US Defense and Its Role as the World Policeman

American defense policy is at the crossroads in view of growing pressure for fiscal austerity and withdrawal from Afghanistan. Ongoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates articulated that the United States must maintain the role of the world policeman, and NATO allies make more defense contributions to deal with new security challenges in the 21st century. Before leaving the job to the next Secretary Leon Panetta, Gates presented an overview of US defense policy at the American Enterprise Institute on May 24. See the video below.







In this event, Secretary Gates advocated that the United States maintain defense capability in spite of fiscal constraints. The fundamental premise of his speech is that the ultimate guarantee to defend the world from aggressors and dictators is American hard power which is the size, strength, and outreach of its armed forces. While Gates stressed importance of victory in the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, he told that the US military needs reforms in weaponry systems and organizations to meet requirements to deal with new threats. Though he believes defense expenditure does not hurt the economy, political reality does not allow the Pentagon to be exempted from budget cut. Today, the nature of threats is complicated and unpredictable, but free nations do not face a gigantic military adversary after the Cold War. In order to manage the trade off between politico-fiscal constraints and military demand, Gates raised key aspects to determine the future of US defense, which are priority, strategy, and risks. As the United States needs to fight two major wars, its armed forces must be large enough, and small forces are no use however efficient they may be. In addition to maintaining superiority against China and Russia, the United States must manage threats by non-state actors like Hezbollah which have more well equipped armed forces than state actors. Therefore, small and efficient military capability does not make sense. At the end of the speech, Secretary Gates emphasized America’s special responsibility in maintaining world peace, despite growing antipathy to the war among the public.

In view of US role in the world, some conservative media criticize President Obama’s “dangerous instinct” to cut defense expenditure whose share in GDP of 3.5% which is half of that of 7.5% during the Cold War, while introducing European styled health care system. On the other hand, they applaud Gates as he resisted such Little Americanism (“The Gates Farewell Warning”; Wall Street Journal; May 28, 2011). Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton argues furthermore “Adam Smith wrote in ‘The Wealth of Nations’ that ‘the first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force.’” (“National Security Must Not Be an Afterthought”; Washington Examiner; May 24, 2011) Taking America’s role as the global policeman into serious consideration, the Defending Defense Project, jointly run by the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Foreign Policy Initiative, released an open letter of question to next Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. Most importantly, quoting comments “I have long believed, and I still do, that the defense budget, however large it may be, is not the cause of this country's fiscal woes” and "a smaller military, no matter how superb, will be able to go to fewer places and be able to do fewer things” by Secretary Gates, this letter asks whether next Secretary Panetta agrees to the above viewpoints. Regarding rising threats, China and Iran are key focuses. Finally, this letter demands incoming Secretary Panetta to reconsider withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan because current plans were made before the Arab spring (“Ten Questions on the Future of US Defense Spending Priorities for Secretary of Defense Nominee Leon Panetta”; Defending Defense Project; June 7, 2011).

Military capability of NATO allies is also an important issue to think of US defense. At NATO Defense Ministers Meeting in Brussels, Secretary Gates urged European allies to make more contribution in defense. As shown in the table, some members like Spain and Belgium spend around 1% of GDP for defense. This is almost the same as that of Japan whose pacifist constitution and mindsets still pose constraints to military activities（”Gates Questions NATO's Future”; Wall Street Journal; June 11, 2011). Things have not changed since Robert Kagan talked of American Mars and European Venus in his well known book, “Of Paradise and Power”. NATO members other than Britain and France are military pygmies.





