting the electronically connected and interdependent world from terror and organized crime, are immensely complex,” and “It is also naive to expect the international system to deal with such complex and significant issues without democratizing international decision-making,” in his speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on October 1 (“India Sees Nuclear Deal as Key to Global Cooperation”; Global Security Newswire; October 3, 2007).
Former Indian diplomat M K Bhadrakumar says that India will be a cornerstone in NATO’s global operation from the Indian Ocean to the Asia Pacific region. The United States endorses NATO-India partnership, in order to fill power vacuum in these areas. (“India Holds Key in NATO’s World View”; Asia Times; October 6, 2007)
However, the nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and leftist members of the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) regard the deal sacrifices Indian sovereignty, because civilian nuclear plants are subject to US inspection. They are not pro-Western as current Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. I believe that the deal must be sustainable regardless of party politics in India. (“Feature”, South Asian Perspectives by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 2007)
If India were to be a real strategic partner with free nations, the US-India bilateral deal should include NATO, Japan, and Australia in the future. It is understandable that India does not trust current non-proliferation regime under IAEA inspection. However, a multilateral deal with common creed and interests will be helpful to make it more stable and sustainable. This could placate opposition by nationalists and leftists. Japan’s dilemma would be resolved through this way.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Sunday, September 30, 2007
CNAS: Intellectual Support on Foreign Policy for Hillary Rodham Clinton
As to 2008 election, Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most likely to win Democrat nomination for presidential candidate. In a previous post, “Democrats Need to Act beyond Defeatism on Iraq”, I quoted a comment by AEI Resident Fellow Thomas Donnelly, saying that a new think tank called the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) will provide intellectual support for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign. Donnelly criticize CNAS “a rather awkward name summons echoes of the Project for a New American Century, well, it is supposed to--has brought together a powerful collection of veterans of the Clinton administration.” Let’s have a brief look at the webpage of CNAS.
This think tank was founded by Kurt Campbell, current CEO, and Michèl Flournoy, current president. Both are educated at Oxford University (Campbell received BA from UC San Diego, certificate from the University of Erevan in USSR, and D Phil from Oxford; Flourny received BA from Harvard, and M. Litt from Oxford). This background could have tied them with the Clinton administration, as there were some Rhodes Scholars in this cabinet including President Bill Clinton himself, Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, and Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott.
The mission of CNAS is mentioned in Co-Founder’s Forum and the Introductory Video. In view of new security challenges in the post 9-11 era, both founders describe their missions as the following.
The CNAS mandate is to help identify the key challenges confronting this generation of Americans in the foreign policy and national security arena, and to help shape thinking about the governance choices for dealing with these concerns. We aspire to transcend the current campaign mode that permeates many Washington policy shops and political discussions to consider the real and enduring challenges and opportunities facing the nation.
CNAS states that they are ready to provide ideas for any administration from 2009 onwards, regardless of the party. However, it is noticeable that CNAS explores some different approaches in US foreign policy from those of the Bush administration. Regarding personal contacts, this think tank develops ties with liberal Republicans who do not necessarily share national security visions with the current administration. Also, in terms of policy agendas, CNAS tackles new issues.
Leading Republicans like Senator Chuck Hagel and Senator Richard Lugar are associated with CNAS. Particularly, Senator Hagel has been a vocal critic to President George W. Bush’s Iraq policy. It is quite noteworthy that Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage who served the Bush administration joins the Board of Directors along with Clinton cabinet members such as Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Former Secretary of Defense William Perry. Quite importantly, Armitage was one of signatories to launch PNAC, which was co-founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan: leading proponents of the Iraq War. This implies that CNAS is more suitable for a centrist like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton than other Democrat candidates like Senator Barak Obama, Former Senator John Edwards, and New Mexican Governor Bill Richardson.
CNAS held its official launch on June 27 this year at the Willard Intercontinental Hotel in Washington, DC. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Chuck Hagel delivered keynote addresses. This illustrates close relationship with Hilary Clinton and bipartisan nature of CNAS.
Among many research subjects, key issues at CNAS are the Iraq problem and transformation of US military forces. Asia Initiative ’09 is another important project, which explores further cooperation between the United States and Asia, beyond preoccupation with Iraq. Quite importantly, CNAS tackles some issues which were not given sufficient consideration by the Bush administration, such as climate change and international refugee problem.
Among those subjects, Iraq is the most crucial one. The most recent report on Iraq, entitled “Measuring Progress in Iraq”, published on August 30 by Assistant Professor Colin Kahl of Georgetown University, recommends that the surge should end no later than the spring of 2008. Also, this report says that successful transition of power from US military to the Iraq Security Forces is the key to make some gains meaningful and sustainable in the long run.
However, since the Center for a New American Security is a small think tank, some critical issues to US foreign policy are not discussed sufficiently. Though active commitment to Asia is mentioned, CNAS has not published a policy brief on North Korea. Alliance with Western industrialized nations like Europe, Japan, and Australia, is no less important than ever in the global war on terrorism. Democracy promotion has been a key agenda in US foreign policy, and the Bush administration addresses its preeminence for US and global security. However, CNAS has no project on this issue.
Whichever party wins 2008 election, CNAS will address new agendas which current administration does not explore enough. The Center has to spend sufficient energy on some issues with which the Bush cabinet is struggling. At this stage, it is important to watch how this new think tank provides intellectual support for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
This think tank was founded by Kurt Campbell, current CEO, and Michèl Flournoy, current president. Both are educated at Oxford University (Campbell received BA from UC San Diego, certificate from the University of Erevan in USSR, and D Phil from Oxford; Flourny received BA from Harvard, and M. Litt from Oxford). This background could have tied them with the Clinton administration, as there were some Rhodes Scholars in this cabinet including President Bill Clinton himself, Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, and Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott.
The mission of CNAS is mentioned in Co-Founder’s Forum and the Introductory Video. In view of new security challenges in the post 9-11 era, both founders describe their missions as the following.
The CNAS mandate is to help identify the key challenges confronting this generation of Americans in the foreign policy and national security arena, and to help shape thinking about the governance choices for dealing with these concerns. We aspire to transcend the current campaign mode that permeates many Washington policy shops and political discussions to consider the real and enduring challenges and opportunities facing the nation.
CNAS states that they are ready to provide ideas for any administration from 2009 onwards, regardless of the party. However, it is noticeable that CNAS explores some different approaches in US foreign policy from those of the Bush administration. Regarding personal contacts, this think tank develops ties with liberal Republicans who do not necessarily share national security visions with the current administration. Also, in terms of policy agendas, CNAS tackles new issues.
Leading Republicans like Senator Chuck Hagel and Senator Richard Lugar are associated with CNAS. Particularly, Senator Hagel has been a vocal critic to President George W. Bush’s Iraq policy. It is quite noteworthy that Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage who served the Bush administration joins the Board of Directors along with Clinton cabinet members such as Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Former Secretary of Defense William Perry. Quite importantly, Armitage was one of signatories to launch PNAC, which was co-founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan: leading proponents of the Iraq War. This implies that CNAS is more suitable for a centrist like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton than other Democrat candidates like Senator Barak Obama, Former Senator John Edwards, and New Mexican Governor Bill Richardson.
CNAS held its official launch on June 27 this year at the Willard Intercontinental Hotel in Washington, DC. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Chuck Hagel delivered keynote addresses. This illustrates close relationship with Hilary Clinton and bipartisan nature of CNAS.
