A blog in idleness

Today, I’ve seen the PBS documentary named “The Tank Man.” The Tank Man was the famous man, who stood in front of tanks in Tiananmen massacre in July, 1989. The program also told me how this brutal event was like. Because I was a child in 1989 and do not remember what exactly happened in the summer 1989 in Beijing, the image in the documentary really astonished me. The camera showed that even an ambulance and doctors and nurses in it were shot by the People Liberation Army when they come to help injured students.


The documentary also covered the today’s social contradiction in China. People living in China A, which has attained high development with enormous investments and trades, are enjoying the higher standard of Western life style. People in China B, mostly in rural developing areas, live under so bad conditions like people in other developing countries. Due to the huge gap and economic problems in the rural area, more than 75,000 demonstrations took place last year in China. The number before the year was 50,000.


The students in Beijing university are mostly from China A. They enjoy urban life and benefit from the China’s economic development. But,16 years ago, the university was center of the demonstration. Now, students do not know about the disastrous incident brought by their relentless government because schools do not teach any thing about it to them and the Chinese internet police (having more than 30,000 people) is restricting inappropriate information for them on the Web. Even American IT companies, such as Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft are cooperating with the Chinese authority to restrict searching the word “Tiananmen” and prohibiting Chinese people from knowing the truth.


This documentary was really good, and I recommend that a lot of people, especially Chinese people, see this program. PBS said the program is to be available on its website. According to this documentary, the tank man’s fate after the incident is unknown.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/

Jung Chang's recent book about Mao Tse-tung is getting a lot of attention. Though I haven't read it yet, it reportedly exposed true Mao and exploded myths of him.

The International Herald Tribune reported that President Bush finished reading the book. Though the article doubts that the book will have any influence on Bush, I hope that he understands how the Father of present Chinese Communist Party was cruel and autocratic and infers that the Party might not have change its core culture yet.

According to The International Herald Tribune, the U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mentioned that she would shift more American diplomats to developing countries. She also has an interesting plan to use internet as a tool of diplomacy.

The State Department will also set up "virtual posts," where people can visit a Web site and chat online with U.S. diplomats, Rice said. "This digital meeting room enables foreign citizens, young people most of all, to engage online with American diplomats who could be hundreds of miles away," Rice said, adding that Internet diplomacy would be a cost-effective way to expand U.S. presence in a country.

Generally, it is difficult to flexibly deploy human resources in bureaucratic organizations. As Rice mentioned, this redeployment intended to move away from the vestiges of the Cold War and would be equivalent to the transformation of American military. Considering nearly 15 years has already passed since the end of the Cold War, this move might be late; however, this shift is necessary and right. Since 9/11, internatinal politics has been mainly about security. But, at the same time, "development" is becoming more and more important in a sense that development of developing countries would eliminate the seeds of future terrors. Actually, even in internatinal economy, development is the main theme. For example, the official name for the Doha Round of WTO negotiations is Doha Development Agenda (DDA); the main theme of the round is about the development of developing countries throug expanding world trade; and the round actually started because of the sense of crisis in the international community immediately after 9/11.

Secretary Rice accurately understands the current tide of international politics, and she emphasizes developmental aspects of world affairs. Her philosophy is reflected on her term "Strategic Development Alliance" in her address in Japan and Japan-U.S. joint statement . I don't know how much Japanese diplomacy has changed its shape in terms of the deployment of bureaucratic human resources, but if it hasn't changed yet, I hope Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan would begin its transformation in accordance with the change of DOS.

Two events in this week reminded me of the fact that Japan is an economic giant but also a political dwarf in the international community.

The investigation to Livedoor, a Japanese company, had nagative impact on markets all over the world. The news in the U.S. about Livedoor and system problems in Tokyo Stock Exchange seems bigger than any other Japan related news I've heard in the U.S. for one and a half years. It is probably bigger than the news about Koizumi's landsliding victory in last summer.

