While American conservatives worry about President-Elect Barack Obama’s new socialist motherland America, new capitalist motherlands of Russia and China pose far more critical challenges to global security. The clash between our liberal capitalism and their illiberal capitalism will be no less important than threats of Islamic radicals. President Bush has made substantial efforts to tackle dangers posed by Muslim terrorists, but it seems that the Russo-Chinese challenge has been left unconstrained. It is becoming increasingly important to understand the nature of their defiance to our liberal world order.
Bobo Lo, Director of Russia and China Programme at the Centre for European Reform in London, examines foreign policy of Russia and China in “Ten things everyone should know about the Sino-Russian relationship” (Policy Brief; Centre for European Reform; December 2008). He was the Deputy Head of the Mission at the Australian Embassy in Moscow. Lo articulates that Russia and China have contrasting national interests and values. Also, he insists that the Russo-Chinese partnership will not harm Western interests, because both nations are more interested in engaging with the West than with each other.
Lo criticizes neoconservative agenda that Western liberal democracies unite against the rise of Russo-Chinese authoritarianism. He even makes an analogy between this agenda and Marxist slogan of united international proletariats. To the contrary, Lo says that Russia and China do not share common interests in authoritarian alliance.
Let me review 10 points mentioned by Bobo Lo. He admits that bilateral economic relations are expanding, and security cooperation is developing rapidly. However, Lo points out that Russia is just one of the markets and natural resource suppliers for China. For Russia, China accounts for a tiny portion of its total amount of trade. Also, in security, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is not enthusiastically endorsed by the government of both countries.
Rather, Lo argues that both Russia and China are keenly interested in developing relations with the West, despite bitter rhetoric against American hegemony. Both Russia and China trade more with the West than each other. In addition, both Russia and China see the West as a model for their economic development despite recent financial crisis.
As the Chinese economy has been growing rapidly since late 1980s, the relation with Russia is becoming increasingly unequal. Though Russia has recovered from disruptive economy during the Yeltsin era, its economy is dependent on natural resources, and technological lag lowers its global competitiveness.
Lo also points out that Russia and China are competitors as well as partners in Central Asia. Sometimes, they unite against the West, while they confront each other in some cases.
The most importantly, Bobo Lo argues that Russia and China have different visions of the world. While Russia envisions its unique role to bridge the East (China) and the West (the United States), China regards Russia as a secondary great power along with Japan, India, and the EU in a world of rivalry against the United States. While Russian nationalism is confrontational to the West, China emphasizes “peaceful rise” or “harmonious world”. China is so cautious that it does not pursue a multilateral order so as not to provoke its indispensable partner, the United States.
A former Australian diplomat in Moscow, Bobo Lo presents invaluable insights on the nature of the Russo-Chinese challenge. Particularly, different visions of the world between Russia and China are important. However, his viewpoints seem to be quite liberal. Whatever their intentions are, both nations develop critical arsenals to defy American or Western supremacy. Russia has deployed Bulava SLBM while the United States has stopped producing new nuclear weapons. China succeeded in anti-satellite missile test.
Remember! Germany under Otto von Bismarck kept friendly relationship of common German blood with Britain under the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty. However, Kaiser fought against Britain, with forces built up by Bismarck. We have to be careful to the Russo- Chinese challenge.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Meeting with a CSR Official of ACCJ
It is a long time since I posted the last article to this blog. I have been suffering from cough and sore throat these days. I had an important business to advance my advocacy activity during this long halt to publish Global American Discourse.
I met an official who is in charge of corporate social responsibility (CSR) at the American Chambers of Commerce in Japan (ACCJ) on January 6. As a matter of fact, I know very little about CSR. I learned this word when I joined a social networking service, called the Fundraising Net, this autumn. This SNS is sponsored by the Society of Endorsing Activities by Citizens (SEAs). I told this frankly to Ms Patricia Bader-Johnston, who spared time to see me on that day.
Ms. Bader-Johnston outlined the structure of social activities by ACCJ. I hope this post will be of some help for those who seriously consider launching their own public interest activities. She told me that ACCJ’s social activities are classified into two categories, that is, government relations and CSR relations. Government relations section invites top officials, experts, and businesspersons from Japanese public and private sectors, in order to discuss US-Japanese relations from global, bilateral, and domestic perspectives. CSR relation section focuses on more civic oriented initiatives. ACCJ has been engaged in global warming, labor diversity, and some Japanese domestic issues such as youngsters out of regular style employment. According to Ms. Bader-Johnston, domestic problems like this are somewhat similar to those in the United States and across the globe.
ACCJ welcomes voluntary speakers who set their own agenda for the panel discussion. Therefore, I would like to recommend those who are interested in CSR assistance by ACCJ to contact the person in charge.
One word she said, SRI (Socially Responsible Investment), is impressive. Actually, SEAs often mentions something similar to this concept. I agree that too many NGOs and civil societies are hostile to business and the global economy. They forget that their prosperity depends on liberal order of global political economy.
If you have a message to the public in Japan and across the globe, why don’t you tell it to ACCJ? You can find some ways to develop your involvement to the world.
I met an official who is in charge of corporate social responsibility (CSR) at the American Chambers of Commerce in Japan (ACCJ) on January 6. As a matter of fact, I know very little about CSR. I learned this word when I joined a social networking service, called the Fundraising Net, this autumn. This SNS is sponsored by the Society of Endorsing Activities by Citizens (SEAs). I told this frankly to Ms Patricia Bader-Johnston, who spared time to see me on that day.