Another focal point of US defense in the world is Afghanistan. The Obama administration sees the successful attack to Osama bin Laden is a good opportunity to end the long war. However, we have to note that strategists in the military do not believe Obama’s decision right. Robert Kagan, Director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, mentions that the entire military leaders worry caustic outcomes by withdrawal as commented by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen that the decision will embolden insurgents and increase risks to remaining troops. Also, it will lead allies to cut defense contribution in Afghanistan (“Military leaders know Obama’s decision is a disaster”; Post Partisan—Washington Post; June 23, 2011). At the Senate hearing on June 23, General David Petraeus testified that he agrees with Admiral Mullen. Toby Harnden illustrates critical gaps between Obama and armed forces (“General David Petraeus: I disagree with Barack Obama but 'I'm no quitter'”; Daily Telegraph Blog; June 24, 2011). Actually, ongoing Gates warned the risk of premature withdrawal when he visited Afghanistan (“Gates: No Rush for U.S. Troops to Leave Afghanistan”; NPR; June 4, 2011). Neighborhood countries do not want confusions associated with US withdrawal. When American officials talked with the Taliban, India raised concerns because Delhi officials do not believe in the Good Taliban Theory (“India and the Taliban Talks”; Diplomat Blog; June 26, 2011).

In view of fiscal austerity, cost performance is a vital issue of consideration. However, obsession with efficiency will ruin national security as new threat emerges one after another. Regretfully, national security is a secondary issue in the debate for 2012 presidential election at this stage. Though Republican candidates attack unanimously Obama’s economic and social security policy, they are split on defense, particularly with regard to Afghanistan (“GOP hopefuls stake out Afghanistan positions”; Washington Post; June 23, 2011). But remember! Fragile global security shall never allow nation building at home. Also, America’s position will be weakened if cutting its own defense while urge “free riders” to spend more on it.

More Donations to Japanese Policymaking Infrastructure!

The coalition of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and the Clean Government Party (Komeito) has been critical to Prime Minister Naoto Kan with regard to his response to the great earthquake and his foreign and domestic policies. This led them to pose a no confidence motion to the Kan cabinet, in expectation of uprisings within the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) by the Ozawa-Hatoyama group, despite huge gaps in fundamental policy values between the LDP-Komeito coalition and Democrat dissidents. LDP places the foremost priority on the US-Japanese alliance as shown in their agreement with the United States over Futemma Air Base. On the other hand, the Ozawa-Hatoyama group explores close ties with China and the United Nations. As shown in the joint plot of no confidence motion by such an incompatible alliance, Japanese people are fed up with messy conflicts in Nagatacho which is more oriented toward political fraction rivalries rather than policy measures. But it is no use just to blame the diet. Above all, ability of winning votes and ability of thinking of the vision of the world or the state are not necessarily congruent. Rather, we should try to make democracy sound through policymaking initiatives outside the legislative and the executive sectors of the government. For this purpose, it is necessary to develop policymaking infrastructures which enable organizations and individuals pursuing policy ideals to exert influences on parliamentary politicians and bureaucrats.








While Japan has fallen into a political turmoil this year, in the United States, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace commemorates the centennial anniversary. The background of think tank development in the United States is a “political vacuum”. America was growing rapidly since the latter half of the 19th century, and it was called a “Hercules in the cradle” by Europeans. However, this Hercules was so inward-looking that he went back to the cradle after Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Even though British hegemony was in decline during the interwar period, Hercules was reluctant to go out to defeat monsters such as the Nemean Lion. Business societies and citizens thought that such an inward looking America exercise political leadership in accordance with its national power, and it was a think tank of long history such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Brookings Institution, and the Council on Foreign Relations that was founded through donations by them. A long tradition of civic voluntarism donation culture since the era of British colonial rule helped policymaking infrastructures grow out of established governmental frameworks. Even present days, new think tanks, NGOs, and individuals of policy visions stand up one after another in the United States. It is supported by donations from corporations, philanthropy foundations, and citizens.

Open publication - Free publishing - More carnegie

Essentially, democracy is not just the rule by the majority. It is a political regime to control excessive abuse of power under absolute monarchy. It is utterly wrong to believe that a judgment by the people is always right. If things were simply left to decisions by the majority, politics would fall into the idiocracy that permitted Barabbas and executed Jesus. In order to stop such idiocracy, minority rights are protected through systems like checks and balances, freedom of speech, and the rule of law. However, they are not enough, and intellectuals out of official positions need to take leadership in shaping the public opinion to correct misjudgments by the people. As it were, think tanks, NGOs, and individuals of visions advocate policy ideals beyond short term partisan tug wars, play alternative roles of Plato’s “philosopher king”. In order to make policymaking infrastructures that enable them to work actively, donations from people of the willing are necessary. Donation culture in Japan is expected to develop in view of the 3-11 earthquake, but real social contribution is beyond simply supporting charity activities.

