« July 2005 | Main | September 2005 »
August 31, 2005
Patriot's game
Concerned about graphic violence and historical inaccuracy in your video games? Fear not:
PowerNet Technology, a Chinese online gaming firm, has developed a new online game in cooperation with the China Communist Youth League (CCYL) named "Anti-Japan War Online," which will begin commercial operation by the end of 2005, Interfax reported Wednesday.
"The game will allow players, especially younger players, to learn from history. They will get a patriotic feeling when fighting invaders to safeguard their motherland," Interfax reported, citing a PowerNet Project Manager, surnamed Liu.
I guess "motherland" is a relative term ...
Posted by Daniel Widome at 04:41 PM to Asia
August 28, 2005
Dispute resolution
From time to time in this space, we've taken a look at the passions that small, uninhabited islands can evoke in otherwise mature, reasonable states. One of the first cases we examined at was that of Takeshima/Tokto, which has tormented Japan and South Korea for some time now.
On Friday, South Korea released several decades-worth of diplomatic documents that record the evolution of the dispute over the islands. Perhaps most noteworthy is that back in the 1960s, Japan proposed settling the dispute in the International Court of Justice, while South Korea advocated third-party (read: U.S.) mediation. What's most bizarre, if not necessarily noteworthy, is what the chief of the Asian Bureau of Japan's Foreign Ministry is recorded as saying about the islands:
It's only about the size of Hibiya Park [in Tokyo]. The problem could be solved by blowing it up.
Sure, this statement is several decades old. But the dispute over Takeshima/Tokto remains a live one, and it's things like this that make it hard for many in Asia to forgive Japan for its past militarism. It's also just a funny thing for a diplomat to have said.
Posted by Daniel Widome at 03:29 PM to Asia
August 24, 2005
Fatwa justification
Citgo may soon become the gas station of choice:
"We want to sell gasoline and heating fuel directly to poor communities in the United States," [Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez] said at the end of a visit to Cuba.
Chavez did not say how Venezuela would go about providing gasoline to poor communities. The Venezuelan state oil company, PDVSA, owns Citgo, which has 14,000 gas stations in the United States.
Cheap gas, eh? It sure seems that everyone is freaking out about gas these days. But are Americans concerned enough that they would be willing to accept the generosity of a well-armed, revolution-minded, and assasination-prone Hugo Chavez? Actually, they probably would. Despite the tantrums thrown by those in the Bush administration and the fatwas issued by the Christian Coalition, I think most Americans are pragmatic enough to opt for good economics over bad policy. Cheap gas from a non-Muslim -- how can you go wrong?
Of course, the kindness of Chavez's heart knows no limits:
Chavez and Cuban President Fidel Castro also offered to give poor Americans free health care and train doctors free of charge.
See, he just had to go and include Castro on the deal. That'll scuttle the whole damn thing.
Bah. Who needs free health care anyway?
Posted by Daniel Widome at 11:37 AM to Americas
August 23, 2005
Chavez's game
I had meant to bring this up a while back:
Chavez said late Monday that the U.S. government, which "won't stop caressing the idea of invading Cuba or invading Venezuela," should be warned of the consequences.
"If someday they get the crazy idea of coming to invade us, we'll make them bite the dust defending the freedom of our land," Chavez said to applause.
And this, too:
Chavez noted the immense contribution towards social progress made by the socialist countries, including China, Cuba and the Soviet Union. He heralded the relationship between the people of Cuba and Venezuela today.
The Venezuelan president also welcomed the delegation from the U.S. “We have very special guests with us,” he said. “The anti-imperialist youth of the United States of America.” He called the people of the U.S. “brothers” to Venezuela, and pointed to the progressive traditions of Walt Whitman and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a small example of the progressive history of the U.S.
When Chavez said, “One day, the people of the United States will join with the people of the world to save this planet,” the crowd erupted in cheers.
All in all, typical Chavez: quaint, amusing, and populist. But as is being widely reported, some aren't taking Chavez's antics very well:
Speaking on his own channel, the Christian Broadcasting Network, Pat Robertson said President Chávez should be targeted because he was a "terrific danger" whose country, a big supplier of oil to the US, was "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Islamic extremism all over the country".
Furthermore, killing the Venezuelan leader would be "a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."
