Key Person: From Grand Old Party to Grand New Party?

Sam’s Club Republican

Title: Various
Education: Various
United States

(Photo: “Sam’s Club Politics”; In These Times; May 30, 2008)


In this post, the person of focus is not a single individual. However, they are suitable to what is mentioned in the first post of this category, “This corner talks about specific person who advocates important agendas in international affairs, regardless of fame, power, popularity, and social status.” In a previous post, I have quoted a comment by Mara Liasson, saying that Senator John McCain’s presidential candidacy is due to the shift of Republican political base from Country Club Republicans to Sam’s Club Republicans. In other words, Republicans have begun to drawing attention from young and working class voters, through emphasizing social conservative values and active governmental involvement in social welfare.

Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota, is the first Republican to expand political power base beyond traditional sphere. Matthew Continetti, Associate Editor at the Weekly Standard, explores changes toward increasingly grassroots-oriented Republican Party (“Tooting the Horn of Pawlenty: Meet the first Sam's Club Republican”, Weekly Standard; May 7, 2007).

Continetti points out that younger generation between 18 to 29 years old are disillusioned with Bush Republicanism. In addition, he says that successful Republican governors these days――such as Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts――adopt conservatism à la carte policies. While emphasizing some conservative ideals like lower taxes, they are flexible to mix some “liberal” measures. Their policies combine social conservatism with active governmental assistance to working class.

In 2006 election, Democrats won the majority because younger voters were annoyed　with Country Club Republicans and chose Democrat candidates. The Republican Party regards this serious blow for the future, because the youth can continue to support the Democrat. In such a political climate, did Pawlenty’s slogan of “The Party of Sam’s Club” emerge.

Continetti concludes his article as the following.

Few people would deny that Tim Pawlenty is a man of the right. The problem is that it's becoming harder and harder to determine who or what is a "man of the right." The top three Republican presidential candidates--Giuliani, McCain, and Romney--all disagree with aspects of the movement-conservative agenda. Outside the South, successful Republican politicians have felt the need to move left in order to remain competitive. For all but diehard activists, the borders of conservatism are in flux. It's reasonable to assume that someday soon, after a haphazard and acrimonious process, those borders will be worked out. The question is just how much of what we think of as "conservatism" will be left.

Prior to this article, Ross Douthat, Associate Editor of the Atlantic Monthly, and Reihan Salem, freelance writer, present dedicated analyses of Sam’s Club voters (“The party of Sam’s Club”; Weekly Standard; November 14, 2005). They point out that the Bush administration’s enterprise-oriented socio-economic policies such as Social Security privatization. However, both authors argue that the majority of Republican supporters, consisted of social conservatives and pro-government conservatives are critical to big business, and they advocate governmental intervention to help families from the global economy.

In view of socio-economic changes, the Republican is transforming from a male corporate party to a female family party. In conclusion, Douthat and Salem make the following recommendation.

So today's Republican party should be in favor of helping recent immigrants get ahead and slowing the flow of illegal labor--in favor of providing a helping hand to the hard working poor and cutting subsidies to the idle and shiftless--in favor of a tax policy that favors the working class and the productive rich. Above all, it should be in favor of limited government, and in favor of using government's considerable power to shore up the institution that makes a limited government possible--the beleaguered but resilient American family.

Since then, Ross Douthat has contributed a post-scrip of this article (“The party of Sam’s Club”; Atlantic Monthly; May 8, 2008). He says that Senator John McCain and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee drew more votes than Congressman Ron Paul at the primary, because the GOP is changing from a country club party to a working class party. Many of them are skilled workers, and more affluent than the middle class such as teachers, journalists, and academics. They do not believe in a high tax welfare state, but advocate governmental assistance to maintain a family value society. They criticize corporate libertarianism like free trade.

In order to defeat Democrats relying on mass upper class and the poor, Douthat suggests that Republicans need to win some mass upper class votes along with working class. Therefore, the GOP must retain pro-Bush voters while drawing Sam’s Club supporters. This will be a key to McCain’s nomination of his running mate.