Expanding donations to policy infrastructures is not only for right democracy. These days, Japan loses self confidence in face of the rise of emerging economies in the neighborhood such as China, South Korea, and ASEAN countries. However, no matter how their industrial output grows, it is Japan along with America and Europe that plays a leading role to show fundamental values and solutions of the system in the global political economy. It is important to strengthen the leadership in knowledge so that Japan can win political and economic competitions among states.

Consequently, close ties of civic voluntarism and intellectuals of the willing are necessary so that Japan can get out of “political vacuums”. It is useless just to talk when Prime Minister Kan resigns, or whether to vote for DPJ or LDP. For this purpose, more donations for policymaking infrastructures are anticipated, beyond for charity activities grown since 3-11.

Poland as a Frontline of Russo-Western Rivalries

President Barack Obama went on a trip to Europe at the end of this May, starting from Ireland, Britain, France, and Poland. Jan Techau, Director the European Centre of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, comments that his visit to Poland has more important security implications than the bilateral strategic discussion on Libya in Britain and the Deauville Summit of G8 in France.

It is no exaggeration to say that history of Poland is history of Europe from the 20th century onward. World War Ⅱ began from here. The Anglo-Soviet clash on Poland during the war grew into the Cold War. The Solidarity movement led by Lech Walesa was a precursor of the Berlin Wall fall down. Poland is in such a critical position in the Russo-Western geopolitical rivalry. According to Techau, Obama’s visit to Poland is expected to ease widespread anxieties among Central European nations that the United States resets relations with Russia at the expense of newly expanded NATO members in the east. Reassuring American security umbrella to the Eastern fringe will help the trans-Atlantic Alliance become more integrated. In the eyes of Poland, Obama’s decision to withdraw missile defense systems from there appears conciliatory to Russia. In order to soothe Poland, a squadron of US fighters will be stationed there from 2013. As Techau argues, a staunch alliance between America and Europe is the key to world peace and stability. Despite the rise of emerging economies, it is only the West that can make principles, ideas, and mechanisms of global policymaking (“Doing Geopolitics in Eastern Europe”; Carnegie Commentary; May 25, 2011). Obama’s visit to Poland poses significant implications to the Western alliance and power games with Russia.

Currently, the Russo-Western relationship is extremely delicate and complex. On one hand, both sides are deepening security cooperation as cited in the declaration of NATO Lisbon Summit last November. On the other hand, they are at odds with fundamental visions of global policymaking. While the West wants to promote a liberal world order, Russia envisions a multipolar and multi-valued world. Also, geopolitical rivalries between Russia and the West are still substantial. At Deauville, just before President Obama’s visit to Poland, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev demanded assurance that missile interceptors were not targeted on Russia while endorsing NATO led attack to Libya to oust Khadafy. See the Video below.





Mark Brzezinski, foreign policy advisor in Obama’s presidential election campaign, comments that it takes a long time to improve Russo-Polish relations because disagreements on the massacre of Katyn Forest. Strains between both countries deters the US-Russian reset, he says (“Obama, Poland, and Russia”; New York Times; May 26, 2011). As in the last century, Brzezinski’s article suggests that Poland is a key country of Russo-Western geopolitics in the 21st century. At the press conference after the bilateral talks with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, President Obama applauded Poland a model for democracy to Arab nations. Also, he assured US defense involvement in Poland. See the video below.





Russia was not the only agenda at the Obama-Tusk meeting. Along with economic issues like energy and trade, and security in Afghanistan, civil society repression in Belarus was discussed (“Warsaw visit concludes Obama’s four-nation European trip” Washington Post; May 29, 2011). Security in Eastern Europe is still volatile.

The Deauville Summit may have advanced the Russo-Western reset and deepened trans-Atlantic ties, but this détente has not eased East-West geopolitical tensions completely. Therefore, we need continual attention to NATO’s eastern frontiers such as Poland, Czech, and Romania, and former Soviet republics.

