An Invitation to the Japan-Black Sea Area Dialogue

Last December, I received an invitation to the Third Japan-Black Sea Area Dialogue hosted by the Global Forum of Japan, a Japanese think tank. The Global Forum is affiliated with the Japan Forum on International Relations, and I have contributed some commentaries on their online policy discussion page, called Hyakka Saiho.

The event will be held on January 27 at the International House of Japan. The agenda is Japan’s role in the Black Sea area, in view of the clash between Russia and the West over Ukraine and Georgia. Distinguished guest speakers, including Secretary General Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos (Greece) of the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, are invited.

There are two critical agendas of international security regarding the Black Sea area. One is energy and natural resource. As I mentioned Russian pressure on Ukraine before, oil and gas pipelines to Europe run this area. Therefore, classical geopolitical conflicts are one of key issues between Russia and the West. More importantly, nations of color revolutions, notably Ukraine and Georgia, are the frontlines to prevail Western freedom and democracy throughout Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union.

On this blog, I have been talking of Ukraine, because successful transition of this country from Soviet communism to Western democracy will be an anchor of Euro-Atlantic security in the post Berlin Wall era. This is an important issue to talk of new EU members, such as Romania and Bulgaria.

In addition, when people discuss the role of Japan in the Black Sea area, Turkey is a vital issue. I have argued again and again that Turkey under Kemal Ataturk and Iran under Reza Shah Ⅰ modeled after the Meiji Revolution of Japan, in their pursuit of de-Islamification and Westernization. Therefore, I believe Japan must assume a substantial role to support American and European initiatives to prevail democracy in this region.

It is a great pleasure for me that I am invited to such an event along with respectable experts. I hope it will be a good opportunity to learn furthermore about the Black Sea area, and join global networks of policymakers.

Is President Obama Still on a Holiday from History?

The Christmas terrorist attack and the subsequent crisis in Yemen have provoked controversies whether President Barack Obama is well prepared for dealing with national security threats. Former Vice President Dick Cheney criticized Obama’s dull response to the crisis. Terrorism is not the only issue to question current administration’s foreign policy stances. Rivalries among nation states are getting intensified.

At the beginning of this year, Robert Kagan, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, talks of reinvigorated power games among sovereign states, and criticizes the Obama administration for their wishful thinking of exploring common interests and solutions to world problems through peaceful cooperation among powers. Not only do Russia and China challenge the United States and Western allies in geopolitical power games in Europe and East Asia, but also manipulate to maintain their influence on Iran and North Korea. Even COP initiatives to cut greenhouse gas emission are regarded as Western pressure for China. Kagan recommends the Obama administration to adjust to the rise of radical nationalism in those powers and rivalries they pose to the United States (“The Perils of Wishful Thinking”; National Interest; January/February 2010).

Regarding terrorism, Dick Cheney blamed Barack Obama for trying to pretend we are not at war with terrorists. Cheney criticizes Obama’s decision to close the Guantànamo prison, as detainees there are hard core terrorists (“Dick Cheney: Barack Obama 'trying to pretend'”; Politico; December 30, 2009).

Cheney has been a vocal critic to the Obama administration’s defense policy. When Obama spent a long time to make the final decision for the surge in Afghanistan, he denounced Obama’s incompetence as the Commander in Chief. Republicans cast doubt whether the Obama administration has an overarching counter terrorist strategy or not (“Cheney blasts Obama on Christmas Day plane scare”; Boston Globe; December 30, 2009).

Following her father, Liz Cheney, Head of Keep America Safe, demands that Obama reverse his decision to close the Guantànamo prison, and urges the President to give his top priority to national defense. She insists that terrorism is beyond law enforcement, and it is a national defense issue (“Another Cheney blasts Obama on terrorism”; Boston Globe; January 6, 2010).

Karlyn Bowman, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute argues that the American public is awakened to understand terrorists can attack their homeland, and beginning to think of national security more seriously. She says that President Obama needs to show serious commitment to terrorism, in order to boost his sharply dropping approval rate (“Serious about Security”; Forbes; January 4, 2010).