At the same time, Japan appears out of the inner circle of international politics over the Iranian nuclear program even though Japan is a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council and it has historically unique stakes in Iran.

Now, Japan is struggling to become a political power. To attain it, Japan has to get a permanent membership of the Security Council and become a "normal country" in thte field of international security.But there are lot of things what Japan can do without these conditions. I think Iranian issue would be one of the test cases of Japanese diplomacy. I believe that Japan can do more on the issue of Iran than it did on that of Iraq before Iraq war.

The wisdom of the ancients is sometimes highly suggestive for those living in the 21st century.
George Washington's Farewell Address in 1796 is one of the wisdom.This address is said to be mainly drafted by Alexandar Hamilton, the representative of Federarlists, and it consists of two important themes: the warning about partisan struggle between the Federalists (Hamiltonian) and the Anti Federalists (Jeffersonian) and the recommendation for American people to keep a distance from Europe. The latter theme is regarded as the root of isolationism in American foreign policy.


This bible of isolationism argues like this:

-In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.

-likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

-The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible.

- There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.


Ofcourse, today's U.S. foreign policy no longer embrace this kind of isolationism ostensibly, but Washington's (or Hamilton's) insights into the essence of interenational politics tells us a lot. We cannot count on favors of other nations.

Though the phrase "there can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation" sounds natural and obvious, the words of Washington sounds ironic and somewhat fresh to me, considering the situation of Japan in the system of the Japan- U.S. security treaty .
What wisdom should we extract from this address for the relationship between Japan and the U.S.?

A certain progress was made in the Hong Kong ministerial conference. It was good news that the conference did not break up unlike the former conferencec where trade diplomats saw a disastrous failure of negotiations.
The Doha Round, however, is still on the verge of a failure. Withouth each nation's strong commitment and political will, the negotiations would soon collapse.

2006 will become a siginificant year of the Doha Round. One of the main reasons is that Trade Promotion Authority(TPA) in the U.S. will expire in 2006. Under this authority, congresses can only accept or reject the results of trade negotiations as a package. So, after TPA's expiration, It will be difficult that President Bush makes pollitically sensitive decisions on trade matters.

I hope every member country will make efforts to conclude this difficult negotiation in this year. The U.S., EU, and Japan especially carry the responsibilty of this agenda. I hope they will compromise each other over their agricultural interests for broader interests of the world.

The 6th WTO ministerial conference will be held in Hong kong this week.
It would be very important conference though it seems difficult to have a substantial conclusion.

Recently, the U.S. appears to be taking an initiative in the WTO negotiation. Probably, they are shifting their emphasis on trade policy priorities from regional agreements to the WTO negotiations, confronting with the difficulty in the negotiation of FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas). For example, President Bush remarked about the Doha Round of negotiations in the WTO for several paragraphs in his address in Kyoto last month.

If you have interest in the trade negotiations in WTO, see the latest issue of Foreign Affairs. Its special eddition is about WTO.

According to the news in Asahi shimbun, Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi approached the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) for the grand coalition after the general election in 9/11. (About this election, see also my entry in 9/12)

If this report is true, it is quite interesting. Since it has the simple majority in the Lower House, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) does not need to cooperate with the DPJ. Given its supremacy in the Diet, Koizumi's intention of this offer may be to reshuffle whole picture of Japanese politics.

Koizumi might have sought to introduce the two- partcy system in a different way from current LDP-DPJ framework. Indeed, both the LDP and the DPJ have wide range of politicians from liberals to conservatives, and it has been argued for long time that Japan needs political realignment. Conceivably, Koizumi wanted to make a pure conservative party by the alignment with conservatives of the DPJ. Catalysts of this political reorganization would be issues of consituitional amendment and raising consumers tax.

The new leader of the DPJ, Seiji Maehara, did not take up the offer. I think he should have accepted it in terms of Japanese whole politics. Maehara's position is not so different from Koizumi's. Actually, the DPJ currently has trouble with having difference from the LDP.