A Critical Review of Obama’s 5-19 Speech on Israel

President Barack Obama delivered speech to address fundamental approaches for Middle East reform in view of successful attack to Osama bin Laden. Among a wide range of issues in the speech, the Israeli-Palestine mention has drawn a focal attention by the media. The global community applauded to hear Obama’s message on May 19 that Israel withdraw to the 1967 border for Middle East peace process. Is this really a breakthrough as widely expected? Let me comment briefly.

From Israeli viewpoints, Obama demanded Israel to swap the land without requesting anything to the Palestinian side. David Horovitz of the Jerusalem Post points out that Obama failed to mention historical ties between the Jews and current Israeli territory in the Cairo speech in 2009. Unless this history-sovereignty ties are accepted, real compromise between Israel and Palestine cannot be achieved, he says (“Obama’s failure to internalize Palestinian intolerance”; Jerusalem Post; May 20, 2011). Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu interprets that Obama’s speech overturns the 2004 agreement between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, that is, no complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 line and Palestinian refugees’ incorporation into the future Palestinian state. Herb Keinon of the Jerusalem Post criticizes Obama’s remark from the following three points. First, as Obama said the 1967 borders be the baseline for the peace process, Israel must hand over all the territory acquired in the Six Day War to the Palestinian side. This is to say that Obama defends Palestinian policy goal while demanding a complete compromise for Israel. Second, Obama did not reconfirm the 2004 agreement that Palestinian refugees return to a Palestinian state. This makes the refugee issue vague and provokes concerns on the Israeli side. Third, Obama suggested to engage Hamas without clearly demanding fundamental principles: curbing terrorism, recognizing Israel, and accepting previous agreements (”Analysis: What rankled Netanyahu in the Obama speech”; Jerusalem Post; May 20, 2011).

Let me mention some critical comments to Obama’s proposal on the American side. Though complete withdrawal of Israel is unlikely, American policymakers expect that the national border will be somewhat similar to the 1967 lines. The 2004 agreement is interpreted like this way on both the American and the Israeli side. However, Danielle Pletka, Vice President at the American Enterprise Institute, mentions that the timing and the balance of this speech are inappropriate. Obama himself decided to insert the 1967 line just before the speech without listening to his senior advisers. There is no wonder Prime Minister Netanyahu was startled to hear this controversial speech as he stood by President Obama at the joint press conference. As to the balance, Obama failed to condemn terrorism by Hamas and poor governance in the Palestine area. She says this imbalance is rooted to Obama’s antipathy to Israel, which is unacceptable to American values and interests (“A Little More on the 1967 Lines, Obama and Israel”; Enterprise Blog; May 20, 2011). In any case, I would argue that Obama has made the same mistake to overturn previous agreements without giving sufficient consideration to the timing and the balance as former Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama did on Futemma Air Base.

It is premature to praise Obama’s new proposal for the Israeli-Palestinian peace talk. On the other hand, Barack Obama outlined to reconfirm Bush administration’s policy to promote democracy in the Middle East, and the global community must pay more attention to this primary message in the 5-19 speech. Without airy fairy performance to shock Benyamin Netanyahu, this speech would have been more meaningful, and it is a pity.

The World after Osama bin Laden

The most wanted terrorist Osama bin Laden was killed in the attack by US Navy SEALSs in Abbottabad Pakistan on May 2. This is a landmark in the War on Terror, and a heavy blow to terrorist organizations notably Al Qaeda. However, it does not mean the end of Islamic terrorism. As Bin Laden’s hideout was not so far from Pakistani capital Islamabad, relations between Pakistan and the West are straining.

Let me talk about its implications to the war in Afghanistan. Liberals such as Gilles Dorronsoro, Associate Member at the French Institute of Anatolian Studies, argues that the United States make use of this chance to talk to the Taliban to get out of this long war, as he thinks it unlikely that things in Afghanistan and Pakistan improve soon (“Bin Laden Death Points to Way out of Trap”; Bloomberg News; May 3, 2011). On the other hand, Ashley Tellis, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, insists that conflicts among local ethnic groups and tribes will be eased only when the United States are sufficiently involved both politically and militarily. He urges Obama to accept field commanders’ advise to maintain the largest possible number of troops in Afghanistan (“Creating New Facts on the Ground”; Carnegie Policy Brief; May 2011).