Among many research subjects, key issues at CNAS are the Iraq problem and transformation of US military forces. Asia Initiative ’09 is another important project, which explores further cooperation between the United States and Asia, beyond preoccupation with Iraq. Quite importantly, CNAS tackles some issues which were not given sufficient consideration by the Bush administration, such as climate change and international refugee problem.
Among those subjects, Iraq is the most crucial one. The most recent report on Iraq, entitled “Measuring Progress in Iraq”, published on August 30 by Assistant Professor Colin Kahl of Georgetown University, recommends that the surge should end no later than the spring of 2008. Also, this report says that successful transition of power from US military to the Iraq Security Forces is the key to make some gains meaningful and sustainable in the long run.
However, since the Center for a New American Security is a small think tank, some critical issues to US foreign policy are not discussed sufficiently. Though active commitment to Asia is mentioned, CNAS has not published a policy brief on North Korea. Alliance with Western industrialized nations like Europe, Japan, and Australia, is no less important than ever in the global war on terrorism. Democracy promotion has been a key agenda in US foreign policy, and the Bush administration addresses its preeminence for US and global security. However, CNAS has no project on this issue.
Whichever party wins 2008 election, CNAS will address new agendas which current administration does not explore enough. The Center has to spend sufficient energy on some issues with which the Bush cabinet is struggling. At this stage, it is important to watch how this new think tank provides intellectual support for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
1-11 Shock: Reagan Diplomacy Needed against China’s Ambition in the Space
China’ success in anti-satellite weapon test on January 11 this year poses no less serious threat to the United States and its allies in East Asia than 9-11. Ashley J. Tellis, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, argues that the United States should develop both offensive and defensive space weapons in order to curb Chinese ambition to undermine American predominance in the space. I would like to talk about his recent policy brief, entitled “Punching the US Military’s ‘Soft Ribs’: China’s Anti-satellite Weapon Test in Strategic Perspective”, released in June this year.
On 1-11, China launched a medium range missile from Xichang space facility in Sichuan Province, which was fired at an aging Chinese weather satellite. The missile test chilled to the spine of American policymakers, because the success of this test implied that China was able to cut off space based communication systems of US forces. Ashley Tellis refutes dovish idea that the United States make a deal on arms control in the space with China immediately.
First, Tellis explains strategic logic of Chinese counterspace program. Since remarkable success of US armed forces in Operation Desert Storm in the Gulf War, Chinese strategists had begun to explore how to defeat far superior US conventional forces by attacking American space based facilities. American satellites play the key role in C3 (command, control, and communication) systems, and they are vital for military intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Tellis says “China understands that its best chance of successfully countering US military power lies in being able to attack America’s relatively vulnerable eyes, ears, and voice.” He insists that China as a rising power will not recognize an arms control regime in the space, which could strengthen its competitors. In other words, it is quite unlikely that China be willing to negotiate space arms control at this stage.
Also, Ashley Tellis categorizes China’s counterspace programs against US forces. These programs include from space object surveillance and identification systems to attack weapons. In accordance with the altitude of orbits, China thinks of using specific ASAT (anti-satellite) weapons. Ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and laser beams are designed for lower orbit satellites. Electronic wave attacks would be applied for medium and higher orbit satellites. China even considers attacking US facilities on the Earth which transmit information from space based satellites to American strategists.
In conclusion, Ashley Tellis mentions three implications of China’s space programs, and makes policy recommendations. To begin with, Tellis points out that China invests in counterspace projects because of strategic necessity. It is not willing to conclude arms control agreement with the United States unless one of the following conditions is satisfied.
(1) China can defeat the United States despite America’s privilege for access to the space.
(2) China’s investments in counter space programs yields less return because of technological superiority of the Unites States nullify Chinese efforts.
(3) Chinese space projects provoke offensive counterspace programs of the United States, and the return of R&D exceeds the threat posed by America.
Second, Tellis warns that US supremacy in the space is endangered due to ASAT weapon test success of China. He recommends that the United States improve its ability to identify and assess all orbiting objects, and to anticipate the sources and the capacity for counterspace attacks.
Finally, Tellis warns of s “Space Pear Harbor” in case of crisis over the Taiwan Strait. The United States may have to consider preemptive attacks or horizontal escalation on the Chinese mainland, if it happens before American space facilities become survivable from surprise attacks by China. Ashley Tellis advocates the United States build up offense and defense military power in the space, instead of negotiating for arms control arrangements that are doomed to failure.
Tellis’ arguments sound rational for me. In the past, President Ronald Reagan launched SDI project in order to make the Soviet Union give up expanding its nuclear arsenals, and talk on arms reduction with the United States. American Siegfried must stop dangerous ambition of the Chinese Dragon like this way.
On 1-11, China launched a medium range missile from Xichang space facility in Sichuan Province, which was fired at an aging Chinese weather satellite. The missile test chilled to the spine of American policymakers, because the success of this test implied that China was able to cut off space based communication systems of US forces. Ashley Tellis refutes dovish idea that the United States make a deal on arms control in the space with China immediately.
First, Tellis explains strategic logic of Chinese counterspace program. Since remarkable success of US armed forces in Operation Desert Storm in the Gulf War, Chinese strategists had begun to explore how to defeat far superior US conventional forces by attacking American space based facilities. American satellites play the key role in C3 (command, control, and communication) systems, and they are vital for military intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Tellis says “China understands that its best chance of successfully countering US military power lies in being able to attack America’s relatively vulnerable eyes, ears, and voice.” He insists that China as a rising power will not recognize an arms control regime in the space, which could strengthen its competitors. In other words, it is quite unlikely that China be willing to negotiate space arms control at this stage.
Also, Ashley Tellis categorizes China’s counterspace programs against US forces. These programs include from space object surveillance and identification systems to attack weapons. In accordance with the altitude of orbits, China thinks of using specific ASAT (anti-satellite) weapons. Ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and laser beams are designed for lower orbit satellites. Electronic wave attacks would be applied for medium and higher orbit satellites. China even considers attacking US facilities on the Earth which transmit information from space based satellites to American strategists.
In conclusion, Ashley Tellis mentions three implications of China’s space programs, and makes policy recommendations. To begin with, Tellis points out that China invests in counterspace projects because of strategic necessity. It is not willing to conclude arms control agreement with the United States unless one of the following conditions is satisfied.
(1) China can defeat the United States despite America’s privilege for access to the space.
(2) China’s investments in counter space programs yields less return because of technological superiority of the Unites States nullify Chinese efforts.
(3) Chinese space projects provoke offensive counterspace programs of the United States, and the return of R&D exceeds the threat posed by America.
Second, Tellis warns that US supremacy in the space is endangered due to ASAT weapon test success of China. He recommends that the United States improve its ability to identify and assess all orbiting objects, and to anticipate the sources and the capacity for counterspace attacks.
Finally, Tellis warns of s “Space Pear Harbor” in case of crisis over the Taiwan Strait. The United States may have to consider preemptive attacks or horizontal escalation on the Chinese mainland, if it happens before American space facilities become survivable from surprise attacks by China. Ashley Tellis advocates the United States build up offense and defense military power in the space, instead of negotiating for arms control arrangements that are doomed to failure.
Tellis’ arguments sound rational for me. In the past, President Ronald Reagan launched SDI project in order to make the Soviet Union give up expanding its nuclear arsenals, and talk on arms reduction with the United States. American Siegfried must stop dangerous ambition of the Chinese Dragon like this way.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Is the UN More Legitimate than the US?