Koizumi's offer indicates that he did not take the circumstance of his party seriously. On the other hand, Maehara could not think beyond his party. This reported episode imply very interesting diffrence such as between Koizmi's character and Maehara's, confident leader and relatively weak leader, experienced leader and young leader, and so on. Koizumi, who seems to evaluate Maehara highly, might have tested young Maehara's political resolution.

President Bush released the new strategy on Iraq this Wednesday. Though I haven't read it yet, some media coverage reported that Bush denied both withdrawal from Iraq and setting a time table for it. (cf. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_national_strategy_20051130.pdf )


The matter of withdrawal from Iraq has been a big issue since Senator John Martha, a hawkish Democrat, called for immediate withdrawal. Bush's new strategy was issued in this timing to show the administration's position on this argument.


I completely agree with the Bush administration's notion reported in media. The U.S. should neither withdraw from Iraq nor set timetable for it at this moment. It is quite sure that, if the U.S. troops retrun to home now, the situation in Iraq will be worse than it used to be under Hussein. It means that Iraq war will end up to produce no positive result in return for massive cost such as tens of thousand deaths of the Iraqi, more than 2000 deaths of American, deaths of other countries' people including some Japanese, and tremendous amount of money.

Some people say that the war was an agressive war and the U.S., troops should leave Iraq as soon as possible. Though, in fact, the war seems to be unnecessary and unjustifiable today, it is irresponsible for the U.S., to withdraw from Iraq now. They should separate the pros ans cons about Iraq war from that of withdrawal.

Others say the Iraqi people can protect themselves without support of the U.S. now. I don't think so. As I wrote above, it is likely that Iraq will be plunged into disastrous civil war.

People who call for early withdrawal from Iraq should argue like this: it is now obvious that we cannot win the Iraq war; as far as we cannot win the war, we should withdraw now in order to make our cost at minimum. I think this pessimistic argument is the most plausible for early withdrawal. If I were an American, and I were a person who think only about my country or I really hated Bush administration, I would support this logic.
The situation in Iraq is not optimistic. It would be the second Vietnam War for America. In the morass of the Vietnam War, the U.S. government kept sending its troops to have better peace agreement. Having lost the timing of withdrawing, it costed more than 50.000 lives of American military and eventually lost Vietnam.


Having said so, I still support keeping troops in Iraq because I'm not a selfish American.I believe there is still hope that situation in Iraq will be better, or even if it does not become better, at least U.S. troops would deter the bloody civil war. Keeping troops in Iraq at any cost is the responsibility of the U.S., which began this war with distorted intelligence and mishudgement. American who are calling for early withdrawal are more unilateral than George W. Bush. They should think about Iraq.
I don't know if this comparison is relevant here, but even in Japan after the W.W.II, the U.S. had held right to fight against Japanese insurgents until the Japan-U.S.security treaty was changed in 1960.
It would take more than 5 years to stabilize Iraq, and American should be ready for keeping its troops for more time. They should have prepared for this situation when they enthusiastically supported the war on Iraq.


Anyway, no matter how people argue this issue, Bush will not withdraw from Iraq in his term because his reputation as a president really depends on the result of Iraq. He cannot give up his dream, building democracy in Iraq, as long as there is a little hope in Iraq.

This spring, I read an article of Foreign Affairs, Nov/Dec2003 about Japan’s emerging nationalism, titled “Japan’s New Nationalism.”
Frankly speaking, it sucks.
I could not believe that I run into such a low-level article in one of themost authoritative American magazines in the field of internationalaffairs.

The author’s recognition of today’s Japan is right. Indeed, Japanese society is drifting to the right. Also, his analysis of this shift isbasically plausible though average Japanese university students could writethe same-level or better explanation than he did.

The problem is he writes some factual errors.