Adam Doster, Senior Editor at In These Times, applauds Douthat and Salem because their working class conservatism hits Democrat’s lack of moral value. However, Doster points out that Douthat and Salem fail to present insightful analyses on socio-economic inequality under the Bush administration. Adam Doster says that John McCain needs to address real working class conservatism （“Sam’s Club Politics”; In These Times; May 30, 2008）.

Sam’s Club Republicans will play a critical role in the presidential election this year. The media focus on Iraq, the War on Terror, and the Subprime mortgage. But grassroots movements are no less important in this election. Will the Grand New Party stimulate political dynamism of America?

Strength and Weakness of McCain and Obama

A British conservative journal, entitled the Spectator, publishes a special blog named Americano to present brief commentaries on US presidential election this year. On this blog, I found an interesting post, “If it's the economy it's Obama, if it's foreign policy it's McCain” (13 June, 2008).

Quoting a CNN poll released on June 12, James Forsyth, Web Editor of the Spectator, says “The poll finds that Obama leads McCain 50-44 on the economy, while McCain has a 54-43 advantage over Obama on foreign policy.” At this early stage, it is not of much use to speculate overall results, and determine which candidates are in a better position. Michael Dukakis led George H. W. Bush in June 1988, and John Kerry led George W. Bush in June 2004 (“Fat Lady Not Singing Yet (Except in California)”; The Plank=The New Republic’s Blog; June 12, 2008).

What I would like to argue is that voters do not trust Senator Barack Obama’s competence in foreign policy despite his wholehearted appeal for sooner withdrawal from Iraq. Senator John McCain’s 54 to 43 lead in foreign policy is substantial, compared with Obama’s 50 to 44 advantages in the economy. As I have mentioned in a previous pots, McCain has already discussed vital security issues with European and Middle Eastern leaders this March to commemorate the 5th anniversary of the Iraq War. Yoshiki Hidaka, Visiting Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and former Japanese journalist, often comments that McCain’s unyielding commitment to the Iraq War is widely respected among the public. Come to think of it, Robert Kagan, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, points out flip flop attitudes of Senator John F. Kerry and Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton on Iraq.

Now, I have a question. Is Barack Obama so well versed with the economy? He has not articulated his economic policy during the campaign at this stage. Those who chose Obama over McCain in the economy are simply frustrated with economic crises under the Bush administration such as the Subprime mortgage problem. But the economy will not improve through simply denouncing George W. Bush and the Republican Party. If the mortgage problem is so serious as pessimistic economists say, it must be resolved through multilateral policy coordination as seen in the Plaza-Louvre accord in late 1980s. In that case, Obama’s incompetence in foreign policy will be a critical disadvantage. While McCain has launched an initiative for a League of Democracies and talked with European leaders, Obama has not done anything. In addition, Japanese leaders are concerned with Obama’s pro-Chinese stances. Can Barack Obama really lead policy coordination among top industrialized democracies without winning sufficient trust? I doubt it.

More importantly, John McCain is not a carbon copy of current President Bush. In foreign policy, he is more interventionist, and not in favor of early Bush “humble diplomacy”. McCain is more active in cutting greenhouse gas emission. He draws more support from grassroots “Sam’s Club Republicans”, rather than relying on one of Bush’s political bases of “Country Club Republicans”.

Apparently, Barack Obama has not proven his competence and qualification for the President over John McCain. It is John McCain who is really capable of rearranging America’s partnership with Europe and Japan. The problem is the trend of low-information voters as the Economist’s blog “Democracy in America” says (“Which way for Obama and McCain?”; June 13, 2008).

In face of domestic and global challenges, America needs a Theodore Roosevelt, not a Jimmy Carter.

In any case, it is too early to foretell the result of this election. When both candidates select their running mates, prospects will be much clearer.

America’s New Strategy after Bush: A League of Democracies to Manage the Globe

American foreign policy is at crossroads. Presidential candidates talk of Iraq and the War on Terror. WMD non-proliferation, rogue states, and the rise of Sino-Russian illiberal capitalisms are also critical issues. In face of new challenges, the next President of the United States needs to re-strengthen strategic partnership with allies.