It is 9-11 today, which lead the United States to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. There has been widespread criticism to American strike against Iraq, because it is not approved by the UN Security Council. But I must ask this question. Is the United Nations more trustworthy than the United States? In addition, I have to mention that the United Nations is in no position of supervising any sovereign states. It is an independent nation, particularly a liberal democracy that can make a decision for world peace.
Then, why do people regard the United Nations as the anchor of peace and stability of the world? Its decision making system is not clear, and far from accountable. Rogue states and failed nations are involved in this process. There are no organizations to check and balance elitist bureaucrats. Their inefficiency and corruption are too well known. More importantly, while close ties between the United Nations and the global civil societies are supposed to make global governance democratic, this dark connection marginalizes the public throughout the world. There is no reason to rely on UN mandates when it is necessary to defeat grave threats like Saddam Hussein and other axis of evil.
Despite some drawbacks as I mentioned above, the United Nations is expected to play the key role to assure multilateral diplomacy successful. Robert Kagan summarizes European view to US-UN relations as the following.
From the European perspective, the United States may be a relatively benign hegemon, but insofar as its actions delay the arrival of a world order more conductive to weaker powers, it is objectively dangerous. This is one reason why in recent years a principal objective of European foreign policy has become, as one of European observer puts it, the “multilateralising” of the United States. It is why Europeans insist that the United States act only with the approval of the UN Security Council. (Of Paradise and Power, p. 40; Originally from “Unilateral America, Light Weight Europe”, working paper, Centre for European Reform, February 2001 by Steven Everts)
In reality, foreign intervention without UN approval has been necessary to maintain a peaceful world order. In Kosovo, NATO started bombing on March 24 in 1999, without approval of the UN Security Council. Britain intervened to Sierra Leone unilaterally in 2000. Thanks to successful mission, Tony Blair “Gets Hero’s Welcome in Sierra Leone” (Christian Science Monitor, June 1, 2007) on his final trip as the prime minister. It is utterly strange that global public opinion is extremely critical to US attack against Saddam Hussein. Quite interestingly, some antiwar global civil societies courted the United States to intervene into Myanmar and Liberia right after the overthrow of the Ba’athist regime in Iraq. What are they?
Actually, the United Nations and the global civil societies do not necessarily act on behalf of universal humanitarianism. It is quite well known that UN bureaucracy and multinational NGOs constitute an exclusive circle for decision making. Also, they cloud out local civil societies quite often. The UN-multinational NGO axis lacks accountability to the global public.
Dark connections between the United Nations and multinational NGOs nurture dreadful corruption. Joseph Lonconte and Nile Gardiner, Research Fellows at the Heritage Foundation, describes UN-NGO relations as the following.
Indeed, most of the U.N.’s favorite NGOs would use international rulings to overturn democratic protections in their home countries. The U.N.’s vision of civil society, in other words, is a penumbra of activist groups that simply endorse its agenda of centralized economies, large welfare states, and massive social engineering. Indeed, most of the U.N.’s favorite NGOs would use international rulings to overturn democratic protections in their home countries. The U.N.’s vision of civil society, in other words, is a penumbra of activist groups that simply endorse its agenda of centralized economies, large welfare states, and massive social engineering. (“Human Rights Failure”, National Review Online; September 28, 2005)
Also, they criticize sex scandals in Sudan and West Africa by UN and NGO staff.
Furthermore, the Oil for Food scandal symbolizes corruption of UN bureaucratic system. (“Oil for Food Scandal Draws Scrutiny to UN”, Fox News, September 20, 2004)
The veto of Russia and China at the Security Council, which blocks efficient decision making, makes UN incompetence even more serious.
Leading liberal democracies, notably the United States, Britain, and NATO can act more quickly and effectively to curb imminent threats than the United Nations. NATO will be globalized when Japan and Australia join. Then, UN mandates will be less important for international security.
Then, why do people regard the United Nations as the anchor of peace and stability of the world? Its decision making system is not clear, and far from accountable. Rogue states and failed nations are involved in this process. There are no organizations to check and balance elitist bureaucrats. Their inefficiency and corruption are too well known. More importantly, while close ties between the United Nations and the global civil societies are supposed to make global governance democratic, this dark connection marginalizes the public throughout the world. There is no reason to rely on UN mandates when it is necessary to defeat grave threats like Saddam Hussein and other axis of evil.
Despite some drawbacks as I mentioned above, the United Nations is expected to play the key role to assure multilateral diplomacy successful. Robert Kagan summarizes European view to US-UN relations as the following.
From the European perspective, the United States may be a relatively benign hegemon, but insofar as its actions delay the arrival of a world order more conductive to weaker powers, it is objectively dangerous. This is one reason why in recent years a principal objective of European foreign policy has become, as one of European observer puts it, the “multilateralising” of the United States. It is why Europeans insist that the United States act only with the approval of the UN Security Council. (Of Paradise and Power, p. 40; Originally from “Unilateral America, Light Weight Europe”, working paper, Centre for European Reform, February 2001 by Steven Everts)
In reality, foreign intervention without UN approval has been necessary to maintain a peaceful world order. In Kosovo, NATO started bombing on March 24 in 1999, without approval of the UN Security Council. Britain intervened to Sierra Leone unilaterally in 2000. Thanks to successful mission, Tony Blair “Gets Hero’s Welcome in Sierra Leone” (Christian Science Monitor, June 1, 2007) on his final trip as the prime minister. It is utterly strange that global public opinion is extremely critical to US attack against Saddam Hussein. Quite interestingly, some antiwar global civil societies courted the United States to intervene into Myanmar and Liberia right after the overthrow of the Ba’athist regime in Iraq. What are they?
Actually, the United Nations and the global civil societies do not necessarily act on behalf of universal humanitarianism. It is quite well known that UN bureaucracy and multinational NGOs constitute an exclusive circle for decision making. Also, they cloud out local civil societies quite often. The UN-multinational NGO axis lacks accountability to the global public.
Dark connections between the United Nations and multinational NGOs nurture dreadful corruption. Joseph Lonconte and Nile Gardiner, Research Fellows at the Heritage Foundation, describes UN-NGO relations as the following.
Indeed, most of the U.N.’s favorite NGOs would use international rulings to overturn democratic protections in their home countries. The U.N.’s vision of civil society, in other words, is a penumbra of activist groups that simply endorse its agenda of centralized economies, large welfare states, and massive social engineering. Indeed, most of the U.N.’s favorite NGOs would use international rulings to overturn democratic protections in their home countries. The U.N.’s vision of civil society, in other words, is a penumbra of activist groups that simply endorse its agenda of centralized economies, large welfare states, and massive social engineering. (“Human Rights Failure”, National Review Online; September 28, 2005)
Also, they criticize sex scandals in Sudan and West Africa by UN and NGO staff.
Furthermore, the Oil for Food scandal symbolizes corruption of UN bureaucratic system. (“Oil for Food Scandal Draws Scrutiny to UN”, Fox News, September 20, 2004)
The veto of Russia and China at the Security Council, which blocks efficient decision making, makes UN incompetence even more serious.
Leading liberal democracies, notably the United States, Britain, and NATO can act more quickly and effectively to curb imminent threats than the United Nations. NATO will be globalized when Japan and Australia join. Then, UN mandates will be less important for international security.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Media and Jurists’ Humiliation to the Iraq War and the War on Terror
Some reports on Iraq are released these days. NIE report mentions some progress, while GAO report presents pessimistic viewpoints. It is commonly understood that Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is to be blamed for strategic mistakes. But liberal media and lawyers are also responsible for current hardship in Iraq. These agitators must be well aware of negative consequences of their work. As they respond to accidents in Iraq and treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo camp outrageously, terrorists make use of such tumults. For terrorists, particularly jihadists, liberal upheavals are endowments from Allah to humiliate America by all means.