Ms. Bader-Johnston outlined the structure of social activities by ACCJ. I hope this post will be of some help for those who seriously consider launching their own public interest activities. She told me that ACCJ’s social activities are classified into two categories, that is, government relations and CSR relations. Government relations section invites top officials, experts, and businesspersons from Japanese public and private sectors, in order to discuss US-Japanese relations from global, bilateral, and domestic perspectives. CSR relation section focuses on more civic oriented initiatives. ACCJ has been engaged in global warming, labor diversity, and some Japanese domestic issues such as youngsters out of regular style employment. According to Ms. Bader-Johnston, domestic problems like this are somewhat similar to those in the United States and across the globe.
ACCJ welcomes voluntary speakers who set their own agenda for the panel discussion. Therefore, I would like to recommend those who are interested in CSR assistance by ACCJ to contact the person in charge.
One word she said, SRI (Socially Responsible Investment), is impressive. Actually, SEAs often mentions something similar to this concept. I agree that too many NGOs and civil societies are hostile to business and the global economy. They forget that their prosperity depends on liberal order of global political economy.
If you have a message to the public in Japan and across the globe, why don’t you tell it to ACCJ? You can find some ways to develop your involvement to the world.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
President Bush and His Legacy for America and the World
President George W. Bush will complete his two term presidency on January 20. Some people applaud an Iraqi journalist who threw a shoe at President Bush. It is utterly stupid to “bow down and praise such one.” George W. Bush has tackled to resolve critical issues which his predecessor Bill Clinton left unsettled, including Iraq and Al Qaeda. Also, Clinton shares some responsibilities with Bush, regarding recent global economic crisis. Without understanding Bush presidency, we fail to evaluate the incoming president Barack Hussein Obama. Those who do not simply want to hail the messiah to laud Obama “our savior, our savior”, let’s explore America in the Bush era.
David Frum, Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, points out eight achievements Bush has made (“Eight Facts That Burnish Bush’s Record”; On the Issue; December 2008).
1) New Strategic partnership with India:
It presents geopolitical advantage for the United States in the War on Terror and rivalry against illiberal capitalisms such as Russia and China.
2) US-Iraqi status of forces agreement:
Iraqi parliament approved this, and a longtime enemy to the West since the 1960s has become a key US ally in the Middle East.
3) Start to promote democracy in the Middle East:
Libya stopped antagonism against the West. Saudi Arabia and Gulf states toughened regulation against terrorists’ money laundering.
4) Prevention of further terrorist attacks:
There has been no Islamic terrorist attack since 9/11 in 2001 in the United States. Also, radical Muslim attack stopped in Europe since 2005.
5) Latin America stability:
The United States helped Colombia defeat domestic insurgency, and Mexico conduct the second multiparty presidential election.
6) National prescription of drug program:
This enables the elderly to receive medications they need.
7) Nuclear power industry:
Bush endorsed to build new nuclear reactors since 1970, which cut oil consumption about 10% since 2005.
8) Muslim rights:
Only 6% of Muslims in the United States experienced verbal abuse in two months after 9/11. Furthermore, Bush appointed Muslim American, Zalamy Khalizad to the ambassador to the United Nations.
Most of them are related to Islamic terrorism and the Middle East democracy. No. 7 is the issue anyone cannot dismiss. Liberals and anti-Americanists across the globe blame the Iraq War, because they think the Bush administration invaded Iraq for oil industry. Their claim does not make sense, as oil consumption declined because of nuclear boost.
In December, President Bush visited AEI for informal conversation about his presidential job. This was moderated by AEI President-then Christopher De Muth, and published by AEI(“A Conversation with President Bush”; AEI Online; December 18, 2008).
The President talked primarily on domestic issues such as tax cuts and health care. Although the economic crisis at the end of his presidential term has pushed approval rate for the Republican precipitously downward, President Bush talked proudly of 52 month uninterrupted job growth as a result of his tax cut. Regarding his health care policy, George W. Bush trumpets his market-oriented approach, which empowers individuals to make decisions for themselves. Bush expressed his strong belief that the market represents a free society.
In foreign policy, President Bush talked about the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush articulated that the war is a struggle of ideology between liberty and hatred. This is a vital point to understand why we must defeat Islamic terrorism.
Also, Bush talked a lot on Russia. Despite differences on Georgia, the President insists that the United States and Russia share common agendas, particularly in nuclear non-proliferation. Bush stressed that United States will continue to cooperate with Russia to ensure that rogue regimes and terrorists shall never acquire raw materials to make nuclear bombs.
After leaving the White House, George W. Bush will launch an initative to promote freedom and assist community development across the globe. Bush raises a concern that America is becoming isolationist. I agree to this view. During the last presidential election, the media and voters focused too much on domestic issues while the American world order is at crossroads now. It is such isolationism that helped Barack Hussein Obama over John Sidney McCain.
This article is a must read to understand the Bush presidency, because it is entirely written in his words without ill-intentioned media bias. You don’t have to bow down and praise George W. Bush. Just read it, and think by yourself.
Contrary to widely believed, Robert Kagan, senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, regards Bush as a realist (“The September 12 Paradigm”; Foreign Affairs; September/October, 2008). Kagan points out that the Bush administration disdained rule based approach of Clintonite diplomacy, because international agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol, the Comprehensive Teat Ban Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, did not work well. Kagan says that the Bush team pursued America’s own national interests, rather than the role of hegemony.