Adrian Wooldridge, Chief of Washington Bureau at the Economist, warns that current debates between both parties are preoccupied with the War on Terror and Iraq, and America is not well prepared to deal with challenges by China and Russia (“America and the World: After Bush”; The Economist; March 27, 2008). Despite these difficulties, he says that America still fascinates people around the world. Global citizens watch the presidential election closely, because its dynamism is very dramatic (“Special Report: America and the World”; Economist Interview; June 8, 2008).

The Republican candidate, Senator John McCain has launched a new initiative to create a League of Democracies, which will be the core of the American world order in this century. This idea is widely supported among leading policymakers from liberals to conservatives such as Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay, John Ikenberry and Anne-Marie Slaughter, Robert Kagan, and so forth. Can this initiative re-build US leadership, and help free nations stand against Russo-Chinese illiberal capitalism, rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and terrorists?

Let me review pro-con debates on a League of Democracies, and explore US relations with its allies after the Bush administration. A panel discussion, entitled “Is a League of Democracies a Good Idea?”, was held at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on May 29 this year. The discussion was moderated by Morton Halperin, Director of US Advocacy for the Open Society Institute, a public interest group founded by George Soros. Discussants for a League of Democracies are Ivo Daalder, Senior Fellow at the Brookings institution, and Tod Lindberg, Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Daalder is a foreign policy advisor and fundraiser to the Democrat candidate Senator Barack Obama, while Lindberg is a conservative policy analyst. This fact suggests extensive support for a League across ideological standpoints. On the other hand, Thomas Carothers, Vice President at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, refutes this idea, because democratic nations do not necessarily share common interests.

At the discussion, Thomas Carothers pointed out that the United States need to act with autocracies: Saudi Arabia, Gulf Arabs and Egypt for the War on Terror; China for North Korea, and Russia for Iran. Also, he mentioned that developing democracies like India, Brazil, and South Africa do not necessarily agree with US foreign policy. In addition, he says that European allies are not as enthusiastic with this idea as the United States.

On the other hand, Ivo Daalder argues that globalization and increasing interdependence has made dangers far away have immediate damages at home, even in a powerful state like the United States. Also, he says that existing international institutions are not efficient in promoting international cooperation to deal with new threats. However, he points out that democracies in Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world, are natural partners to the United States. Moreover, democracies together represent overwhelming majority of world wealth and military power. Therefore Daalder advocates the case for a Democracy League.

Tom Lindberg added his viewpoints. He says “The advantage of the United Nations is it’s a universal membership body. The disadvantage of the United Nations is that it’s a universal membership body. There are certain kinds of issues that you can only effectively address there and there are certain kinds of issues that you can never effectively address there because of the limitations that universal membership imposes on the nature of the dialogue.”

As mentioned by Daalder and Lindberg, a League of Democracies is expected to supplant existing international organization to some extent.

At the end of the event, Marc Plattner, Journal of Democracy, asked relations between a global NATO and a League of Democracies. Three discussants said this was a provocative question, as the Security Council of the United Nations is inefficient in many cases. Yet, no clear conclusion has been reached.

In a Carnegie Endowment Policy Brief, “Is a League of Democracies a good Idea?” (May 2008), Thomas Carothers criticizes this idea because democracies are not unanimous in their foreign policy, and the United States needs some strategic bargaining with non-democratic nations. However, he admits that the United States needs to rebuild credibility of its democracy promotion and foreign policy in general. Also, the rise of authoritarian powers poses serious troubles to democracies across the globe. Instead of trumpeting a grand initiative with strong ideological rhetoric, Carothers insists that the United States rebuild democracy promotion through quiet confidence-building measures, such as assisting democratic reform in authoritarian allies like Pakistan and Egypt, and strengthening democracy promotion in collaboration with existing multilateral institutions like the United Nations and regional organizations (See also another article by Thomas Carothers: “An Unwanted League”; Washington Post; May 28, 2008).

Carothers has right concerns that high-handed approaches for democracy promotion will provoke anti-American sentiments. The problem is, existing multilateral institutions cannot afford to manage new era challenges, and actions through these institutions are severely constrained by illiberal powers.