One of my blog friends Mike Ross wrote some interesting posts on his blog, entitled “Conservatism”, which is published in Japanese. He is a diehard conservative American, and holding a Japanese passport as he has been living in Japan for decades.
One of his posts is “A Caricature of the Iraq War”, in which he comments briefly about a cartoon in Town Hall. See the picture above. As he mentions in this post, the media are too happy to find negative stories in Iraq, in order to blame America. In the other post on the same August 27, entitled “The War on Terror Is beyond Judicial Authority”, Mike criticizes vehemently that liberals are wrong to insist that terrorist prisoners at Guantánamo must be treated as civil criminals such as murderers and robbers. He is right. If terrorists were treated as civil criminals and easily released from the prison through normal legal procedure, they would repeat mass murder and destruction.
The threat of rogue leaders and terrorists is so grave that they must be treated completely different from good citizens like us. When I appeared in an NHK TV forum about Japanese pacifist constitution on August 15, Professor Setsu Kobayashi of Keio University and an antiwar activist Shigemitsu Hisamatsu blamed US attack on Iraq by quoting international law. I argued against them based on the logic of Hobbesian and Kantian world by Robert Kagan. However, the moderator did not give me enough opportunity to refute their egg-headed legalism.
Certainly, Setsu Kobayashi is a leading expert on Japanese constitution. But I have to mention an important point. However finesse those liberals’ arguments may be, they miss the vital point. Law protects our freedom, but not terrorists’ and rogues’. It is extremely regrettable that liberals like Professor Kobayashi put the cart before the horse. Japanese SF hero Kamen Rider fights against Shocker, an army of super villains, in order to protect freedom of human beings. But liberal extremist lawyers like Setsu Kobayashi fight against human beings, in order to protect Shocker’s freedom.
Why the media and lawyers are so happy to shame American hegemony in the world? Apparently, the world is better off when America defeats rogues and terrorists unabashedly. Europeans and Japanese have common interests with Americans. As I mentioned in a previous post, “Is Middle East Democratization a Neocon Plot?”, Europeans are tackling for Middle East reform. Japanese such as Former Foreign Minister Taro Aso, also advocate democratization throughout East Asia. Just as Josef Joffe who is an adjunct professor at Stanford University points out, victory in Iraq is the key to success in the War on Terror and global democratization (“If Iraq Falls”, Wall Street Journal、August 27). Despite this, liberal media and lawyers are extremely joyous when they find policy errors in Iraq and the War on Terror. Moreover, they defend “human rights” of terrorists at Guantánamo.
In my view, crooked pride and elitism of liberal media and lawyers lead them to help our enemy. Those media and lawyers take pride in their resourcefulness to criticize the authority. Since America is the hegemonic state, any US president is the easiest target for their attack. Also, their crooked pride lies in their “privilege” to glorify their career through blaming leaders. Although liberal media and lawyers disguise themselves acting on behalf of general public, these elitists look down on grassroots deep in their heart.
Regarding media response to the Iraq War, I would like to mention some articles written by experts at the American Enterprise Institute. In a pervious post, entitled “Democrats Need to Act beyond Defeatism on Iraq”, I quoted essays by Michael Barone and Thomas Donnelly. Both resident scholars point out that party politics plays an important role in the Iraq debate. In addition, I have to mention another article by Thomas Donnelley and an article by Frederick Kagan, in order to understand how media portrayal of the war misleads the public. In an article “NBC's Body Armor Embarrassment” in the Daily Standard on June 20, Donnelly concludes as the following.
The press and the leadership of the Democratic Party, in the throes of an extended Vietnam flashback, have decided the war is lost. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid even thinks he knows what's going on in Baghdad better than does Gen. David Petraeus, the commander on the scene. But the media and the Democrats still fear that their defeatist attitudes may alienate people in uniform, or Americans more broadly. Thus the need to cast soldiers as victims. The only victim in the body army story, though, is the truth.
Frederick Kagan contributed “Misunderstanding the Surge” to the Daily Standard on June 5, in which points out misreport by the New York Times due to poor understanding of situation in Iraq. According to Kagan, the New York Times failed to discern former chief commander General George Casey’s strategy from current chief commander General David Petraeus’ strategy when their staff published an article “Surge Has Failed” on June 4. General Casey’s plan was based on 2003 assumption, which had been focusing on transitioning security responsibility to the Iraqi forces. In order to curb sectarian conflicts in Iraq, the Bush administration decided to appoint new commander General Petraeus, and change the strategy. The New York Times evaluated the consequence of surge based on former commander’s plan. In fact, the surge has stated when new commander reviewed trials and errors of his predecessor to execute new strategy announced on January 10 by President George W. Bush. Kagan said it is necessary to wait and see the consequence of surge by September, and strategists such as Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution admit some progress in the war in August.
I have talked about the media, and I need to explore further sources to denounce arrogant and egg headed legalists. Why are these liberal extremist elitists so pleased to blame the White House? Frederick Kagan explains such psychology in his conclusion.
There will be many difficult months to come, as our enemies attempt not only to make the strategy fail, but to convince Americans and Iraqis that it will fail. ……. The New York Times wrongly judges the current commanders by their predecessors' expectations. And it wrongly presents their efforts to solve legacy problems as evidence that the current effort has failed. It may be emotionally easier for some simply to convince themselves that the U.S. has already failed in Iraq. But success remains possible if we have the will to try to achieve it.
Any kind of extralegal activities are legitimate in both wars because the nature of enemies is completely different from those in traditional wars. It is utterly wrong to blame this. Liberal extremist Brahmins, stop helping our enemies! They are overjoyed when Brahmins distort our public opinion. Is there any ways to keep these nuisances silent? They are much more to be blamed than Donald Rumsfeld!
One of my blog friends Mike Ross wrote some interesting posts on his blog, entitled “Conservatism”, which is published in Japanese. He is a diehard conservative American, and holding a Japanese passport as he has been living in Japan for decades.
One of his posts is “A Caricature of the Iraq War”, in which he comments briefly about a cartoon in Town Hall. See the picture above. As he mentions in this post, the media are too happy to find negative stories in Iraq, in order to blame America. In the other post on the same August 27, entitled “The War on Terror Is beyond Judicial Authority”, Mike criticizes vehemently that liberals are wrong to insist that terrorist prisoners at Guantánamo must be treated as civil criminals such as murderers and robbers. He is right. If terrorists were treated as civil criminals and easily released from the prison through normal legal procedure, they would repeat mass murder and destruction.
The threat of rogue leaders and terrorists is so grave that they must be treated completely different from good citizens like us. When I appeared in an NHK TV forum about Japanese pacifist constitution on August 15, Professor Setsu Kobayashi of Keio University and an antiwar activist Shigemitsu Hisamatsu blamed US attack on Iraq by quoting international law. I argued against them based on the logic of Hobbesian and Kantian world by Robert Kagan. However, the moderator did not give me enough opportunity to refute their egg-headed legalism.
Certainly, Setsu Kobayashi is a leading expert on Japanese constitution. But I have to mention an important point. However finesse those liberals’ arguments may be, they miss the vital point. Law protects our freedom, but not terrorists’ and rogues’. It is extremely regrettable that liberals like Professor Kobayashi put the cart before the horse. Japanese SF hero Kamen Rider fights against Shocker, an army of super villains, in order to protect freedom of human beings. But liberal extremist lawyers like Setsu Kobayashi fight against human beings, in order to protect Shocker’s freedom.