In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush had changed into an interventionist. Robert Kagan comments homeland security expanded into more expansive and aggressive strategy when the Iraq War began. Unfortunately, European allies did not share America’s concern with Islamic radicals and sense of urgency to topple Saddam Hussein.
Despite the rift on Iraq, America’s relations with key allies in Europe, the Pacific, and the Middle East remain strong, as Kagan says.
The media that boosted Barack Obama are liable to report as if current president undermined America’s position in the world. This is too simplistic. Many policies during the Bush era were to resolve ineffectual outcomes under the Clinton administration. Some of them, like free trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea, are continuation of Clinton policies. I never advocate “bow down and praise” to President George W. Bush. However, a fair evaluation of Bush is absolutely essential to watch Incoming President Barack Obama. Don’t hail him the Messiah.
David Frum, Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, points out eight achievements Bush has made (“Eight Facts That Burnish Bush’s Record”; On the Issue; December 2008).
1) New Strategic partnership with India:
It presents geopolitical advantage for the United States in the War on Terror and rivalry against illiberal capitalisms such as Russia and China.
2) US-Iraqi status of forces agreement:
Iraqi parliament approved this, and a longtime enemy to the West since the 1960s has become a key US ally in the Middle East.
3) Start to promote democracy in the Middle East:
Libya stopped antagonism against the West. Saudi Arabia and Gulf states toughened regulation against terrorists’ money laundering.
4) Prevention of further terrorist attacks:
There has been no Islamic terrorist attack since 9/11 in 2001 in the United States. Also, radical Muslim attack stopped in Europe since 2005.
5) Latin America stability:
The United States helped Colombia defeat domestic insurgency, and Mexico conduct the second multiparty presidential election.
6) National prescription of drug program:
This enables the elderly to receive medications they need.
7) Nuclear power industry:
Bush endorsed to build new nuclear reactors since 1970, which cut oil consumption about 10% since 2005.
8) Muslim rights:
Only 6% of Muslims in the United States experienced verbal abuse in two months after 9/11. Furthermore, Bush appointed Muslim American, Zalamy Khalizad to the ambassador to the United Nations.
Most of them are related to Islamic terrorism and the Middle East democracy. No. 7 is the issue anyone cannot dismiss. Liberals and anti-Americanists across the globe blame the Iraq War, because they think the Bush administration invaded Iraq for oil industry. Their claim does not make sense, as oil consumption declined because of nuclear boost.
In December, President Bush visited AEI for informal conversation about his presidential job. This was moderated by AEI President-then Christopher De Muth, and published by AEI(“A Conversation with President Bush”; AEI Online; December 18, 2008).
The President talked primarily on domestic issues such as tax cuts and health care. Although the economic crisis at the end of his presidential term has pushed approval rate for the Republican precipitously downward, President Bush talked proudly of 52 month uninterrupted job growth as a result of his tax cut. Regarding his health care policy, George W. Bush trumpets his market-oriented approach, which empowers individuals to make decisions for themselves. Bush expressed his strong belief that the market represents a free society.
In foreign policy, President Bush talked about the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush articulated that the war is a struggle of ideology between liberty and hatred. This is a vital point to understand why we must defeat Islamic terrorism.
Also, Bush talked a lot on Russia. Despite differences on Georgia, the President insists that the United States and Russia share common agendas, particularly in nuclear non-proliferation. Bush stressed that United States will continue to cooperate with Russia to ensure that rogue regimes and terrorists shall never acquire raw materials to make nuclear bombs.
After leaving the White House, George W. Bush will launch an initative to promote freedom and assist community development across the globe. Bush raises a concern that America is becoming isolationist. I agree to this view. During the last presidential election, the media and voters focused too much on domestic issues while the American world order is at crossroads now. It is such isolationism that helped Barack Hussein Obama over John Sidney McCain.
This article is a must read to understand the Bush presidency, because it is entirely written in his words without ill-intentioned media bias. You don’t have to bow down and praise George W. Bush. Just read it, and think by yourself.
Contrary to widely believed, Robert Kagan, senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, regards Bush as a realist (“The September 12 Paradigm”; Foreign Affairs; September/October, 2008). Kagan points out that the Bush administration disdained rule based approach of Clintonite diplomacy, because international agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol, the Comprehensive Teat Ban Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, did not work well. Kagan says that the Bush team pursued America’s own national interests, rather than the role of hegemony.
In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush had changed into an interventionist. Robert Kagan comments homeland security expanded into more expansive and aggressive strategy when the Iraq War began. Unfortunately, European allies did not share America’s concern with Islamic radicals and sense of urgency to topple Saddam Hussein.
Despite the rift on Iraq, America’s relations with key allies in Europe, the Pacific, and the Middle East remain strong, as Kagan says.
The media that boosted Barack Obama are liable to report as if current president undermined America’s position in the world. This is too simplistic. Many policies during the Bush era were to resolve ineffectual outcomes under the Clinton administration. Some of them, like free trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea, are continuation of Clinton policies. I never advocate “bow down and praise” to President George W. Bush. However, a fair evaluation of Bush is absolutely essential to watch Incoming President Barack Obama. Don’t hail him the Messiah.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
It Is Obama, Not America, That Has Really Changed
President-Elect Barack Obama has virtually completed top officials for his cabinet. This is an extraordinarily rapid pace. It is noteworthy that one of the most leftist Democrats at the Senate is changing into the President of a centrist administration. Why has Obama changed so drastically?