The key to Western involvement in Afghanistan is how much critical threat Al Qaeda will continue to pose in the Middle East and South Asia. According to BBC, Al Qaeda and its affiliations are determined to launch attack in Pakistan in tribute to Osama, which poses substantial risks to Afganistan, Pakistan ,and India (“Osama's death: What next for al-Qaeda?”; BBC News; 2 May 2011). Daniel Byman, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, comments that the loss of charismatic and unifying personality like bin Laden has given a tremendous damage to Al Qaeda (“What Next for Al Qaeda?”; Brookings Opinion; May 2, 2011). However, hardly any experts see that the War on Terror is over.

Frederick Kagan, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, presents a concise viewpoint to understand global terrorism after bin Laden. The killing of Osama is an important achievement, and Al Qaeda has been weakened. Since the surge in Iraq by the Bush administration, they lost their franchises there. Also, he says that they are losing in Afghanistan. However, he warns that premature retreat from the War on Terror by the United States and its allies will allow remaining Al Qaeda leaders to find another franchise somewhere else (“Bin Laden, No More”; National Review Online Symposium; May 3, 2011). Fouad Ajami, Professor of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, argues furthermore that bin Laden was a loser, rejected in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also says that bin Laden was killed when his jihadist legacy was being eclipsed in the Arab Spring (“Osama Bin Laden, Weak Horse”; Wall Street Journal; May 3, 2011).

British experts express almost the same views as those of Americans. Paul Cornish, Head of International Security Programme at Chatham House, comments that symbolic effect of the death of the most notorious murderer cannot be underestimated, and perils of jihadists in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya have become less dreadful (“Osama bin Laden: Gone but not Forgotten”; Chatham House Comment; 3 May 2011). Of course, jihadist threats have not been wiped out. Xenia Dormandy, Senior Fellow at the Chatham House, warns the US Congress not to cut resources invested in this war simply for the sake of fiscal austerity (“Death of Osama bin Laden: The Threat Remains”; Chatham House Comment; 2 May 2011).

At present, Pakistan is an impending problem. The discovery of bin Laden in Abbottabad is strengthening distrusts to Pakistan among American policymakers. Since the hideout was close to military garrisons, the United States suspects that Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence sheltered him. Both American and Pakistani officials are puzzled with this (“Amid Skepticism, Pakistan Calculates Its Response”; New York Times; May 2, 2011). British leaders are also shocked to hear this news. Since the fall of Pervez Musharraf, UK-Pakistani counterterrorism ties have deepened under President Asif Al Zardari. In order to overturn a drawback in bilateral relations, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Pakistani High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, announced that the Pakistani government had no information about bin Laden before the attack by US SEALs (“MP 'shocked' at bin Laden Pakistan discovery”; Independent; 2 May 2011).

The vital issue is bin Laden’s secret network in Pakistan. John Brennan, Counterterrorism Advisor to President Obama, questions whether bin Laden had some support system in Pakistan. Pakistan’s position in counterterrorism is delicate and complicated. While Pakistani intelligence community could make use of bin Laden threat to demand US military aid, a stable democracy in Afghanistan having close ties with India can encircle Pakistan itself (”American secrecy lays bare deep distrust of its Pakistani 'allies'”; Independent; 3 May, 2011). In view of Western criticism and suspicion, Husain Haqqani, Pakistani Ambassador to the United States, appeared in CNN to admit that Osama bin Laden had support system in Pakistan. However, Haqqani denied that the Pakistani government knew Osama hiding in its territory. In addition, he emphasized Pakistan’ contribution to the War on Terror in arresting terrorist leaders such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh (“Osama had support system in Pak: Haqqani”; Hindu; May 3, 2011).