Why the media and lawyers are so happy to shame American hegemony in the world? Apparently, the world is better off when America defeats rogues and terrorists unabashedly. Europeans and Japanese have common interests with Americans. As I mentioned in a previous post, “Is Middle East Democratization a Neocon Plot?”, Europeans are tackling for Middle East reform. Japanese such as Former Foreign Minister Taro Aso, also advocate democratization throughout East Asia. Just as Josef Joffe who is an adjunct professor at Stanford University points out, victory in Iraq is the key to success in the War on Terror and global democratization (“If Iraq Falls”, Wall Street Journal、August 27). Despite this, liberal media and lawyers are extremely joyous when they find policy errors in Iraq and the War on Terror. Moreover, they defend “human rights” of terrorists at Guantánamo.
In my view, crooked pride and elitism of liberal media and lawyers lead them to help our enemy. Those media and lawyers take pride in their resourcefulness to criticize the authority. Since America is the hegemonic state, any US president is the easiest target for their attack. Also, their crooked pride lies in their “privilege” to glorify their career through blaming leaders. Although liberal media and lawyers disguise themselves acting on behalf of general public, these elitists look down on grassroots deep in their heart.
Regarding media response to the Iraq War, I would like to mention some articles written by experts at the American Enterprise Institute. In a pervious post, entitled “Democrats Need to Act beyond Defeatism on Iraq”, I quoted essays by Michael Barone and Thomas Donnelly. Both resident scholars point out that party politics plays an important role in the Iraq debate. In addition, I have to mention another article by Thomas Donnelley and an article by Frederick Kagan, in order to understand how media portrayal of the war misleads the public. In an article “NBC's Body Armor Embarrassment” in the Daily Standard on June 20, Donnelly concludes as the following.
The press and the leadership of the Democratic Party, in the throes of an extended Vietnam flashback, have decided the war is lost. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid even thinks he knows what's going on in Baghdad better than does Gen. David Petraeus, the commander on the scene. But the media and the Democrats still fear that their defeatist attitudes may alienate people in uniform, or Americans more broadly. Thus the need to cast soldiers as victims. The only victim in the body army story, though, is the truth.
Frederick Kagan contributed “Misunderstanding the Surge” to the Daily Standard on June 5, in which points out misreport by the New York Times due to poor understanding of situation in Iraq. According to Kagan, the New York Times failed to discern former chief commander General George Casey’s strategy from current chief commander General David Petraeus’ strategy when their staff published an article “Surge Has Failed” on June 4. General Casey’s plan was based on 2003 assumption, which had been focusing on transitioning security responsibility to the Iraqi forces. In order to curb sectarian conflicts in Iraq, the Bush administration decided to appoint new commander General Petraeus, and change the strategy. The New York Times evaluated the consequence of surge based on former commander’s plan. In fact, the surge has stated when new commander reviewed trials and errors of his predecessor to execute new strategy announced on January 10 by President George W. Bush. Kagan said it is necessary to wait and see the consequence of surge by September, and strategists such as Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution admit some progress in the war in August.
I have talked about the media, and I need to explore further sources to denounce arrogant and egg headed legalists. Why are these liberal extremist elitists so pleased to blame the White House? Frederick Kagan explains such psychology in his conclusion.
There will be many difficult months to come, as our enemies attempt not only to make the strategy fail, but to convince Americans and Iraqis that it will fail. ……. The New York Times wrongly judges the current commanders by their predecessors' expectations. And it wrongly presents their efforts to solve legacy problems as evidence that the current effort has failed. It may be emotionally easier for some simply to convince themselves that the U.S. has already failed in Iraq. But success remains possible if we have the will to try to achieve it.
Any kind of extralegal activities are legitimate in both wars because the nature of enemies is completely different from those in traditional wars. It is utterly wrong to blame this. Liberal extremist Brahmins, stop helping our enemies! They are overjoyed when Brahmins distort our public opinion. Is there any ways to keep these nuisances silent? They are much more to be blamed than Donald Rumsfeld!
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Postscript of NHK Forum 2: Inseparable Alliance between Japan and the United States
In an NHK TV program on Japan’s pacifist constitution, broadcasted on August 15, forum attendants discussed US foreign policy and US-Japanese relations. This is an important issue to reconsider the pacifist constitution, because changes in global security environment provoke this debate. Also, it is the United States that hopes to change the pacifist constitution, in order to step up the alliance with Japan.
While we were talking about this issue, both rightists and leftists criticized US foreign policy harshly. They say Americans are excessively power dependent, and worry America’s hyper puissance endangers Japan’s independent decision making. Leftist attendants led by Sayoko Yoneda, a women’s rights and peace activist, even claimed that it serves right for America being attacked by terrorists. Had she known the theory of hegemonic stability which is a basic theory of international political economy, she would have never remarked such a stupid comment. Robert Kagan would have refuted them, by using his allegory of sheriff and saloon master.
It is my regret that NHK announcer Tamio Miyake, the moderator of this forum, did not provide sufficient opportunity for pro-American participants to argue against such a Sturm und Drang (Storm and Stress) of rampant anti-Americanism. Therefore, I am writing this post to refute the Sturm und Drang at the forum.
Some nationalist attendants, such as Kazuhiko Hosokawa, a leader of conservative organization, and Junko Amou, also a conservative cyberspace activist, insisted on strengthening Japan’s tie with the United States from a realist perspective. They say that Japan needs a close relationship with the United States simply because it is Japan’s national interest. When necessary, Japan must be ready to say “no” to America, they say. Certainly, both Japan and the United States are sovereign states. But I must advocate that the US-Japanese alliance is beyond that sort of petty realism. For further discussion, I would like to talk about the nature of the American world order and Japan’s national foundation as a modern state.
First, it is very important to understand the nature of the American world order. I have mentioned this in a previous post, entitled “Philosophical Understanding of Pax Britannica and Pax Americana” on February 27. In this post I talk about the theory of hegemonic stability. Britain and America has been providing the public goods of liberal political and economic order. This is my primary focus as a graduate student at the London School of Economics. For detail, please see the link to this post. When a rogue intrudes on the bar, it is the sheriff who faces the danger, not the saloon master. The hegemonic state assumes the burden of sheriff for global security. Leftists who said it served right for America being attacked by terrorists, must feel ashamed of their ignorant remark. It seemed that Sayoko Yoneda, Yumiko Akimoto, and a couple of leftwing activists uttered such a comment.
OK, I ask a question to these leftists. Are you with whom? Are you with our free world, or with terrorists and rogue states? Are you friends or enemies to our society? It is all right whether they are rightists or leftists, whether they are pro-American or anti-American. But I must remind them that their utterance in public is a complete insult to Japan’s most reliable ally. I would advise them to apologize for their misguided comment on TV on the next occasion.
Also, I have to mention Japan’s position in the world. It is vital to point out that freedom allies respect Japan because of its close relationship with the United States. Prewar Japan was one of Western Great Powers, and postwar Japan has been a member of leading Western Democracy Club. Europeans embrace Japan, because it is a key ally to the United States. A Dutch historian Jeroen Lamers who is the author of “Japonius Tyrannus”, a research on 16th century ruler Oda Nobunaga, comments that a staunch US-Japanese alliance is considerably advantageous to Dutch-Japanese relations, and ultimately to Euro-Japanese relations. One of Japan’s leading pro-American political commentator, Hidemi Nagao also makes similar cases in his book, entitled “Eternal Japan-US Alliance”, saying that freedom allies from Europe to Australia regard Japan as an important partner, because Japan and free nations pursue common policy agendas with the United States.