Apparently, conservatives were infuriated with newly elected Obama just after the election. See the video below at John McCain’s concession speech. McCain is soothing his supporters’ utmost anger toward Obama, a radical liberal President-Elect.
Their outrage could have some influence on Obama. The President-Elect takes ideological and racial balance into account as he selects his cabinet members. As show in the table below, Obama’s transition is unprecedentedly rapid.
Also, I would like to show a list of cabinet candidates in the Obama administration through this link.
The Wall Street Journal points out some characteristics of the Obama administration. While the Bush team included top corporate executives from aluminum, railroad, and financial industries, the Obama team is largely devoid of business experience. Also, Obama has given key cabinet posts to those who are unfamiliar to him.
This is noticeable among his appointees to national security posts. His Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was the archrival for Democrats’ presidential nomination. Secretary of Defense Appointee Robert Gates is a member of the Bush cabinet. He has served a couple of Republican presidents, including George W. Bush. National Security Advisor James Jones worked for John McCain for in the past, and he still has close ties with the Republican candidate in the last presidential election. In other words, this is something like appointing John McCain to one position in Obama’s cabinet.
On the other hand, Obama’s liberal loyalists were appointed to lesser positions. Homosexual rights, labor, and environmental activists failed to obtain key positions, such as Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Labor, and Secretary of Environment.
Democrat activists do not complain Obama’s personnel choice in public. However, it is apparent that those who bowed and praised their savior Obama have been betrayed (“Obama Sets Fast Pace for Transition”; Wall Street Journal; December 22, 2008).
The Economist comments positively about balanced selection of cabinet members by Barack Obama. However, it raises concerns, “The trouble is that pulling in so many big names may, in time, produce rivalries that Mr. Obama will have difficulty reconciling.” (“Barack Obama: A well-stocked cabinet”; Economist; December 22, 2008)
Shortly after the election, Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton left a similar comment in his article. Bolton advises Obama as the following (“Letter to the President-Elect”; AEI Online; November 13, 2008 & also, in Daily Telegraph; November 5, 2008).
Although President George W. Bush tried to make this his mantra, his administration was plagued in its first term by incoherence in national security decision-making. Crisp decisions were not made, strong differences of opinion among cabinet secretaries were not resolved, and policy too often oscillated between conflicting options with no consistency or direction.
Ironically, the Bush administration's second term erred in the opposite direction, almost eliminating differences in advice to the president until there was only one voice in his ear at critical points. You must avoid both pitfalls, and you must make that immediately clear. You must resolve disagreements among your advisers, not allow drift, and insist on discipline once you make a decision.
Yoshihisa Komori, Chief of Washington Bureau at Sankei Shimbun, points out that Barack Obama was judged the most radical liberal as a Senator by AFL-CIO (“Barack Obama’s Bright Side and Dark Side #7”; Stage-kaze Hastu; December 20, 2008).
How could he convert himself into centrist? Despite longtime experience in Washington, Komori has not found the clue to this question (“The Prospect of the Obama Administration”; December 11, 2008). I understand his puzzlement. Obama’s primary agenda is the economy, and in this area, his selection is heavily dependent on Clintonites. Komori wonders why Obama included Clintonites and Republicans in his team. Is Obama confident in addressing his own agenda of radical leftism even though he needs help by Republicans and Clintonites? Partly, it is true. But I think Obama needs help beyond his creed because he has only 3 year experience at the Senate. This implies that Obama does not have strong personal contacts to manage Washington politics.
Seemingly smooth, Obama’s transition faces difficulties in appointment of some positions. The CIA Director is a key post in the War on Terror. However, due to clashes between CIA officials and liberals who denounce Bush policies on Guantánamo prisoners (“Obama Faces CIA Appointment Dilemma”; Washington Independent; December 12, 2008), Obama has not appointed anyone to the CIA Director yet (“No One Wants to Be CIA Director Thanks To Bush”; Washington Independent; December 30, 2008).
It is Obama, not America, that has really changed. John McCain was right to soothe his supporters during the campaign that there was nothing to worry if Obama was elected. Now, the 3 year boy is leaning what the President of the United States is. This is an OJT. Will the world test Obama in 6 month as Vice President-Elect Joseph Biden said? In such a case, it is Biden himself who tutors the Boy Obama.
Apparently, conservatives were infuriated with newly elected Obama just after the election. See the video below at John McCain’s concession speech. McCain is soothing his supporters’ utmost anger toward Obama, a radical liberal President-Elect.
Their outrage could have some influence on Obama. The President-Elect takes ideological and racial balance into account as he selects his cabinet members. As show in the table below, Obama’s transition is unprecedentedly rapid.
Also, I would like to show a list of cabinet candidates in the Obama administration through this link.The Wall Street Journal points out some characteristics of the Obama administration. While the Bush team included top corporate executives from aluminum, railroad, and financial industries, the Obama team is largely devoid of business experience. Also, Obama has given key cabinet posts to those who are unfamiliar to him.
This is noticeable among his appointees to national security posts. His Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was the archrival for Democrats’ presidential nomination. Secretary of Defense Appointee Robert Gates is a member of the Bush cabinet. He has served a couple of Republican presidents, including George W. Bush. National Security Advisor James Jones worked for John McCain for in the past, and he still has close ties with the Republican candidate in the last presidential election. In other words, this is something like appointing John McCain to one position in Obama’s cabinet.
On the other hand, Obama’s liberal loyalists were appointed to lesser positions. Homosexual rights, labor, and environmental activists failed to obtain key positions, such as Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Labor, and Secretary of Environment.