During the election, current Vice President Joseph Biden said “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.” The real test happened now. This is a test for the American public as well. During the election, American voters were preoccupied with sudden financial crisis, and got upset. Yoshiki Hidaka talked about this in detail in his book. But now, America needs more focus on foreign policy. Terrorists are not the only threats. State-to-state rivalries grow, and anti-Western cult nationalism in Russia and China make the world dangerous furthermore. It is time that President Obama reversed isolationist trend among the American public. The world is no longer on a holiday from history.

New Year Question: Capitalism at Crossroads

Happy New Year! According to Oriental Zodiac, it is a Year of the Tiger this year. As I said in the last post, this year will begin turbulently. At the beginning of this year, I would like to ask the following questions on global capitalism: one is capitalism and ethics, and the other is transition to capitalism and free society.

First, let me talk of moral aspects of capitalism. Due to growing socio-economic inequality and the global economic crisis in early 21st century, the global public opinion is critical to greedy capitalists. Some businessmen like Mikhail Khodorkovsky of Russia and Takafumi Horie of Japan are so arrogant to say “Only those who made money are winners of life.” But this sort of greed based profit chasing is not the real value of modern capitalism.

It is Jean Calvin who founded the moral base of capitalism. Throughout the history, merchants were not respected. Until the modern era, aristocrats, warlords, and priests dominated the society, and they showed apparent contempt for profit seeking merchants. From Europe, the Islam world, India, China, and Japan, merchants ranked lower positions in their social hierarchy. Plato gave high priority philosophy to be the leader of the state, and disdained commerce.

When Jean Calvin advocated the doctrine of predestination and devotion to the job given by the god, commercial activities have become a service to the god and the whole public. They are no longer pursuits of selfish greed. Modern capitalism owes much to this moral foundation, which led to bourgeois revolutions to overthrow aristocratic regimes. Adam Smith explained the mechanism of market system, based on Calvinism ethics. Jean Calvin is the real father of modern capitalism.

Some businessmen like Horie and Khodorkovsky may be bright enough to make big money in their business, but did not understand ethics of modern capitalism. Horie may be an alumnus of Tokyo University, but anyway, he is just a drop out. There is nothing strange that he dismissed this, and spent huge amount of money to enjoy going on the razzle-dazzle with popular entertainers. In any case, present day capitalists often forget Calvinist ethics.

Policymakers around the world focus extensively on technical approaches to fix capitalism mechanism, but those measures will be hardly of any help without solid foundation of Calvinist moral values.

The second question is transition to capitalism. Last autumn, the 20th anniversary ceremony for the fall of the Berlin Wall was held. However, some nations in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union face difficulties in the post communist era. Some new members of the European Union, like Romania, face hardships to catch up with the European standard in terms of economy, development, and transparency. Prospective applicants like Ukraine fail to meet the European level of anti-corruption measures, which deter their EU membership. Moreover, anti-Western cult nationalism is rampant in Russia and China.

Capitalism today stands at crossroads. Moral foundation by Jean Calvin must be reevaluated. In addition, nations under transition need more attention. Otherwise, cult nationalism will turn them back to old authoritarian regimes.




Photo: Liger the Super Tiger! Cross breeding makes him much larger and more powerful than his parents. Happy New Tiger Year!

Can China Dominate the World?

The Chinese Dragon shows robust economic growth, and some experts say that its GDP will surpass that of Japan next year, which will make this country the 2nd largest economy after the United States. Also, China is building up its military capability rapidly these days. The Chinese authority frequently defies the American, or more broadly, the Western world order. But how strong is China?

The media and opinion leaders often fail to think of this vital question when they talk about Chinese influence on global political economy in this century. Mixing Pei, Adjunct Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, casts doubt to overvaluation of Chinese power and its leadership role on the global stage (“Why China Won't Rule the World”; News Week; December 8, 2009). Let me review his recent article on Chinese strength.

In view of stagnant economy in industrialized capitalist nations since the global financial crisis, opinion leaders in the West praise that China overcomes the crisis very well. Some leaders in emerging and developing economies, who are disillusioned with Western-styled free market capitalism associated with democracy, are charmed by authoritarian Red capitalism in China.