1. Kazuya Fukuda (福田和也) is not a Kyoto University professor. He is a Keio University professor.
The author writes: Meanwhile, two University of Kyoto professors, TerumasaNakanishi and Kazuya Fukuda, recently wrote that "the best way for Japan toavoid being the target of North Korean nuclear missiles is for the primeminister to declare without delay that Japan will arm itself with nuclearweapons."

2. Related to the passage above, the formal nomenclature of 京都大学 inEnglish is Kyoto University, not the University of Kyoto.

3. Shinichi Kitaoka is not a law professor though he is in the faculty of Law in the University of Tokyo. Professor of Political Science is more accurate for his title.

4. His Rome-ji is also strange. Shoku should be corrected as shokku in thepassage below:
One way that the United States can help ward off extremism in Japan is byhelping it avoid any further shoku (shocks), such as a major economiccrisis or the collapse of Japan's social safety net.

5. Akita Governor Sukeshiro Terata, and Tochigi Governor Aldo Fukuda... Whoare they? I think no one has such a strange name, Aldo, in Japan. Whatkanji do you use? And, I did not know their names. I sincerely recommend that the Bush administration should not speak with them. It will be waste of time. There are some more famous reform-oriented governors in Japan, such as Asano in Miyagi, Katayama in Tottori, Tanaka in Nagano (I don’t likehim, though), Kitagawa in Mie (former governor of Mie), etc..
The author writes: In this vein, the Bush administration also should begin speaking at high levels with independent leaders such as Ishihara, Akita Governor Sukeshiro Terata, and Tochigi Governor Aldo Fukuda.

6. The organization which sunk a North Korean spy ship in December, 2001 was not Japan’s navy, but Japan Coast Guard.
The author writes: But the significance of Japan's uncharacteristicallyassertive response--a marked contrast to past incursions, and the firsttime Japan's navy had sunk a foreign vessel since the end of World War II.

I don’t think that’s all. But I’m tired, so I’ll stop here.The author is Eugene A. Matthews, and his title is President of Nintai…I’m very curious what Nintai is.

I've escaped from hectic days.
I hope peaceful days will last at least until the end of next week..

Just for my reminder #2

Think Again: Nuclear Proliferation
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3304

His World is Flat
http://www.policyreview.org/aug05/hazony.html

The Ethical Economist
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101fareviewessay84612/joseph-e-stiglitz/the-ethical-economist.html


Who’s Behind That Curtain? Unveiling Potential Leverage over Pyongyang
http://twq.com/05winter/docs/05winter_horowitz.pdf

Just for my reminder.
I will use this site as my bookmark for a while because my PC broke down.
When I have time, I would like to read them.

Soviet Union didn't fail because of the U.S.
http://www.desertdispatch.com/2005/112963986367145.html

U.S.-Japan Relations: Progress Toward a Mature Partnership
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occassional_Papers/Przystup_OP_072005/Przystup_OP_072005.pdf

Inside Multilateralism: The Six-Party Talks
http://www.twq.com/05autumn/docs/05autumn_park.pdf

China’s Color-Coded Crackdown
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3251

Paradigm Lost
http://www.nationalinterest.org/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=1ABA92EFCD8348688A4EBEB3D69D33EF&tier=4&id=AE44001EFB39450B9BCE6905BCBC9359

Reassessing the Implications of a Nuclear-Armed Iran
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/mcnair/mcnair69/McNairPDF.pdf

Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050901faessay84506/f-gregory-gause-iii/can-democracy-stop-terrorism.html


Useful link
http://www.cfr.org/media/need_to_know.html#1

Foreign policy is presenting the list “The Prospect/FP Top 100 Public Intellectuals." The list is still tentative, and we can vote on it.

There are two Japanese listed here, Shinaro Ishihara and Kennichiro Omae. The former is probably one of the FP’s favorite figures. You can see Ishihara’s article in the last issue of FP, in which he said Japan’s passivity will disappear in the future and Japan will be more active and independent. Japan is the sleeping lion, not China, wrote Ishihara.
And, I also know Omae is famous outside Japan. I have seen his name in Thomas Friedman’s new book “The world is flat.” But I don' think he has so much reputation in Japan.
There is some doubt that they are really representatives of Japanese intellectuals, but, sadly, I don’t come up with any other intellectuals to recommend.