It is also important to mention world security environment in the post Cold War era. Currently, NATO is exploring global operation, and considering new strategic partnership with Japan, Australia, and even South Korea. Also, Japan is trying to develop new Asia-Pacific security framework with India and Australia. The common bond between Japan and above nations is the alliance with the United States. In other words, a stronger relationship with America enables Japan to develop stronger ties with respectable democracies I mention here.
To my regret, six eminent persons who appeared in this program failed to discuss this point. It is important to take this into consideration when we discuss collective security. They are the following people.
Setsuzo Kosaka: Ex-Chairman of the Constitution Reform Committee, Japan Association of Corporate Executives
Osamu Watanabe: Professor, Hitotsubashi University (Japan’s MIT or LSE)
Setsu Kobayashi: Professor, Keio University (One of Japan’s Ivy League colleges)
Yoshinori Kobayashi: Political Cartoonist
Kenji Isezaki: Professor, Tokyo University of Foreign Affairs
Takao Saito: Journalist
Such renowned experts, but missed to talk about this crucial point: a closer relationship with America means a closer relationship with respectable democracies. This is a waste of their reputation.
Moreover, I would like to give an “English lesson” to those who are wary of advancing further US-Japanese alliance. Britain maintains extremely close partnership to mange the world with the United States. I have talked of key points in the Anglo-American special relationship in a previous post, “Britain and Japan as America's ally: Review of Woodrow Wilson Event” to explore how to upgrade Japan’s relation with the United States. There are four key points in the Anglo-America special relationship.
(1) Be distinguished from other nations
The special relationship will make Britain a distinguished ally to the United States. As people often say, Britain plays a role of Greece to America’s Rome.
(2) Make use of US power
With close ties with America, Britain can strengthen its position in Europe and the globe.
(3) Influence on US policy
As an Athenian to America’s Rome, Britain should be a consultant for the United States to manage the world.
(4) Interpret between Europe and America
Britain should be a representative of Europe to the United States. Also, Britain should bridge policy gaps between Europe and America.
No. (1) is the most important for Japan to explore more leverage in the world. Remember how miserable it was when Jacques Chirac, Dominique de Villepain, and Gerhard Schröder flatly rejected US request for support in the Iraq War. They had no influence, and simply stepped down from their positions quickly. Despite severe criticism, Tony Blair had an influence on US policymakers. Never miss this point!
Finally, I would like to talk of Japan’s spiritual foundation as a modern state. Spiritual base of modern Japan is Datsua Nyuou (getting out of backward Asia, and join civilized West). Nobody doubts that this has lead Japan to spectacular success road. The US-Japanese alliance is beyond security deal, but guarantee of Japan’s status as a leading Western democracy. Remember that US senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman cast doubt on Russian qualification to chair the St. Petersburg Summit, because of authoritarian Putin administration, while none of respectable policymakers in both America and Europe did so on Japan’s qualification for the elite club membership from the beginning. A real patriot Japanese must take pride in it.
In previous posts, “New Year Question 2: The Legacy of Queen Victoria in East Asian History” and “A Radical Agenda for Japanese People”, I argued that modern Japan started when Queen Victoria destroyed the Chinese Asian order with gunfire. The Japanese understood the meaning of the Western Impact, while Asians were still indulged in the Dark Age. Japanese people decided unrepentant farewell to the Dark Age, and dashed toward modernization and enlightenment with “Protestantism” diligence and ethics. Japanese people decided to accept the Victorian world order of Lockean and Smithian values, while Asians made virtually no effort to learn Western civilization.
As a result, Japan had become entirely distinguished from dormant Asians who were in a daydream of outdated Chinese world order. In the postwar period, Japanese people learned American invented management methods, such as William Edwards Deming’s total quality management, quicker than Americans with “Protestantism” diligence. In other words, Japan achieved the economic miracle, because Japanese became more American than Americans. Dutch historian Joroen Lamers made a similar comment in an interview with the Nagano Chambers of Commerce.
Rapid Westernization, unrepentant enlightenment, and Lokean and Smithian values are deeply embedded in the heart of Japanese people. There is no wonder that Japan’s best friends have been Anglo Saxon global empires. Without solid alliance with the United States, Japan would fall into a miserable archipelago offshore the Chinese Dragon. Apparently, the Japanese prefer enlightened West to Confucian Asia.
A staunch US-Japanese alliance is vital to maintain a liberal world order, and to guarantee Japan’s identity as a leading Western democracy.
While we were talking about this issue, both rightists and leftists criticized US foreign policy harshly. They say Americans are excessively power dependent, and worry America’s hyper puissance endangers Japan’s independent decision making. Leftist attendants led by Sayoko Yoneda, a women’s rights and peace activist, even claimed that it serves right for America being attacked by terrorists. Had she known the theory of hegemonic stability which is a basic theory of international political economy, she would have never remarked such a stupid comment. Robert Kagan would have refuted them, by using his allegory of sheriff and saloon master.
It is my regret that NHK announcer Tamio Miyake, the moderator of this forum, did not provide sufficient opportunity for pro-American participants to argue against such a Sturm und Drang (Storm and Stress) of rampant anti-Americanism. Therefore, I am writing this post to refute the Sturm und Drang at the forum.
Some nationalist attendants, such as Kazuhiko Hosokawa, a leader of conservative organization, and Junko Amou, also a conservative cyberspace activist, insisted on strengthening Japan’s tie with the United States from a realist perspective. They say that Japan needs a close relationship with the United States simply because it is Japan’s national interest. When necessary, Japan must be ready to say “no” to America, they say. Certainly, both Japan and the United States are sovereign states. But I must advocate that the US-Japanese alliance is beyond that sort of petty realism. For further discussion, I would like to talk about the nature of the American world order and Japan’s national foundation as a modern state.
First, it is very important to understand the nature of the American world order. I have mentioned this in a previous post, entitled “Philosophical Understanding of Pax Britannica and Pax Americana” on February 27. In this post I talk about the theory of hegemonic stability. Britain and America has been providing the public goods of liberal political and economic order. This is my primary focus as a graduate student at the London School of Economics. For detail, please see the link to this post. When a rogue intrudes on the bar, it is the sheriff who faces the danger, not the saloon master. The hegemonic state assumes the burden of sheriff for global security. Leftists who said it served right for America being attacked by terrorists, must feel ashamed of their ignorant remark. It seemed that Sayoko Yoneda, Yumiko Akimoto, and a couple of leftwing activists uttered such a comment.
OK, I ask a question to these leftists. Are you with whom? Are you with our free world, or with terrorists and rogue states? Are you friends or enemies to our society? It is all right whether they are rightists or leftists, whether they are pro-American or anti-American. But I must remind them that their utterance in public is a complete insult to Japan’s most reliable ally. I would advise them to apologize for their misguided comment on TV on the next occasion.
Also, I have to mention Japan’s position in the world. It is vital to point out that freedom allies respect Japan because of its close relationship with the United States. Prewar Japan was one of Western Great Powers, and postwar Japan has been a member of leading Western Democracy Club. Europeans embrace Japan, because it is a key ally to the United States. A Dutch historian Jeroen Lamers who is the author of “Japonius Tyrannus”, a research on 16th century ruler Oda Nobunaga, comments that a staunch US-Japanese alliance is considerably advantageous to Dutch-Japanese relations, and ultimately to Euro-Japanese relations. One of Japan’s leading pro-American political commentator, Hidemi Nagao also makes similar cases in his book, entitled “Eternal Japan-US Alliance”, saying that freedom allies from Europe to Australia regard Japan as an important partner, because Japan and free nations pursue common policy agendas with the United States.