However, Pei points out some negative aspects in overheated Chinese economy. The Chinese authority worried over lending by private banks and overinvestment by State Owned Enterprises to real estates and stock markets. While China produces more TVs, cars, and toys, Chinese consumers do not buy them. China’s attempts to secure natural resource supplies from the developing world face vehement resist by Western governments, multinational corporations, and local communities. If Pei is right, China cannot dominate global natural resource market as the Major does in oil.

The debate on Chinese production and financial power will be endless, because the Chinese economy is coincided with robust growth and uncertainties. In my view, the most important point is whether China has gained structural power to manage the world or not. In other words, can China exert influence on making the global system and framework, along with the West?

Susan Strange who was Professor Emeritus at the London School of Economics, says that power in global political economy is classified into relational power and structural power. “Relational power is the power of A to get B to do something they would not otherwise do”, while “structural power confers the power to decide how things shall be done” (States and Markets; p.24~29). China may have gained relational power through rapid growth in industrial production, but has the Dragon acquired structural power?

Pei asks a critical question, “If China is so strong, why doesn't it show more leadership in addressing global problems?” He points out that China has been obsessed with its self interest in international conferences from G20 London Summit to COP 15 in Copenhagen.

Certainly, China poses significant challenges to the American world order, and shows increasing defiance to Western systems and ideology. However, China is neither prepared for nor capable of setting global agendas and sharing burden of decision making to manage the world. Therefore, it is a dangerous idea to expect China to supplant the United States as the hegemony. Chinese leaders shall never provide global public goods of peace and stability embedded liberalism.

Attention to Ukrainian Presidential Election!

This summer, I talked of Russian pressure on Ukraine in view of the forthcoming presidential election in January. The election will be held on January 17, and the final result will be determined on January 27. Wikipedia shows an introduction to this election which will be helpful to understand basic points about it.

Among numerous candidates, President Viktor Yushchenko, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, and pro-Russian opposition leader Viktor Yanukovych, are key focuses. According to the poll conducted by Research & Branding Group, Yanukovich and Tymoshemko lead, while Yushchenko is far behind both candidates. A Ukrainian journalist Tetyana Vysotska introduces each candidate on her blog with a brief biosketch (Who is who in Ukraine).

Since the Orange Revolution in 2004, Ukraine has been a showcase of successful Western styled democracy under the Yushchenko administration. The power of citizens and the rule of law rectified the fraud election, and Yushchenko was inaugurated as the president, instead of pro-Russian Yanukovich. It was a spectacular victory for the Bush administration that sponsored democratic movements during the revolution. Pro-Western Yushchenko administration started to bid the membership for NATO and the EU.

However, poor economic performance and a dispute over appointment of cabinet minister have split President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Tymoshenko. An American businessman, who runs an IT outsourcing company in Kiev, talks of the split within the administration concisely on his blog (“Yushchenko, Tymoshenko Rivalry Emerges onto Public Stage”; Kiev Ukraine News Blog; February 16, 2008). In addition, as I previously quoted an article by Thomas Valasek, Director of Foreign Policy and Defence at the Centre for European Reform, Ukraine has not resolved domestic corruption since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and faces difficulty in transition to capitalism and democracy.

According to David Kramer, Senior Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United　States, the principal issue in this election is the economy as Ukrainian GDP is expected to fall 15% this year. While Yanukovich and Tymoshenko lead the poll, no candidates are likely to gain over 50% of votes, and the second round election will be held on February 7. Although Yanukoich courts Russia, the Kremlin strikes a balance between both leading candidates very carefully (“Ukraine’s Presidential Election: A Primer”; Focus on Ukraine; December 18, 2009).

Fair election is an important issue, as the 2004 fraud is too widely known. The result of this election will have significant implications to relations between Russia and the West, and Euro-Atlantic security. Furthermore, the consequence of the forthcoming election will place critical influence on democracy promotion in the former Soviet Union. In other words, post Berlin Wall world will be tested.