By the way, I know 28 names in this list: Gary Becker, Pope Benedict XVI, Jagdish Bhagwati, Noam Chomsky, Richard Dawkins, Thomas Friedman, Francis Fukuyama, Anthony Giddens, J・gen Habermas, Eric Hobsbawm, Samuel Huntington, Robert Kagan, Paul Kennedy, Paul Krugman, Bernard Lewis, Antonio Negri, Steven Pinker, Robert Putnam, Richard Rorty, Jeffrey Sachs, Amartya Sen, Ali al-Sistani, Wang Jisi, Paul Wolfowitz, Fareed Zakaria, Slavoj Zizek and two Japanese guys. Most of the people I’m familiar with are British or American. It is partly because I speak only Japanese and English. But, I have to extend my antenna to other countries.

How many people’s name are you familiar with?

The first joint statement in a round of six-party talks was agreed this week.
I appreciate the importance of this statement as a first step to maintain peace and stability in Northeast Asia.

What I find important in the statement are as follows:
- The DPRK committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear weapons and returning to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to IAEA safeguards.
- The U.S. affirmed that it has no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and has no intention to attack or invade the DPRK.
-The DPRK stated that it has the right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The other parties expressed their respect and agreed to discuss, at an appropriate time, the subject of the provision of light water reactor to the DPRK.
- The DPRK and the U.S. undertook to take steps to normalize their relations.
- The DPRK and Japan undertook steps to normalize their relations in accordance with the Pyongyang Declaration, on the basis of the settlement of unfortunate past and the outstanding issues of concern.
- China, Japan, ROK, Russia and the US stated their willingness to provide energy assistance to the DPRK.
- The ROK reaffirmed its proposal of July 12 the 2005 concerning the provision of 2 million kilowatts of electric power to the DPRK
- The Six Parties agreed to take coordinated steps to implement the afore-mentioned consensus in a phased manner in line with the principle of “commitment for commitment, action for action”.

It is remarkable that North Korea agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons and programs, which had been serious security issue for long time to countries concerned, especially, to Japan. On the other hand, the DPRK obtained in return security assurance from the U.S., economic and energy cooperation, the negotiation with the U.S. and Japan for normalization in the framework of this statement, and the possibility of having light water reactor in the future.

It is still vague how North Korea will take steps to fulfill its commitment. And what “appropriate time” to discuss the subject of provision of the LWR to the DPRK means is also ambiguous though Japan and the US mentioned that it is after the North Korea meets its all commitments in this statement.

Compromise and ambiguity usually accompany with diplomacy. The next round is to be held in early November, and the representatives of six-party are supposed to discuss details there. I welcome the fact that each country of six-party, especially the U.S., patiently negotiated and got a diplomatic accomplishment. This would be a model of diplomatic settlement of nuclear issues following so called the Libya model and the Iraq model. I’m interested in how this Joint Statement will have impact on the framework of the Iran nuclear issue. Also, I guess that Japanese representative had a tough time in the negotiation because it has to pursue the settlement of the abduction issue as well as the nuclear issue.

I personally have concern more than anything else for future formation of the regional security framework based on the six-party talks. As Francis Fukuyama argued in his article "Re-envisioning Asia" in Foreign Affairs, the U.S. appears to intend to use the framework of six-party talk as a base of future regional security organization which will serve to keep its presence in Northeast Asia. In this sense, it is interesting that bilateral negotiations between the DPRK and Japan and the U.S. for normalization are incorporated into the structure of six-party talks. It is necessary that Japan addresses its difficult problems to elaborate and examine its Asian strategy in the system of Japan-U.S. alliance.