The successful attack to Osama bin Laden is a symbolic and great achievement. However, there are critical problems to be resolved. Considering connections with Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals, secret support system of terrorism is a foremost threat to global security. In the past, Pakistan was criticized for notorious Khan Network, tied to Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Also, state sponsorship to radicals must be investigated. As I mentioned in the last post, Iran has connections with Al Qaeda. It supports Shiite radicals like Hezzbolah in Lebanon and Bahrain to overturn pro-Western regimes and wipe out Israel. Those issues are more dreadful than revenge attacks in tribute to Osama.

Stability in Iraq and Dark Influences of Iran

While the global public is preoccupied with recent unrests in Libya, Syria, and Yemen, a reminder article on Iraq was released by Frederick Kagan, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and Kimberly Kagan, President of the Institute for the Study of War (“Stand with Iraq”; Weekly Standard; April 18, 2011). On one hand, the Arab Spring is a great opportunity to advance democracy throughout the Middle East. But on the other hand, the collapse of the balance of power can provoke Iran’s ambition to expand its influence in the Gulf area and furthermore. Therefore, stable and strong democracy in Iraq is vital to lead Arab Spring movements to more favorable direction.

Both Kagans criticize a preoccupation with ending the war in Iraq and a notion that the US-Iraqi relations should focus on nonmilitary fields. Actually, the United States has not made meaningful progress in developing nonmilitary ties with Iraq, while Iran penetrates there through trade and investment businesses, many of which are tied to the Revolutionary Guard. Moreover, Iran deepens ties with Iraqi leaders drawing little attention from the United States. Both authors argue that the United States cannot develop bilateral partnership with Iraq by simply relying on soft power. They say that continuous presence of US peacekeeping forces will foster Arab-Kurd peace. Also, Iraqi security forces are still weak to curb Iranian-backed militias and Sunni insurgents including Al Qaeda. The United States played significant roles to manage such security challenges in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Therefore, I agree with them that the Obama administration be psychologically involved in Iraq to make continuous commitment to maintain security there. Furthermore, Max Boot, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, says, “We are still in Kosovo, South Korea and other post-conflict zones that are far more stable. We need to be in Iraq too” (“It's in America's Interest to Stay in Iraq”; Real Clear World; April 18, 2011).

American political and military presence is the key to stop Iranian ambition in the Middle East and Central Asia. Particularly, Iran is keen to penetrate its influence into the Gulf area. Bahrain is a primary target, as populated by Shiite majority. Iran sponsors Hezbollah-led uprisings there, which intensifies tensions with Arab emirates and the United States (“Bahrain Sees Hezbollah Plot in Protest”; Wall Street Journal; April 25, 2011).

Radical Shiites like Hezbollah is not the only organization sponsored by Iran. Sunni networks, notably Al Qaeda, receive substantial assistance from Iran to pursue their destructive activities throughout the Middle East. Stephen F. Hayes, Senior Writer of the Weekly Standard, and Thomas Joscelyn, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracy, talk of dreadful cases of Iran-Al Qaeda ties. In 2009, Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia told President Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan that Iran hosted Saudis to agitate uprisings in his country. In 2007, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan agreed Iran provided small fire weapons to Afghan insurgents. More importantly, CIA Director Michael Hayden said such support had been approved “at the highest levels” of the Iranian regime in 2008 (“The Iran Connection”; Weekly Standard; December 13, 2010).

Considering Iran’s ties with terrorists and radicals, stability in Iraq is interconnected with successful political transitions in the Middle East from Morocco to Pakistan. As terrorist networks are so widespread and so deeply connected with autocrats, it is utterly wrong to insist that we focus on Iraq and Afghanistan, while leaving Arab dictatorship like Libya and Syria as they are. American presence and leadership are essential to help the Arab Spring and defeat terrorists. The Obama administration’s excessive modest stance on Libya is counterproductive to the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore, I agree with Charles Krauthammer’s comment “Leading from behind is not leading” (“The Obama doctrine: Leading from behind”; Washington Post; April 29, 2011).

Meanwhile, Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki would announce how many US troops stay after December this year in several weeks. The challenge posed by a radical Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr is a key issue of US-Iraqi security talks before Maliki decides the status of US forces (“Iraq must decide in "weeks" on U.S. troops: Mullen”; Reuters; April 23, 2011). Don’t forget Iraq. Democracy promotion, along with the War on terror and nuclear nonproliferation in the Middle East started from here.