New Year will start turbulently. Keep an eye on this election. Finally, enjoy listening to Ukrainian national anthem by a top singer of this country Ruslana, who is the champion of the Eurovision Song Contest 2004, and supported the Orange Revolution. Watch the video.

Back to Carter’s America?: Warning Flashes of Little Americanism

In the last post, I mentioned an interesting blog post, affiliated with Foreign Policy, that raises a concern over growing isolationism in the United States, surging to the highest level in 40 years. This is based on a poll by the Council on Foreign Relations and Pew Research Center (“U.S. isolationism at a 40-year high”; FP Passport; December 3, 2009).

According to the poll, the rate of Americans, who believe that the United States focus more on domestic issues rather than global problems has risen precipitously (See Chart Ⅰ). Also, an increasing number of American public see the leadership role of the United States less important (See Chart Ⅱ). Quite interestingly, the percentage of skeptics on the American hegemony is rising in recent few years. Seen from this chart, Obama’s America looks like Carter’s America. The American public is less confident in America in both eras. There is no wonder why notoriously apologetic speeches in Prague and Cairo are accepted so warmly in a Carterian America.


　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Chart Ⅰ



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Chart Ⅱ



Regarding the surge in Afghanistan, the public is less supportive of it than the members of the Council on Foreign Relations (See Chart Ⅲ). This illustrates it is isolationist trend that hampers the vital goal of defeating terrorists there, and defend the United States and its allies. As I quoted in a previous post, a former Japanese journalist Yoshiki Hidaka said that American voters chose Barack Obama because they saw the United States did not face critical threats, and national and global security was not a big issue in the presidential election. Had voters regarded foreign and security affairs as the key issue in the election, they would have chosen John McCain, says Hidaka.



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Chart Ⅲ　


Quite alarmingly, such isolationism seems to be bipartisan. Even though President Obama’s approval rate drops, conservatives focus almost entirely on domestic issues. They need to show visions for American leadership in the world. Some opinion leaders launch movements like Keep America Safe and the Foreign Policy Initiative to reverse isolationist trend among the public.

China is one of the key points in this survey. In the Singapore Speech at the APEC Summit, President Obama declared that the United States would accept the rise of China. Surprisingly enough, CFR members see China more important future allies to the United States than Britain, the EU, and Japan (See Chart Ⅳ). Why CFR members are so lenient to the growth of potential threat to a liberal world order since Pax Britannica? According to the theory of hegemonic stability, when a hegemonic superpower provides the global public goods of free trade and liberalist ideology, a peaceful world order of will be maintained. Remember, when Britain had to choose democratic America and authoritarian Germany from the late 19th century to the early 20th century, America was chosen. The transition of hegemony from Britain to the United States was relatively smooth. However, China is neither prepared nor qualified to share the burden of securing a liberal world order, which is an anchor of world peace and stability.


　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Chart Ⅳ


Regarding major threats to the United States, while the public sees China, North Korea, and Russia critical, CFR members regard transnational issues such as climate change and financial crisis as important (See Chart Ⅴ). This implies that CFR members are more liberal, non-hegemonic, and cooperation-oriented beyond ideology (“U.S. Seen as Less Important, China as More Powerful”; Pew Research Center Publication; December 3, 2009).


Chart Ⅴ



The problem is, neither the public nor CFR experts are reluctant to assume imperial mission of American predominance in the world. It is not only the Obama administration, but also the public opinion in current United States is dangerously Carterian.

Global public opinion may prefer calm and conciliatory diplomacy by the Obama administration to high handed moralistic approach by the Bush administration. However, none of other great powers are willing to share the burden of a global policeman (“The Quiet American”; Economist; November 26, 2009).

It seems that global political economy with Obama’s America is moving toward a Carterian world. The cost of blaming a Strong America will be enormous. Illiberal powers like Russia and China will exert more negative influence to undermine a liberal world order. Global public will be more tolerant to rogue regimes and terrorists. As shown in speeches in Prague, Cairo, and Singapore can a less confident America under President Obama manage the world? If no, everything is gloomy.