Democrat activists do not complain Obama’s personnel choice in public. However, it is apparent that those who bowed and praised their savior Obama have been betrayed (“Obama Sets Fast Pace for Transition”; Wall Street Journal; December 22, 2008).
The Economist comments positively about balanced selection of cabinet members by Barack Obama. However, it raises concerns, “The trouble is that pulling in so many big names may, in time, produce rivalries that Mr. Obama will have difficulty reconciling.” (“Barack Obama: A well-stocked cabinet”; Economist; December 22, 2008)
Shortly after the election, Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton left a similar comment in his article. Bolton advises Obama as the following (“Letter to the President-Elect”; AEI Online; November 13, 2008 & also, in Daily Telegraph; November 5, 2008).
Although President George W. Bush tried to make this his mantra, his administration was plagued in its first term by incoherence in national security decision-making. Crisp decisions were not made, strong differences of opinion among cabinet secretaries were not resolved, and policy too often oscillated between conflicting options with no consistency or direction.
Ironically, the Bush administration's second term erred in the opposite direction, almost eliminating differences in advice to the president until there was only one voice in his ear at critical points. You must avoid both pitfalls, and you must make that immediately clear. You must resolve disagreements among your advisers, not allow drift, and insist on discipline once you make a decision.
Yoshihisa Komori, Chief of Washington Bureau at Sankei Shimbun, points out that Barack Obama was judged the most radical liberal as a Senator by AFL-CIO (“Barack Obama’s Bright Side and Dark Side #7”; Stage-kaze Hastu; December 20, 2008).
How could he convert himself into centrist? Despite longtime experience in Washington, Komori has not found the clue to this question (“The Prospect of the Obama Administration”; December 11, 2008). I understand his puzzlement. Obama’s primary agenda is the economy, and in this area, his selection is heavily dependent on Clintonites. Komori wonders why Obama included Clintonites and Republicans in his team. Is Obama confident in addressing his own agenda of radical leftism even though he needs help by Republicans and Clintonites? Partly, it is true. But I think Obama needs help beyond his creed because he has only 3 year experience at the Senate. This implies that Obama does not have strong personal contacts to manage Washington politics.
Seemingly smooth, Obama’s transition faces difficulties in appointment of some positions. The CIA Director is a key post in the War on Terror. However, due to clashes between CIA officials and liberals who denounce Bush policies on Guantánamo prisoners (“Obama Faces CIA Appointment Dilemma”; Washington Independent; December 12, 2008), Obama has not appointed anyone to the CIA Director yet (“No One Wants to Be CIA Director Thanks To Bush”; Washington Independent; December 30, 2008).
It is Obama, not America, that has really changed. John McCain was right to soothe his supporters during the campaign that there was nothing to worry if Obama was elected. Now, the 3 year boy is leaning what the President of the United States is. This is an OJT. Will the world test Obama in 6 month as Vice President-Elect Joseph Biden said? In such a case, it is Biden himself who tutors the Boy Obama.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
A Review of Russian History through the Anthem
It is very important to understand the history of the country when people discuss foreign policy. National anthems can tell about the country more than hundreds of books. As Bruce Lee said, “don’t think but just feel” the country. Few nations have experienced regime changes so drastic as those of Russia, from czarist, communist, to capitalist. Even current capitalist Russia is in the process of drastic change as commented by Professor Andrei Zorin, Oxford University.
In order to feel Russia, let me review the anthem chronologically.
First, I hereby would like to introduce the anthem of czarist Russia, composed in 1830. Just watch the following video and feel it.
This is a very beautiful song. It hardly sounds national anthem. I feel this more like a hymn of Christian church. The title of czarist anthem is “God Save the Czar”, which is quite similar to that of British anthem, “God Save the Queen (or King)”. However, British anthem does not sound so religious. Apparently, it is an anthem of a modern and secular nation state of constitutional monarchy. But czarist Russian anthem sounds strongly religious.
There is nothing strange about religious tone with this anthem. Historically, Russia has a strong tie with the Byzantine Orthodox Church since Grand Duke Vladimir Ⅰ of Kiev converted to Christianity in 988. After the collapse of the Byzantine Empire, Moscow Grand Duke Ivan Ⅲ married Prince Sophia, niece of the last Byzantine Emperor Constantine Ⅺ. Since then, Russian emperor inherited the chief of the Orthodox Church.
Although I am deeply moved to hear this beautiful music, I feel feudalistic backwardness of czarist Russia on the other hand. History proves it right. Alexander Ⅱ emancipated serfs so late in 1861. Russia was defeated by rapidly modernizing Japan in 1905. Czar’s army was no rival to Kaiser’s Germany in World War Ⅰ.
The second video below is the communist anthem with English subtitles. This is a mighty and impressive song. Numerous Soviet athletes stood proudly on the stage with this Leninist anthem at medal reception ceremonies in the Olympic Games.
When you read the lyric of this anthem, you will understand that it is propaganda of the Communist Party in Moscow. I am surprised to find a phrase, “Sing to the Motherland, home of the free”. Is communism free? No! Never!
However, peoples of 15 republics believed in the ideal declared in this song during the Soviet era. Also, it is important to keep it in mind that patriotism and devotion to communism were identical in the Soviet regime.
Another version of Soviet anthem in English was sung by an American singer Paul Robeson, in order to commemorate the victory against the Nazi Germany. See the video below.