Think again Our Relations with China

Despite political rivalries with free nations, business societies regard China as an indispensable partner for growth opportunities. Moreover, some policymakers see China a locomotive for the world economy while developed nations are aging. However, relations with the Beijing regime need to be reconsidered both in terms of politics and the economy. Is it really our interest to “bow down and praise” autocrats as President Barack Obama did in his speech at APEC summit in Singapore?

First, let me talk about political aspects. Ellen Bork, Director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, criticizes that the Obama administration’s engagement policy has not changed repressive nature of the Communist China. Since the Jasmine Revolutions in the Arab world, the Chinese authority has been arresting numerous activists, lawyers, and bloggers for freedom. While American human rights lawyer organizations such as the New York City Bar Association and the American Bar Association demand the Chinese government to release them, human rights issues are not the agenda at the US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in Washington this May. Bork says that the Obama administration puts too much emphasis on the economy over democracy (“Meanwhile, in Beijing ...”; Weekly Standard; April 11, 2011). In view of Western pressure to release Ai Weiwei (“Amid crackdown, U.S. groups strive to improve China's legal system”; USA Today; April 14, 2011), Chinese police accuses Ai of evading tax, committing bigamy, and spreading pornography (“China police building tax case against detained artist”; Reuters; April 14, 2011). As China is manipulating criminal cases against human rights activists just to crackdown Jasmine movements at home, the Obama administration needs to reconsider business first diplomacy with Beijing.

Geopolitical conflicts like the Senkaku dispute also need attention. I suspect that China has been emboldened to see apologetic global policy of the Obama administration. This is not only in East Asia, but worldwide. Regarding Libya, Lluís Bassets, Vice-Director of a Spanish daily El Pais, argues that President Obama is too modest to take leadership for Western democracies, which disappoints European allies (“EU and NATO in a tail spin”; Presseurop; 15 April, 2011). Quite regretfully, both Japanese and American opinion leaders blame Former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama for allowing China to make use of worsening relations between both countries, but they hardly analyze critically on President Obama’s China policy. Hatoyama advocated the regular triangle relationship among Japan, the United States, and China. Also, he tried to overturn the bilateral deal on Futenma Air Base. The Washington Post is right to call Hatoyama loopy. However, speculation to Hatoyama has obscured faults on the Obama side. Had Obama acted steadfast, China would not have committed dangerous adventure to provoke the US-Japanese alliance, however loopy Japanese leaders were.

Moreover, we need to cast doubt to widely spread opinions among many economists and businessmen that China’s economic growth will contribute to our economy, and market opportunities there should not be missed. The Economist discusses the balance of gains and losses from trade between the United Sates and China on its blog. As Adam Smith and David Ricardo insist, free trade with China brings economic gains to the United States. However, this is offset by unemployment. As this blog argues, American welfare system may have to adjust to global economic competition (“Better safety nets needed”; Economist—Free Exchange; February 22, 2011). However, I would argue that cheap and massive labor of China poses compelling threats to workers in the United States, Europe, and Japan.

Finally, 3-11 earthquake and subsequent Fukushima nuclear accident has brought us home that Japan is in no position of meddling America and China. It has turned out that Hatoyama’s vision of the regular triangle is utterly wrong, and the Operation Tomodachi reminds Japanese people that a strong US-Japanese alliance is the vital and foremost national interest. Furthermore, in the nuclear accident, the United States and France offered technological help to manage the crisis, and Russia proposed new governance for nuclear energy based on the Chernobyl experience. Has China done anything? In the area of knowledge, China is no rival for the West and Russia. Remember this, my fellow Japanese.

We must think again when we evaluate real power of China and its importance to our national interest. Applying the theory of Susan Strange, Chinese power is relational, not structural. China can hard power muscle to impose its will on others, but it unable cannot set international norms and show solutions to global challenges. We should never kowtow to Red China for the sake of short term economic interests. Bear it in mind, businessmen and “pragmatic” politicians. China is not necessarily the savior to boost our economy.