The Final Decision for the Surge in Afghanistan

President Barack Obama has made a long awaited decision to increase the troop level in Afghanistan to defeat Taliban and Al Qaeda. In a previous post, I mentioned that President Barack Obama was cautious to accept the strategic assessment by General Stanley McChrystal. Armed forces leaders, notably, Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff; General David Petraeus, Head of the US Central Command; and Admiral James Stavridis, Supreme Commander of NATO; talked with General McChrystal to urge President Obama to accept the strategic assessment. Obama faced a pressure from an ally. British Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth criticized Obama for delaying the surge, which led to more casualties among British soldiers. It was unprecedented that a British cabinet minister blames the US President in public (Daily Telegraph; “Bob Ainsworth criticises Barack Obama over Afghanistan”; 25 November 2009). Also, Republicans led by Senator John McCain had been demanding the President to take vital actions to improve security in Afghanistan (“The decider”; Economist; November 26, 2009).

Finally, President Obama decided to send additional troops to Afghanistan. Also, Obama struck a balance to soothe domestic antipathy to this long war. In his speech at West Point on December 1, Obama said that the US forces would begin to withdraw in 18 month. Quite interestingly, this is before his re-election campaign. While placating doves at home, Obama reminded the American public of 9-11 terrorist attack and the fear of Pakistani nuclear weapons falling into terrorists’ hands (“Obama’s War”; Economist, December 2, 2009).

In the video on the White House web page, President Obama articulates three points to defeat insurgents and never allow them build safe havens to attack the United States and its allies. They are strengthening Afghan security forces, civil life assistance, and partnership with Pakistan. The President has made it clear that the US led coalition will transfer responsibility to the Afghan government and security forces, after succeeding in the mission to defeat Taliban and Al Qaeda in “18 months” (“President Obama’s Afghanistan Plan in 4 Minutes”; December 1, 2009).

Contrary to the presidential election, Obama draws more support from hawks than doves, regarding the Afghan War. William Kristol, Director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, and Frederick Kagan, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, applaud the decision to boost the troop level in Afghanistan. Though President Obama’s surge of 30,000 falls short of General McChrystal’s request of 40,000, and setting the schedule for withdrawal is inappropriate, both authors argue that General McChrystal will have sufficient forces to defeat insurgents. The surge will be of much help for British and Canadian forces in Helmand and Kandahar. Also, they point out that economic assistance is aimed at poverty, not insurgents. Therefore, William Kristol and Frederick Kagan call for a nationwide support for the Afghan mission, although they disagree to the Obama administration’s policy on Iran, Russia, China, and defense budgets (“Support the President”; Weekly Standard; December 14, 2009).

NATO allies welcomed the surge, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was emboldened to hear pledges for 7,000 extra troops from European members, at the foreign ministers meeting in Brussels (“NATO allies pledge 7,000 more troops for Afghanistan mission”; Washington Post, December 5, 2009). While Britain, Italy, Poland, and Georgia send additional forces, France and Germany declined to join the surge (“Allies Help McChrystal Reach Troop Goal”; Wall Street Journal; December 7, 2009).

President Obama’s decision shall be welcomed, but there are some problems. In the West Point Speech, Obama mentioned the timetable for withdrawal. However, General McChrystal in Afghanistan is not Lord Mountbatten in India. The coalition forces still face formidable enemies. In a previous post, I talked of the panel discussion by Frederick Kagan and Jack Kean at the AEI. General Kean said that the surge in Iraq achieved success because the US forces showed firm willingness for continual commitment there. In addition, isolationism is on the rise in the United States (“U.S. isolationism at a 40-year high”; FP Passport; December 3, 2009). These problems may impose some constraints on the War in Afghanistan.

The surge worked in Iraq. As Professor Niall Ferguson of Harvard University often mentions, it is psychological stamina that matters. The American public should remember the vital point that 9-11 terrorists came from their safe haven in Afghanistan. It is a necessary war that must be won.




See “Fact Sheet: The Way Forward in Afghanistan” by the White House.