This is nothing but a flattery to Josef Stalin. “Long live our people, united and free”? Stalin was one of the most dreadful autocrats in history. Even Soviet citizens felt scared to hear his name.
The Soviet Union has collapsed finally in 1991, and the anthem changed accordingly.
This anthem lacks beauty of the Romanov song and might of the Soviet song. It sounds like just a banal music, as if symbolizing shrinking power of Russia during the Yeltsin era.
When Vladimir Putin was inaugurated to the president in 2000, he restored the Soviet anthem, but changed the lyric. In the video below, you can read the lyric in English and Russian.
As you understand, communist propaganda has been eliminated. Russia has become a capitalist nation, but people yearn superpower might of the Soviet era. Strangely enough, the Russian public takes pride in both Czarist tradition and Soviet power.
The above video is the concert at the Red Square in Moscow on the Russia Day, June 12 in 2005. President-then Putin sings the anthem with Russian pop stars. In the film, you will find the Romanov emblem of double-headed eagle around the top of the arch covering the stage. In terms of ideology, the Soviet melody and the Romanov emblem are at odds each other. This is unlikely set symbolizes Russian nationalism today.
I hope videos in this post will be helpful to feel nationalism in Russia under the leadership of Vladimir Putin. Also, I hope them helpful to feel Russian history. Don’t think, just feel!
In order to feel Russia, let me review the anthem chronologically.
First, I hereby would like to introduce the anthem of czarist Russia, composed in 1830. Just watch the following video and feel it.
This is a very beautiful song. It hardly sounds national anthem. I feel this more like a hymn of Christian church. The title of czarist anthem is “God Save the Czar”, which is quite similar to that of British anthem, “God Save the Queen (or King)”. However, British anthem does not sound so religious. Apparently, it is an anthem of a modern and secular nation state of constitutional monarchy. But czarist Russian anthem sounds strongly religious.
There is nothing strange about religious tone with this anthem. Historically, Russia has a strong tie with the Byzantine Orthodox Church since Grand Duke Vladimir Ⅰ of Kiev converted to Christianity in 988. After the collapse of the Byzantine Empire, Moscow Grand Duke Ivan Ⅲ married Prince Sophia, niece of the last Byzantine Emperor Constantine Ⅺ. Since then, Russian emperor inherited the chief of the Orthodox Church.
Although I am deeply moved to hear this beautiful music, I feel feudalistic backwardness of czarist Russia on the other hand. History proves it right. Alexander Ⅱ emancipated serfs so late in 1861. Russia was defeated by rapidly modernizing Japan in 1905. Czar’s army was no rival to Kaiser’s Germany in World War Ⅰ.
The second video below is the communist anthem with English subtitles. This is a mighty and impressive song. Numerous Soviet athletes stood proudly on the stage with this Leninist anthem at medal reception ceremonies in the Olympic Games.
When you read the lyric of this anthem, you will understand that it is propaganda of the Communist Party in Moscow. I am surprised to find a phrase, “Sing to the Motherland, home of the free”. Is communism free? No! Never!
However, peoples of 15 republics believed in the ideal declared in this song during the Soviet era. Also, it is important to keep it in mind that patriotism and devotion to communism were identical in the Soviet regime.
Another version of Soviet anthem in English was sung by an American singer Paul Robeson, in order to commemorate the victory against the Nazi Germany. See the video below.
This is nothing but a flattery to Josef Stalin. “Long live our people, united and free”? Stalin was one of the most dreadful autocrats in history. Even Soviet citizens felt scared to hear his name.
The Soviet Union has collapsed finally in 1991, and the anthem changed accordingly.
This anthem lacks beauty of the Romanov song and might of the Soviet song. It sounds like just a banal music, as if symbolizing shrinking power of Russia during the Yeltsin era.
When Vladimir Putin was inaugurated to the president in 2000, he restored the Soviet anthem, but changed the lyric. In the video below, you can read the lyric in English and Russian.
As you understand, communist propaganda has been eliminated. Russia has become a capitalist nation, but people yearn superpower might of the Soviet era. Strangely enough, the Russian public takes pride in both Czarist tradition and Soviet power.
The above video is the concert at the Red Square in Moscow on the Russia Day, June 12 in 2005. President-then Putin sings the anthem with Russian pop stars. In the film, you will find the Romanov emblem of double-headed eagle around the top of the arch covering the stage. In terms of ideology, the Soviet melody and the Romanov emblem are at odds each other. This is unlikely set symbolizes Russian nationalism today.
I hope videos in this post will be helpful to feel nationalism in Russia under the leadership of Vladimir Putin. Also, I hope them helpful to feel Russian history. Don’t think, just feel!
Friday, December 12, 2008
Realities behind the Surge of Nationalism in Russia
The Free World may have defeated communism, but have we really won the Cold War? These days, people talk about resurgence of Russia, but come to think of it, this country is still a gigantic nuclear power, roughly tying with the United States. Also, Russia has been the 2nd largest arms exporter after the United States.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, American and British economists may have preached capitalism and market economy to Russians. However, none of Western forces occupied the Russian territory to disarm the Red Army. In other words, post Soviet Russia is neither Japan nor Germany defeated in World War Ⅱ. Actually, I missed this point until quite recently, just as most of the people in the Free World.
The Economist has released a special report on Russia. This report written by Arkady Ostrovsky, Moscow Correspondent of the Economist, presents very helpful insights on a broad range of Russian foreign and domestic politics under the Putin and Medvedev administrations. Quite interestingly, Ostrovsky points out that anti-Americanism in Russia is virulent, not among unreformed communists but among successful and westernized businessmen. Let me review the special report.