It is also important to mention world security environment in the post Cold War era. Currently, NATO is exploring global operation, and considering new strategic partnership with Japan, Australia, and even South Korea. Also, Japan is trying to develop new Asia-Pacific security framework with India and Australia. The common bond between Japan and above nations is the alliance with the United States. In other words, a stronger relationship with America enables Japan to develop stronger ties with respectable democracies I mention here.
To my regret, six eminent persons who appeared in this program failed to discuss this point. It is important to take this into consideration when we discuss collective security. They are the following people.
Setsuzo Kosaka: Ex-Chairman of the Constitution Reform Committee, Japan Association of Corporate Executives
Osamu Watanabe: Professor, Hitotsubashi University (Japan’s MIT or LSE)
Setsu Kobayashi: Professor, Keio University (One of Japan’s Ivy League colleges)
Yoshinori Kobayashi: Political Cartoonist
Kenji Isezaki: Professor, Tokyo University of Foreign Affairs
Takao Saito: Journalist
Such renowned experts, but missed to talk about this crucial point: a closer relationship with America means a closer relationship with respectable democracies. This is a waste of their reputation.
Moreover, I would like to give an “English lesson” to those who are wary of advancing further US-Japanese alliance. Britain maintains extremely close partnership to mange the world with the United States. I have talked of key points in the Anglo-American special relationship in a previous post, “Britain and Japan as America's ally: Review of Woodrow Wilson Event” to explore how to upgrade Japan’s relation with the United States. There are four key points in the Anglo-America special relationship.
(1) Be distinguished from other nations
The special relationship will make Britain a distinguished ally to the United States. As people often say, Britain plays a role of Greece to America’s Rome.
(2) Make use of US power
With close ties with America, Britain can strengthen its position in Europe and the globe.
(3) Influence on US policy
As an Athenian to America’s Rome, Britain should be a consultant for the United States to manage the world.
(4) Interpret between Europe and America
Britain should be a representative of Europe to the United States. Also, Britain should bridge policy gaps between Europe and America.
No. (1) is the most important for Japan to explore more leverage in the world. Remember how miserable it was when Jacques Chirac, Dominique de Villepain, and Gerhard Schröder flatly rejected US request for support in the Iraq War. They had no influence, and simply stepped down from their positions quickly. Despite severe criticism, Tony Blair had an influence on US policymakers. Never miss this point!
Finally, I would like to talk of Japan’s spiritual foundation as a modern state. Spiritual base of modern Japan is Datsua Nyuou (getting out of backward Asia, and join civilized West). Nobody doubts that this has lead Japan to spectacular success road. The US-Japanese alliance is beyond security deal, but guarantee of Japan’s status as a leading Western democracy. Remember that US senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman cast doubt on Russian qualification to chair the St. Petersburg Summit, because of authoritarian Putin administration, while none of respectable policymakers in both America and Europe did so on Japan’s qualification for the elite club membership from the beginning. A real patriot Japanese must take pride in it.
In previous posts, “New Year Question 2: The Legacy of Queen Victoria in East Asian History” and “A Radical Agenda for Japanese People”, I argued that modern Japan started when Queen Victoria destroyed the Chinese Asian order with gunfire. The Japanese understood the meaning of the Western Impact, while Asians were still indulged in the Dark Age. Japanese people decided unrepentant farewell to the Dark Age, and dashed toward modernization and enlightenment with “Protestantism” diligence and ethics. Japanese people decided to accept the Victorian world order of Lockean and Smithian values, while Asians made virtually no effort to learn Western civilization.
As a result, Japan had become entirely distinguished from dormant Asians who were in a daydream of outdated Chinese world order. In the postwar period, Japanese people learned American invented management methods, such as William Edwards Deming’s total quality management, quicker than Americans with “Protestantism” diligence. In other words, Japan achieved the economic miracle, because Japanese became more American than Americans. Dutch historian Joroen Lamers made a similar comment in an interview with the Nagano Chambers of Commerce.
Rapid Westernization, unrepentant enlightenment, and Lokean and Smithian values are deeply embedded in the heart of Japanese people. There is no wonder that Japan’s best friends have been Anglo Saxon global empires. Without solid alliance with the United States, Japan would fall into a miserable archipelago offshore the Chinese Dragon. Apparently, the Japanese prefer enlightened West to Confucian Asia.
A staunch US-Japanese alliance is vital to maintain a liberal world order, and to guarantee Japan’s identity as a leading Western democracy.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Postscript of NHK Forum 1: Japan Has to Be a Pretty Boy in the Middle East? No way!
As I mentioned in the previous post, I attended an NHK TV forum on August 15. The debate was extremely excited. I would like to talk about two important points, I could not argue in the forum. The first postscript is on Japan’s pretty boy diplomacy in the Middle East. The second postscript is on Japanese nationalism and the US-Japanese alliance. Let me speak about the first one.
It is widely believed among the Japanese public that Japan’s position in the Middle East is completely different from those of America and Europe. Those who argue like this, mention the following reasons. First, Japan is not involved in the clash of civilizations between Christian West and Islam Middle East. Second, Japan has been a disinterested power, and never pursued imperialist policy in this region. Third, people in the Middle East admire Japan as a non-imperialist economic giant. However, I am determined to refute such airy fairy ideas, and insist that Japan stop being a pretty boy in the Middle East. Furthermore, I advocate that Japan must be at the heart of the Western alliance to promote enlightenment and democracy, and defeat Islamic radicals who are spiritually indulged in Dark Age ideals.
Unfortunately, when Yasuyuki Aizawa, Representative of Peace On, insisted Japan continue pretty boy diplomacy as mentioned above at the forum, I raised my hand but had no chance to rebut his comment. Therefore, I am writing the following arguments.
Whether love or hate, Middle East nations glorify the West much more than Japan. In one of previous posts, entitled “Five Questions on Islamic Radicalism”, I quoted an article in Foreign Policy, “What Makes a Muslim Radical?” in web exclusive version of November 2006. In this article, both John Epostino, professor of religion and international affairs at the Wash School of Foreign Service, and Dalia Mogahed, Executive Director of Muslim Studies for the Gallup Organization, conclude that Muslims in the Middle East ―― whether radical or moderate ―― admire Western liberal democracy.
There is nothing strange that Middle East civil societies and think tanks establish close partnership with Western counterparts. This is a vital fact, and I mention it in a previous post “Is Middle East Democratization a Neocon Plot?” further in detail.
Quite importantly, anti-establishment activists find their places for exile in the West, not in Japan. From there, activists fight against super villains in their counties, in order to win freedom of their fellow citizens. You can name it. The Iraqi National Congress led by Ahmad Chalabi was in London. Reza Pahlavi lives near Washington, D.C. Mariam Rajavi is based in London, and so forth. Pro-democracy activists make an appeal to Western media, and explore close contacts with Western civil societies. Their admiration to the West is apparent when someone sees some cyberspace communities, such as Persian Journal. This is an online forum of progressive Iranian journalists and bloggers. However, this site is published in English. This indicates clearly that Iranian civil societies expect substantial physical and spiritual help from America and Europe. Unfortunately, I do not find such a compelling expectation to Japan among Middle East citizens.