I can't really take this too seriously, but many in the Bush administration are, at least to a certain extent. To their credit, they're distancing themselves from Robertson's statements. Unfortunately, that won't mean a whole lot. My speaking and acting in such an extravagant manner, Chavez has cleverly secured his position. Any move the Bush administration may wish to take against Chavez, overt or otherwise, will be nearly impossible to carry out in the spotlight that Chavez's rhetoric has cast on U.S. policy. And if the Bush administration doesn't want to act against Chavez, then he has lost absolutely nothing in speaking so directly -- it fits his populist reputation and image, and his domestic audience loves it.
My point is that Robertson's statements are analogous to Chavez's own over-the-top rhetoric. By playing Chavez's game and by receiving such wide media coverage, Robertson gives Chavez a credibility he might otherwise not have had. He also gave Chavez the rather unique opportunity to represent the sober voice of reason in this particular spat:
"I don't know who that person is,'' Chavez told reporters before he boarded a plane in Havana, where he met with Cuban President Fidel Castro, one of his closest allies, for four days. "I don't care what he said. I prefer to talk about life, about the things we've been working on.''
The Bush administration’s attempts to distance itself from Robertson, whether genuine or not, are not what's making headlines; they are thus largely irrelevant. It is Robertson and his ridiculous comments that are making headlines. Whether you like Chavez or not, it's undeniable that Robertson has just done him a nice, big favor.
Posted by Daniel Widome at 10:13 PM to Americas
August 16, 2005
Remembrance addendum
More on Japan's 60th anniversary observances yesterday from the New York Times:
In the first apology delivered on Aug. 15 by a prime minister since the 50th anniversary of the war's end, Mr. Koizumi said: "Our country has caused tremendous damage and pain to the peoples of many countries, especially Asian countries, through colonial rule and invasion. Humbly acknowledging such facts of history, I once again reflect most deeply and offer apologies from my heart."
He added, "I would like to forge a future-oriented relationship of cooperation based on mutual understanding and confidence with Asian countries by squarely facing up to the past and correctly understanding history."
Interesting bits here are that Koizumi's was the first August 15 apology delivered by a Japanese PM in ten years, and that he explicitly redirected his statement of historical contrition toward the future. The key phrase is "correctly understanding history." It's odd that Kyodo didn't cite that line directly, but regardless, it wasn't enough for the Chinese. Xinhua conveys both the cold response:
China yesterday urged Tokyo to fully match its words of remorse over Japan's aggressive history with concrete actions.
"We've noted Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's statement," Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said.
Taking a serious and responsible attitude towards its militaristic aggressive history serves Japan's long-term and fundamental interests, he added.
... and the hot one:
The result of a survey conducted by a well read weekly "China Newsweek" via the Sina news portal shows that nearly 98 percent of all the 76,000 respondents equate the phrase "militarism and right wing force" with Japan in their mind.
When asked whether Japan should be forgiven for its criminal past, more than half of the polled said no - even if the Japanese would repent on their knees just as the Germans did.
As for the direction of the future Sino-Japanese relation, a percentage of 59.64 gave a dim outlook, foreseeing a future war between the two powerhouse nations over energy resources.
That Xinhua's wrath is wrapped in the guise of a third-party survey actually represents journalistic integrity, for them.
Posted by Daniel Widome at 12:59 AM to Asia
August 15, 2005
Limiting offense
Koizumi marked the 60th anniversary of Japan's surrender today with predictably remorseful words:
"We will do our utmost to further develop friendly relations with the rest of the world and gain more trust from the world as a nation that cherishes peace."
But of course, it wouldn't be a proper Japanese remembrance ceremony without a modicum of ambiguity:
A one-minute silent prayer was offered at noon after the Japanese national anthem was played and Koizumi delivered his address. At noon on Aug 15, 1945, then Emperor Hirohito made a historic radio address announcing Japan's surrender.
Following a moment of silence, Emperor Akihito voiced strong hope that Japan will never again wage war, saying, "Looking back on history, I ardently hope that the horrors of war will never be repeated."
A moment of silence preceded by the Japanese national anthem, and the son of Hirohito offering not a specific apology but a rather anodyne and generic condemnation of conflict in general -- there's nothing wrong here, but it's not quite right, either. It's as if the Japanese leadership walks to the brink of complete contrition and then stops, wondering why anyone has a problem with going 99% of the way. Kyodo's report inadvertently elaborates on this further:
Representing the bereaved families in the ceremony, 75-year-old Takao Yorimitsu vowed to carry on the will of the people who have died in the war.