In order to understand why a League of Democracies is necessary, and how to reconstruct US leadership, I would like to mention two articles by Robert Kagan, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and his TV interview. Currently, Kagan is a foreign policy advisor to the Republican candidate Senator John McCain. It is noteworthy that both McCain advisor Robert Kagan and Obama advisor Ivo Daalder advocate US-led League of Democracies to manage global issues.

In his article to Financial Times (“The Case for a League of Democracies”; 13 May 2008), Kagan points out that the idea of a concert of democracies was invented by liberal internationalists, not Republicans. This idea is welcomed among some European leaders such as Danish Prime Minister Anders Rasmussen and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. Robert Kagan denies widespread misunderstandings that a League of Democracies supplant the United Nations. He says a concert of democracies is necessary when UN Security Council cannot act in case of humanitarian crises like Darfur and Kosovo. While Kagan refutes alarmist viewpoint that policy collaboration of democracies will cause a new cold war, he points out that ideological competition between Russo-Chinese authoritarianism and Western liberalism is already underway.

Then, how should our democracies deal with critical challenges? Robert Kagan points out that early post Cold War assumption has turned out to be wrong, despite the fall of communism. The global economy has not led to disappearance of nation states, and hard power is still no less important than soft power in international politics. Market economy in Russia and China has not resulted in political reform. Today, ideological and geopolitical rivalry between Western democracy and Russo-Chinese autocracy, and clashes between Islamic radicalism and modern enlightenment, constitute power structure of the world. As autocracy and Islamic radicalism pose threats to our liberal world order, Kagan insists the democracies unite firmly together. (“Is Democracies Winning?”; Prospect; May 2008)

In a TV interview, Kagan commented that authoritarian powers resist the spread of democracy because they are afraid of its influence in their territories. Also, geopolitical concerns matter, as shown in Russia’s objection to NATO expansion. Though Kagan argues for a common front of free nations, he agrees with Carothers that the United States not impress arrogant image in the process of founding a League of Democracies (“A Conversation with Robert Kagan”; Charlie Rose Show; May 15, 2008).

I believe that John McCain’s staunch advocacy for a united democracies against autocracy is a good sign, as European allies regarded early Bush humble diplomacy as somewhat go it alone isolationism. Can the United States reconstruct leadership with a new initiative? Further attention to the development of this idea is extremely crucial.

Procedure to Establish an Intermediate Incorporation

Today, I went to Tokyo Legal Affairs Bureau at Tanashi to apply for registration of intermediate incorporation so that I can strengthen current advocacy activity. I have mentioned this in a previous post, “At Tokyo Legal Affairs Bureau”.

Legal procedure is very complicated and time-consuming. Also, a revenue stamp is required for registration. Unfortunately, I had some expenditure and was not able to buy the stamp. Money is a real problem. I have not been able to attend international events recently.

The official at the Legal Affairs Bureau told me that he would check the articles of association, before I register for incorporation.

I hope things will go successfully. Also, I will be able to finance my travel abroad to attend international events. They are absolutely necessary to develop my advocacy with friends.

NATO’s Partnership with Pacific Nations: Toward a Global and Multilateral US-Japanese Alliance

In the post 9-11 world, NATO is exploring global security cooperation beyond the Euro-Atlantic region. In the Pacific area, four countries, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea, are named strategic partners. Among the above nations, Japan draws the highest expectations from Europeans. My fellow Japanese citizens, whether right or left, should take pride in this vital fact.

Currently NATO News Release has mentioned 7 times of senior official (including cabinet ministers) meetings for Japan, while 5 for Australia, 4 for New Zealand, and none for South Korea. For further understanding of security cooperation with Pacific nations, NATO quotes a keynote address by the Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and an article in NATO Review by Professor Masako Ikegami at Stockholm University in Sweden. In addition, the volume of information on Japan exceeds far more than those of other Pacific partners.

Such high expectations and unrivaled trust by Europeans are consequences of staunch US-Japanese alliance. The US-Japanese alliance is beyond a bilateral security deal. This is an anchor of postwar regime change in Japan, and a keystone of liberal democracy promotion from Hawaii to Suez. Despite constitutional constraints, Japan has been the most important ally in the Asia Pacific for the United States, particularly, providing the largest and the most sophisticated bases for US forces.