Ostrovsky summarizes the current state as the following (“RUSSIA: Enigma variations”; Economist; November 27, 2008). Russia has not become free and democratic as insisted by its government. Also, Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev take belligerent stances against the West: invading Georgia, and threatening to deploy short-range missiles in Kalingrad against US missile defense system in Eastern Europe. In addition, Kremlin decided to produce new submarine launched missile, named Bulava (“Russia starts production of new ballistic missiles”; Reuters; December 1, 2008). Previously, Global American Discourse quoted a comment by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that the United States has stopped producing new nuclear arsenals for a long time. It is a serious challenge to the United States.
Though post-Soviet business élites in Russia have strong ties with the West, this does not deter Putin’s nationalist policy. He portrays himself a symbol of Russian patriotism rising from humiliation in the post-Soviet confusion.
Quite interestingly, Ostrovsky points out Russia’s love-hate relationship with America. He says that anti-Americanism among Westernized Russian élites is based on conviction that Russia is not different from America, both in terms of political and economic structure. They take Western preach of liberal democracy as a hypocrisy. However, new Russian élites are no less hypocritical than Western preachers. Quoting Lilia Shevtsova, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Moscow Center, Ostrovsky argues that Russian élites reject democratic governance of the West while they enjoy a Western lifestyle. According to Shevtsova, “hostility towards America and the West sustains the authoritarian and corrupt rule of the rent-seeking elite which portrays its narrow corporate interests as the interests of the nation.” Ostrovsky articulates “By imitating and repelling America at the same time, Russia tries to ward off a hostile value system that includes democracy and the rule of law.”
Professor Andrei Zorin of Oxford University comments “Russia may yet emerge as a nation state, but in the process it could also turn ugly and nationalistic.” Ostrovsky introduces viewpoints among Russian liberals that American triumphalism after the Cold War provokes nationalism in Russia, as Germans felt resented with the Allied Powers after the World War Ⅰ(“RUSSIA: Handle with care”; Economist; November 27, 2008). He argues that missile defense system in Eastern Europe and NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia invigorate hawks in Russia. The latter was a key issue at the last NATO foreign ministers meeting in Brussels from December 2 to 3.
Simultaneously, he points out that it is domestic politics that leads to the rise of Russian nationalism. America is a catalyst. Ostrovsky insists that current Russia is more dangerous than the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
This special report presents invaluable psychological analyses of Russia’s new élites and the public. British and American authors will not narrate so much in depth as Ostrovsky does. However, some of his commentaries sound too Russian. From missile defense to NATO expansion, inclusion of New Europe into the West is a vital agenda to restructure the security of the Euro-Atlantic region. It is necessary to be careful to read this article.
Ostrovsky explores furthermore on domestic politics and the economy of Russia in this report. Finally, I would like to introduce his audio comments through this link. Overall, this report is well-balanced to understand Russia from both Western and Russian perspectives. Therefore, I recommend this special report.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, American and British economists may have preached capitalism and market economy to Russians. However, none of Western forces occupied the Russian territory to disarm the Red Army. In other words, post Soviet Russia is neither Japan nor Germany defeated in World War Ⅱ. Actually, I missed this point until quite recently, just as most of the people in the Free World.
The Economist has released a special report on Russia. This report written by Arkady Ostrovsky, Moscow Correspondent of the Economist, presents very helpful insights on a broad range of Russian foreign and domestic politics under the Putin and Medvedev administrations. Quite interestingly, Ostrovsky points out that anti-Americanism in Russia is virulent, not among unreformed communists but among successful and westernized businessmen. Let me review the special report.
Ostrovsky summarizes the current state as the following (“RUSSIA: Enigma variations”; Economist; November 27, 2008). Russia has not become free and democratic as insisted by its government. Also, Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev take belligerent stances against the West: invading Georgia, and threatening to deploy short-range missiles in Kalingrad against US missile defense system in Eastern Europe. In addition, Kremlin decided to produce new submarine launched missile, named Bulava (“Russia starts production of new ballistic missiles”; Reuters; December 1, 2008). Previously, Global American Discourse quoted a comment by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that the United States has stopped producing new nuclear arsenals for a long time. It is a serious challenge to the United States.
Though post-Soviet business élites in Russia have strong ties with the West, this does not deter Putin’s nationalist policy. He portrays himself a symbol of Russian patriotism rising from humiliation in the post-Soviet confusion.
Quite interestingly, Ostrovsky points out Russia’s love-hate relationship with America. He says that anti-Americanism among Westernized Russian élites is based on conviction that Russia is not different from America, both in terms of political and economic structure. They take Western preach of liberal democracy as a hypocrisy. However, new Russian élites are no less hypocritical than Western preachers. Quoting Lilia Shevtsova, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Moscow Center, Ostrovsky argues that Russian élites reject democratic governance of the West while they enjoy a Western lifestyle. According to Shevtsova, “hostility towards America and the West sustains the authoritarian and corrupt rule of the rent-seeking elite which portrays its narrow corporate interests as the interests of the nation.” Ostrovsky articulates “By imitating and repelling America at the same time, Russia tries to ward off a hostile value system that includes democracy and the rule of law.”