Establishments also look America and Europe far more than Japan. Arab princes and millionaires spend their holidays for shopping and sightseeing in London, Paris, and New York rather than in Tokyo. This is quite strange because some areas in Tokyo are no less attractive than those in American and European major cities. In the past, people regarded Tokyo as the headquarters of the Japanese Corporation. Nothing else. But today, Tokyo has become one of the centers of pop culture. Thanks to this reputation, Foreign Minister Taro Aso insists on conducting anime diplomacy to prevail Japanese soft power. Despite such reputation, Middle East establishments prefer to visit American and European cities.
Apparently, Japan’s pretty boy diplomacy leaves extremely weak impression on both anti-establishments and establishments in the Middle East.
More importantly Japanese people must keep alert to threats posed by radical Muslims. In terms of ideology, they are natural enemy to Japan. This is because they have been defying modernization and enlightenment in Turkey and Iran. This is a serious challenge to Japanese ideology of getting out of Dark Age Asia and becoming a Western Great Power. As widely known, Japan was in the process of spectacular evolution from the Meiji revolution to the Taisho democracy. I mention this evolution in “New Year Question 2: The Legacy of Queen Victoria in East Asian History” and “A Radical Agenda for Japanese People.” Japan was a role model for both nations. Kemal Ataturk and Reza Pahlavi Ⅰ made a step toward rapid Westernization as Japan had done.
Turkish writing switched from Arabic characters to Roman alphabet. Turkey joins NATO and has been bidding for EU membership. Iran launched the White Revolution. Its country name means “the land of Aryans.” Clearly, Pahlavi shahs intended to distinguish their countries from backward Arab and Islamic neighbors. Japan differentiated itself from dormant Asians since the Opium War. Both Turkey and Iran followed exactly the same path of Japanese modernization.
However, the rise of Islamic radicals since the Iranian Revolution endangers Japanese values, and posing dreadful threats to Japanese national identity. Today, radicals are devastating Kemal’s dream that Turkey be firmly at the heart of Europe.
It is Japan’s shame to continue pretty boy diplomacy in the Middle East. Japan is a member of prestigious club of industrialized democracy. Therefore, Japan’s commitment to the Middle East must step up to the level of America and Europe. Historically, Japan has been the role model of modernization and enlightenment for Middle East nations. Theocrats, jihadists, terrorists, and rogue dictators are common enemy to the United States, Europe, and Japan. Therefore, it is Japan’s interest to act for Middle East reform along with America and Europe. Facts mentioned in this post substantiate that Japan’s pretty boy diplomacy in the Middle East is no pain and no gain.
It is widely believed among the Japanese public that Japan’s position in the Middle East is completely different from those of America and Europe. Those who argue like this, mention the following reasons. First, Japan is not involved in the clash of civilizations between Christian West and Islam Middle East. Second, Japan has been a disinterested power, and never pursued imperialist policy in this region. Third, people in the Middle East admire Japan as a non-imperialist economic giant. However, I am determined to refute such airy fairy ideas, and insist that Japan stop being a pretty boy in the Middle East. Furthermore, I advocate that Japan must be at the heart of the Western alliance to promote enlightenment and democracy, and defeat Islamic radicals who are spiritually indulged in Dark Age ideals.
Unfortunately, when Yasuyuki Aizawa, Representative of Peace On, insisted Japan continue pretty boy diplomacy as mentioned above at the forum, I raised my hand but had no chance to rebut his comment. Therefore, I am writing the following arguments.
Whether love or hate, Middle East nations glorify the West much more than Japan. In one of previous posts, entitled “Five Questions on Islamic Radicalism”, I quoted an article in Foreign Policy, “What Makes a Muslim Radical?” in web exclusive version of November 2006. In this article, both John Epostino, professor of religion and international affairs at the Wash School of Foreign Service, and Dalia Mogahed, Executive Director of Muslim Studies for the Gallup Organization, conclude that Muslims in the Middle East ―― whether radical or moderate ―― admire Western liberal democracy.
There is nothing strange that Middle East civil societies and think tanks establish close partnership with Western counterparts. This is a vital fact, and I mention it in a previous post “Is Middle East Democratization a Neocon Plot?” further in detail.
Quite importantly, anti-establishment activists find their places for exile in the West, not in Japan. From there, activists fight against super villains in their counties, in order to win freedom of their fellow citizens. You can name it. The Iraqi National Congress led by Ahmad Chalabi was in London. Reza Pahlavi lives near Washington, D.C. Mariam Rajavi is based in London, and so forth. Pro-democracy activists make an appeal to Western media, and explore close contacts with Western civil societies. Their admiration to the West is apparent when someone sees some cyberspace communities, such as Persian Journal. This is an online forum of progressive Iranian journalists and bloggers. However, this site is published in English. This indicates clearly that Iranian civil societies expect substantial physical and spiritual help from America and Europe. Unfortunately, I do not find such a compelling expectation to Japan among Middle East citizens.
Establishments also look America and Europe far more than Japan. Arab princes and millionaires spend their holidays for shopping and sightseeing in London, Paris, and New York rather than in Tokyo. This is quite strange because some areas in Tokyo are no less attractive than those in American and European major cities. In the past, people regarded Tokyo as the headquarters of the Japanese Corporation. Nothing else. But today, Tokyo has become one of the centers of pop culture. Thanks to this reputation, Foreign Minister Taro Aso insists on conducting anime diplomacy to prevail Japanese soft power. Despite such reputation, Middle East establishments prefer to visit American and European cities.
Apparently, Japan’s pretty boy diplomacy leaves extremely weak impression on both anti-establishments and establishments in the Middle East.
More importantly Japanese people must keep alert to threats posed by radical Muslims. In terms of ideology, they are natural enemy to Japan. This is because they have been defying modernization and enlightenment in Turkey and Iran. This is a serious challenge to Japanese ideology of getting out of Dark Age Asia and becoming a Western Great Power. As widely known, Japan was in the process of spectacular evolution from the Meiji revolution to the Taisho democracy. I mention this evolution in “New Year Question 2: The Legacy of Queen Victoria in East Asian History” and “A Radical Agenda for Japanese People.” Japan was a role model for both nations. Kemal Ataturk and Reza Pahlavi Ⅰ made a step toward rapid Westernization as Japan had done.
Turkish writing switched from Arabic characters to Roman alphabet. Turkey joins NATO and has been bidding for EU membership. Iran launched the White Revolution. Its country name means “the land of Aryans.” Clearly, Pahlavi shahs intended to distinguish their countries from backward Arab and Islamic neighbors. Japan differentiated itself from dormant Asians since the Opium War. Both Turkey and Iran followed exactly the same path of Japanese modernization.
However, the rise of Islamic radicals since the Iranian Revolution endangers Japanese values, and posing dreadful threats to Japanese national identity. Today, radicals are devastating Kemal’s dream that Turkey be firmly at the heart of Europe.
It is Japan’s shame to continue pretty boy diplomacy in the Middle East. Japan is a member of prestigious club of industrialized democracy. Therefore, Japan’s commitment to the Middle East must step up to the level of America and Europe. Historically, Japan has been the role model of modernization and enlightenment for Middle East nations. Theocrats, jihadists, terrorists, and rogue dictators are common enemy to the United States, Europe, and Japan. Therefore, it is Japan’s interest to act for Middle East reform along with America and Europe. Facts mentioned in this post substantiate that Japan’s pretty boy diplomacy in the Middle East is no pain and no gain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)