When Foreign Minister (then) Taro Aso visited NATO headquarters in Brussels on May 4 in 2006, he mentioned common values and ideals between Japan and NATO (See the transcript of his speech). So did Prime Minister (then) Shinzo Abe on his visit to Brussels headquarter on January 12, 2007 (See the video 1 and 2). Current Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda is going to Europe early next month to meet with British, German, French, and Italian leaders to prepare for the Lake Toya Summit. I hope he will also emphasize common strategic and ideal standpoints with European leaders.

In order to understand NATO-Japanese relations, let me talk about some references. Professor Masako Ikegami, Director of the Center for the Pacific Asia Studies at Stockholm University, advocates developing NATO-Japanese collaboration, because critical threats in East Asia pose unprecedented challenges to global security. In addition she expresses concerns with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (“NATO and Japan: Strengthening Asian Stability”; NATO Review; Summer 2007). Ikegami says Shinzo Abe’s arrival to NATO headquarters in January 2007, which is the first visit by Japanese prime minister, was an epoch making event.

Ikegami mentions that Japan has begun to get involved in non-combat operations with NATO members in the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea since 9-11. She says that NATO and Japan share common security agendas, such as the War on Terror, WMD non-proliferation in Asia, and the rise of illiberal powers led by China and Russia.

As NATO is transforming for operations beyond the Euro-Atlantic area, Japan needs to develop strategic collaboration with the Alliance. Ikegami points out that while the Cold War has already gone in Europe, there are still war frontlines in East Asia: the Korean Peninsula and the Taiwan Strait. NATO-Japan cooperation will help WMD non-proliferation in North Korea through the Khan Network. Regarding the Taiwan issue, she argues that NATO support will strengthen the United States and Japan against Chinese expansionism.

In addition, Masako Ikegami warns that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has the potential to become a main adversary to both Japan and NATO. Since 9-11, China and Russia has been upgrading SCO (current members: China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) to expand their influence in Central Asia, and challenge our liberal world order.

Ikegami presents the following recommendations to Japan and NATO, in order to manage those global and Pacific threats.

Steps for Japan:
1. Reinforce US-Japanese security cooperation;
2. Increase partnership with NATO to ensure credible deterrence;
3. Improve the international security environment by increasing support to peacekeeping operations;
4. Contribute to peacemaking with economic and humanitarian aid; and
5. remain firmly committed to international arms control and disarmament schemes.

Steps for NATO:
1. Active partnership for global "security-making" with countries that share fundamental Euro-Atlantic values; and
2. Association for the purposes of engagement and confidence-building with countries that do not adhere to Alliance principles, but are nevertheless significant actors in international or regional security.

Under such a scheme, Japan would fit into the first category, while Russia (or eventually China, if invited) could fit into the second. NATO could thus enhance confidence-building measures with some countries, while acting more vigorously for conflict-prevention with those close partners that share basic Euro-Atlantic values and commitments.

For this objective, Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer visited Japan on December 13 and 14 last year. At the press conference, Secretary General Hoop Scheffer mentioned NATO’s partnerships with Ukraine, Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Middle East in the post Cold War era.
Regarding NATO-Japan relations, the Secretary General pointed out that Japanese help was indispensable for NATO operations in the Balkans. He expressed high expectations for Japan as an important member of the G-8 and the second largest economy. The most important issue between Japan and NATO is Afghanistan. As I have mentioned in the previous post on the Bucharest Meeting, success in Afghanistan will be an important step for NATO activities beyond the Euro Atlantic area.

Currently, debates on the anti terrorism special measures law at the Japanese diet has been suspended. Hoop Scheffer was cautious enough not to provoke constitutional arguments between Japanese ruling party and the opposition. To my regret, both sides spend too much time on meaningless debates about legal details and definition of a vague word international cooperation. Policy debate should be more concrete. NATO’s success in Afghanistan is Japan’s vital national interest.