Professor Andrei Zorin of Oxford University comments “Russia may yet emerge as a nation state, but in the process it could also turn ugly and nationalistic.” Ostrovsky introduces viewpoints among Russian liberals that American triumphalism after the Cold War provokes nationalism in Russia, as Germans felt resented with the Allied Powers after the World War Ⅰ(“RUSSIA: Handle with care”; Economist; November 27, 2008). He argues that missile defense system in Eastern Europe and NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia invigorate hawks in Russia. The latter was a key issue at the last NATO foreign ministers meeting in Brussels from December 2 to 3.
Simultaneously, he points out that it is domestic politics that leads to the rise of Russian nationalism. America is a catalyst. Ostrovsky insists that current Russia is more dangerous than the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
This special report presents invaluable psychological analyses of Russia’s new élites and the public. British and American authors will not narrate so much in depth as Ostrovsky does. However, some of his commentaries sound too Russian. From missile defense to NATO expansion, inclusion of New Europe into the West is a vital agenda to restructure the security of the Euro-Atlantic region. It is necessary to be careful to read this article.
Ostrovsky explores furthermore on domestic politics and the economy of Russia in this report. Finally, I would like to introduce his audio comments through this link. Overall, this report is well-balanced to understand Russia from both Western and Russian perspectives. Therefore, I recommend this special report.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Terrorist Attack in India Poses Grave Challenges to the Next US Administration
In view of Mumbai terrorist attack on November 26, the Washington Independent has published “Obama’s First Test?: The Terrorist Attacks in Mumbai Highlight a Simmering Crisis in South Asia” on November 28. Since the attack, the relationship between India and Pakistan is turning worse. This is a critical challenge to the War on Terror in Afghanistan and nuclear non-proliferation in the Indian subcontinent.
Ever since the United States started negotiations on a nuclear deal with India, Global American Discourse has been paying attention to the Subcontinent. This blog quoted commentaries by Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Former Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, and mentioned a broad range of bilateral issues from nuclear weapons, terrorism, regional security, and the economy. Stable relations between India and Pakistan are essential for further US-Indian partnership. However, as there were Pakistanis among the terrorist attackers, India suspects some involvement of Pakistan.
The Mumbai attack reminds me of a controversial remark by Vice President-elect Joseph Biden, “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.” It seems to me that the world is testing President-elect Obama before he is inaugurated. Both India and Pakistan are frontlines against Al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan. Political tensions between both nuclear powers in this region undermines strategic blueprint of the United States.
At this stage, real backgrounds of this attack need to be investigated completely. Ties between the attackers and terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and Taliban are suspected.
According to Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent, the Mumbai terrorist attack poses significant challenges to US and NATO mission in Afghanistan. Currently, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan has begun to demand withdrawal of Western forces while talking with Taliban leaders (“Karzai — Whoa! — Calls for a Timetable to End the Afghanistan War”; Washington Independent; November 25, 2008).
Furthermore, the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington DC, has released a new report to recommend that the Obama administration renew military-oriented approaches in US-Pakistani relations by the Bush administration (“Partnership for Progress: Advancing a New Strategy for Prosperity and Stability in Pakistan and the Region”; November 17, 2008). The report says “U.S. policy must recognize that the military component alone is insufficient to build stability and security in Pakistan,” and calls for “a diverse approach, including strengthening governance and rule of law, creating economic opportunities and exploring political negotiations” with insurgents.
The terrorist attack inflicted dreadful impacts on US strategy in this region. Thorough investigation will reveal critical network of terrorists in this region. The Bush administration has created a strategic framework in the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan. Will the Obama administration succeed in developing the framework made by current administration? Yes, Mumbai attackers test incoming administration in Washington, DC.
Ever since the United States started negotiations on a nuclear deal with India, Global American Discourse has been paying attention to the Subcontinent. This blog quoted commentaries by Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Former Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, and mentioned a broad range of bilateral issues from nuclear weapons, terrorism, regional security, and the economy. Stable relations between India and Pakistan are essential for further US-Indian partnership. However, as there were Pakistanis among the terrorist attackers, India suspects some involvement of Pakistan.
The Mumbai attack reminds me of a controversial remark by Vice President-elect Joseph Biden, “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.” It seems to me that the world is testing President-elect Obama before he is inaugurated. Both India and Pakistan are frontlines against Al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan. Political tensions between both nuclear powers in this region undermines strategic blueprint of the United States.
At this stage, real backgrounds of this attack need to be investigated completely. Ties between the attackers and terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and Taliban are suspected.
According to Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent, the Mumbai terrorist attack poses significant challenges to US and NATO mission in Afghanistan. Currently, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan has begun to demand withdrawal of Western forces while talking with Taliban leaders (“Karzai — Whoa! — Calls for a Timetable to End the Afghanistan War”; Washington Independent; November 25, 2008).
Furthermore, the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington DC, has released a new report to recommend that the Obama administration renew military-oriented approaches in US-Pakistani relations by the Bush administration (“Partnership for Progress: Advancing a New Strategy for Prosperity and Stability in Pakistan and the Region”; November 17, 2008). The report says “U.S. policy must recognize that the military component alone is insufficient to build stability and security in Pakistan,” and calls for “a diverse approach, including strengthening governance and rule of law, creating economic opportunities and exploring political negotiations” with insurgents.
The terrorist attack inflicted dreadful impacts on US strategy in this region. Thorough investigation will reveal critical network of terrorists in this region. The Bush administration has created a strategic framework in the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan. Will the Obama administration succeed in developing the framework made by current administration? Yes, Mumbai attackers test incoming administration in Washington, DC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)