Sunday, December 11, 2005
WTO ministerial conference
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.
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.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
interesting news about Japanese politics
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.
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.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Bush's new strategy on Iraq
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.
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.