Also, I must refute isolationists’ argument that Japan stand aloof from the West, because people in the Islamic world cherish good images to Japanese as opposed to imperialist Americans and Europeans. However, a previous post, entitled “Five Questions on Islamic Radicalism”, proves they are wrong.

Apparently, Japan should be at the heart of the Western alliance. Like it or not, the Japanese has been enjoying the privilege of honorary white status thanks to the US-Japanese alliance. Never forget this in the era of a global US-Japanese alliance.

Photo: Japanese Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba meets with General Raymond Henault (Canada), NATO Chairman of the Military Committee on January 16 this year, at the Japanese Ministry of Defense (by NATO).

Britain and France Step towards the New Atlantic Century

The Anglo-French Summit on March 26 and 27 in London will be a landmark in the future of the Atlantic alliance. As shown in the Franco-American relations, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has impressed his willingness to develop strategic partnership with Anglo-Saxon powers.

Throughout the postwar era, Britain and France have been frequently at odds in many issues on global security, Atlantic diplomacy, European integration, and so forth. Meanwhile, Germany and France have shed World War hostility dramatically. The Anglo-French strategic partnership will change interactions among major Atlantic powers: the United States, Britain, France, and Germany. As British Conservative Party Leader David Cameron said at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Europe has to make substantial commitment to develop the Atlantic alliance furthermore, which cannot be achieved through efforts by a couple of European nations. However, close Anglo-French defense initiative will stimulate active European involvement in global security. At the NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, France has reintegrated itself to NATO military command structure.

In order to symbolize friendship between Britain and France, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and President Nicolas Sarkozy visited the Emirates Stadium which is the home of Arsenal FC, a soccer team of the English Premier League (See the video). Prior to Sarkozy’s visit to London, the Economist talked about the dawn of new Anglo-French relations. His declaration to send more troops to Afghanistan pleased British opinion leaders. Unlike his Gaullist predecessors, Sarkozy does not push Euro-skeptic Britain hard to commit to ESDP (the European Security and Defence Policy) over NATO (“Anglo-French Relations: An Entente in London”; March 19, 2008).

John K. Glenn, Director of Foreign Policy at the German Marshall Fund, concludes his survey that America and Europe are nonetheless converging on some issues, principally on the threats that face them. Europeans are more alarmed than they were about Islamist fundamentalism, for example, and America is waking up to global warming. And he notes that on some questions about the use of force France is as close to America as Britain is. (“Britain and America: Anglo-Saxon Attitudes”; Economist; March 27, 2008)

Though new Atlanticism is under attack by the Socialists at home (“France and Defence: Gaullist No More?”; Economist; April 3, 2008), Sarkozy does not simply respond to pressure from the United States, Britain, Canada, and the Netherland.　

Charles Grant and Tomas Valasek, Director and Director of Foreign Policy and Defence at the Centre for European Reform respectively, point out practical motivations of Nicolas Sarkoy’s pro-American, British, and NATO policy. Through full NATO membership and sending troops in Afghanistan, France can achieve symbolic and geopolitical success. France has been exploring to expand EU role in European defense, but Given the limited quantities of personnel and equipment that European governments can provide, NATO and the EU need to work more closely together. Under Chirac, French officials often blocked such co-operation; now they encourage it.” Both Britain and America welcomes his decision (“Sarkozy's bold European defence initiative”; Financial Times; 24 March, 2008).

At the press conference, Prime Minister Gordon Brown concluded this summit as the following.

Together, we will address the challenges of this new global era. Together, we are well placed to do so. Our two countries are at the heart of what we want to be: an outward-looking and globally-focused Europe. We both favour a strong relationship with our American partners. We agree that only by working together can we confront the challenges we face from terrorism, climate change, poverty, disease and failed states. We have agreed that we will deepen and strengthen the partnership between our two countries. We will turn the entente cordiale into the entente amicale in the following ways of working together in the future.

Tomas Valasek at the Centre for European Reform analyzes the reality behind President Sarkozy’s quest for improving relations with Britain and the United States in a recent policy brief (“France, NATO, and European Defence”; Centre for European Reform; 12 May 2008). France had been insisting that the EU should play more active role in European security since the launch of ESDP at the meeting between President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Tony Blair in St Malo in 1998. However, both Britain and the United States have been in favor of NATO supremacy over the EU, as far as security issues are concerned.

However, the Sarkozy administration has changed approaches, instead of provoking defense policy rivalry between NATO and the EU. Valasek argues the following.

Sarkozy does not share Chirac’s penchant for competing with America, and he and his team are more keenly aware of the insecurity around Europe’s borders. So they have essentially told NATO that France will stop playing politics with defence, and that both the EU and NATO should get on with the job of building and operating military forces.

Valasek points out that Sarkozy wants France to be at the heart of NATO rather than to stay outside of US led Atlantic security organization. This is why he visited London to　advance relations with Britain, and declared to rejoin NATO command structure and send forces to Afghanistan at the Bucharest Summit of the Atlantic alliance. In other words, President Sarkozy explores to expand French influence on trans-Atlantic security, not thinks of subordinating to Britain and America. Remember this, anti-Anglo-Saxon politicians!

In return, Valasek recommends that Britain agree with France to strengthen EU defense policy.

Regardless of the Atlantic command structure, both Britain and France are developing next generation aircraft carriers (CVF or Future Aircraft Carriers for Britain, and PA2 or Porte-Avions No2 for France) through a joint venture. This project is a Concorde of the 21st century. For detail, see the following links to British MoD (1, 2, and 3). Also, Navy Matters, an affiliated website of UK National Defence Association, tells further in detail about CVF projects in both countries. This site is also linked to some useful sources in French.

The Brown-Sarkozy summit is an important step of the Atlantic security for the future. Europe can get out of post-modern daydream, and confront critical threats to our liberal world order. A new Anglo-French entente will lead Europe to the new era.

Picture: Sarkozy se joindra à la ligue d’Anglo-Saxon? (“Britain and America: Anglo-Saxon Attitudes”; Economist; March 27, 2008)

Red China or Mad China？: Tibet, Olympic, and Repressive Regime

Controversies over the Beijing Olympic and Tibet have been intensifying day by day as freedom activists all over the world protest against the torch relay. Facing harsh criticism by conscientious global citizens, the Beijing authority decided to mobilize Chinese people to overwhelm pro-Tibet protesters with a sheer number of Communist supporters.

In Canberra, Nagano, and Seoul, a huge flock of Red Chinese surrounded pro-Tibet activists on the street, and imposed substantial psychological pressure on freedom fighters. When I saw these bizarre flocks of Chinese carrying the Red Flag, those scenes chilled my spine. How can the Chinese government mobilize such centrally controlled street activists against freedom fighters? Although those Red Chinese did not punch or kick against pro-Tibet activists, that sort of intimidation is nothing but a kind of violence. It reminds me of an Orwellian world. A dreadful behavior like that should never be accepted as an act of patriotism! It turned out that China is a backward and dangerous state despite seemingly rapid modernization.

Think again. When the United States and Britain faced vehement criticism on the Iraq War, both governments never ordered their citizens to go to the street and protest against antiwar activists. Even the Soviet Union did not do so, when it was blamed for invading Afghanistan. It has become apparent that current China is a dreadfully authoritarian society, and in the midst of the Dark Age.

In order to discuss backwardness and repressiveness of China, I would like to refer to some authors. What terrifies me most is that China had been assuming itself the supreme nation in the world until defeated by the British gunfire in the Opium War. Throughout the history, Chinese Emperors imposed the “ce feng” system all over East Asia, and had been demanding monarchs there to show loyalty to China. Having been defeated by the Royal Navy, the lord of the universe in the Confucian world order accepted the Westphalian regime. Has China become sufficiently modern since then? It is absolutely essential to understand the nature of current regime in China when we talk about freedom in Tibet.

Robert Kagan, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, casts doubt to a widespread opinion among China watchers that the West accept this country as a “responsible stakeholder” (“Behind the ‘Modern’ China”; Washington Post; March 23, 2008). Kagan criticizes the idea that growing middle class would lead China to liberalization of politics and adaptation to the global economy. He calls it a self-interested wishful thinking of commerce-oriented Western businessmen, because autocrats are simply interested in holding their power and they use money earned from global business to repress Tibet and threaten Taiwan.

Also, Kagan rejects the idea of building the East Asian Community. Europeans respect local ethnic minorities such as Catalans in Spain, Flemish in Belgium, and Scottish in Britain. To the contrary, Chinese Communists have no hesitation to impose their authority on Tibet, Taiwan, and Xinjian. Also, I would like to mention that Chinese leaders force their neighbors such as South Korea and Japan to accept their evaluation of Asia history.

Robert Kagan points out that autocrats want to keep the world safe for their own at least, which is incompatible with desire of Western leaders to keep the world safe for democracies. Therefore, Kagan argues that it is wrong to think of integrating China into our liberal world order.

How do Chinese leaders see their country and their position in the world? Wang Jisi, Dean of the School of International Studies at Beijing University and Director of the Institute of International Strategic Studies at the Central Party School of the Communist Party of China, comments that national interests of China and the United States are so intertwined that mutual cooperation is the best way for both countries, though he does not expect a true Sino-American friendship. Also, Wang admits that US hegemony cannot be overturned for a long time (“China’s Search for Stability with America”; Foreign Affairs; September/October 2005).

However, Wang Jisi points out that post 9-11 security in the world and increasing mutual dependence in the economy has led the United States and China to explore closer strategic cooperation, though both nations do not expect real friendship each other. Despite difficulty in improving the relationship with the United States, Wang insists that it is Beijing’s interest to pursue closer ties with Washington to modernize China, because the United States is the global leader in economics, education, culture, technology, and science.

Despite modest tone of this article, Wang asserts that the Taiwan issue is a domestic problem. As he is in a top position of foreign policymaking in the Communist Party, it is apparent how Chinese leaders think of ethnic minorities in Tibet, Xinjian Uighur, and Inner Mongolia. Actually, he does not mention anything about reforms of political and civil liberties in China. Wang simply talks of gains from business transactions and strategic bargaining with the United States. This means that Chinese leaders are not interested in real modernization but superficial renewal. A state like this shall never be acceptable to our liberal world order.

Freedom House has launched the “China and Olympic” advocacy activity to condemn the decision to hold the Beijing Olympic by the International Olympic Committee. This site is linked to numerous useful articles, reports, and press releases. Let me have a brief look at “Ten Things You Should Know about China” by Freedom House. I will mention a couple of points among them.

2) China imprisons more journalists than any other country in the world.
The media must mention this more frequently than ever.

5) 65 crimes in China carry the death penalty.
Capital punishment itself is no surprise for me, because some states in America and whole Japan still retain it. The problem is the following.

The Chinese justice system has a number of other problems. Torture is often used to induce confessions, judges lack independence, and a lack of media freedom means that the press is unable to hold the judiciary accountable.

Regarding the Olympic and Tibet:
7) Tibetan Buddhists, Christians, Muslims and practitioners of other religions face frequent harassment.

Though constitutionally recognized, religious freedom is given little respect in China. All religious groups are required to register with the government, and while officially sanctioned groups are tolerated, members of unauthorized religious groups, such as Falun Gong, are harassed, detained and imprisoned in brutal conditions.

In Tibet, religious freedom is strictly limited by the Chinese government. While some religious practices are tolerated, officials forcibly suppress activities viewed as vehicles for political dissent or advocacy of Tibetan independence. Possession of pictures of the Dalai Lama can lead to imprisonment, and Religious Affairs Bureaus continue to control who can study religion in Tibet. Only boys who sign a declaration rejecting Tibetan independence, expressing loyalty to the Chinese government, and denouncing the Dalai Lama are allowed by Chinese officials to become monks.

In conclusion, I would suggest that we call this country Mad China, instead of Red China. I have not been so radical as to reject products of made in China until quite recently, but I may have to start a China free life from now on. Finally, I would request the Smithsonian Museum not to sell merchandises made in China at the souvenir shop. If you need something inexpensive, you can buy them from Mexico. The hall of American spirit should not be dirtied by a mad regime.