"With a renewed determination, we vow that each and every citizen will protect the peace and freedom that you had wished for more than anything else," Yorimitsu, a resident of Kochi Prefecture, said in a message to those who died in the war.
Not to besmirch Mr. Yorimitsu or even Japanese veterans of the war, but I question whether Japan of the 1930s and 1940s wished for peace and freedom "more than anything else."
Meanwhile, Koizumi avoided Yasukuni on Monday, which was wise on his part. That didn't stop members of his cabinet from visiting the shrine, however. Though this probably isn't the most politically sensitive thing for these ministers to do, it's perfectly within their rights to do so. And as the Kyodo piece points out, these ministers made very clear that they were visiting the shrine for personal rather than political reasons. For his part, Koizumi visited a relatively uncontroversial tomb for unknown war dead.
What does all this mean? Not much, really. There wasn't enough contrition to please the Chinese, Koreans, and others who are most offended by Japan's behavior, and I doubt there will ever be enough to please everyone. The day's observances in Japan were imbued with an utterly unsurprising level of ambiguity. But most of the ambiguity came from people around the prime minister and not from Koizumi himself. This may be due to Japan's upcoming elections and the resulting need to more finely tune political imagery, or it may not. Either way, I think Koizumi was in a bit of a bind. The best he could do was offer the requisite apology, offending those who were already offended and offending no one else any further. In that, he seems to have succeeded.
Posted by Daniel Widome at 04:25 PM to Asia
August 14, 2005
Community defense
This is interesting:
The leaders of four of Iraq's Sunni tribes had rallied their fighters in response to warnings posted in mosques by followers of Zarqawi. The postings ordered Ramadi's roughly 3,000 Shiites to leave the city of more than 200,000 in the area called the Sunni Triangle. The order to leave within 48 hours came in retaliation for alleged expulsions by Shiite militias of Sunnis living in predominantly Shiite southern Iraq.
"We have had enough of his nonsense," said Sheik Ahmad Khanjar, leader of the Albu Ali clan, referring to Zarqawi. "We don't accept that a non-Iraqi should try to enforce his control over Iraqis, regardless of their sect -- whether Sunnis, Shiites, Arabs or Kurds.'' [emphasis mine]
I think Juan Cole is probably right in assuming that this probably isn't indicative of a nascent split among the various Iraqi insurgent groups or their supporters. When push comes to shove, all of the groups hate the U.S. occupation, and they have long since proven capable of putting aside their differences in the pursuit of their insurgency.
Nevertheless, the Post's piece is very enlightening. It's one of the few accounts I've seen of the differences between the various Iraqi insurgent groups breaking out so publicly. If it wasn't clear before, it should be now that the foreign jihadists/Islamic extremists personified by Zarqawi are distinct from the indigenous Sunnis/former Baathists that see political marginalization (or worse) from a majority Kurd and Shia Iraq. This particular case also highlights a certain degree pan-Iraqi nationalism; the image of Sunnis coming to the defense of their Shia neighbors is a powerful and hopeful one. It betrays a genuine sense of Iraqi identity, manifested under the most logical of conditions: when faced with what they perceive to be foreign oppressors, Iraqis (or at least these particular Sunni and their Shia neighbors) will come together. On one day, the oppressors are American. On the next, they're Zarqawi's band.
Two glaring questions arise from this. First, how (and when) will Iraqis expel the unwanted foreigners in their midst? And two, after (and if) they do so, will they still see themselves as Iraqis?
Posted by Daniel Widome at 01:58 PM to Middle East
August 13, 2005
Hans Island
To file in the "Dispute Over Barren Rocks" Folder (which, incidentally, is not as sparse as one might think):
Hans Island is a tiny,barren spot between Greenland and Canada's far north-east, lying about 1,100km from the North Pole. Like others in the frigid region, the island, a desolate patch measuring just 1.6 sq km, has "no strategic or practical value", in the estimation of David Rudd, president of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies.
Yet the island in recent weeks has become a flashpoint that highlights Canada's sovereignty problems in the Arctic. Canada and Denmark both claim Hans Island, an unlikely disputed claim left unresolved since a 1973 treaty. Both countries occasionally seek to buttress their position by landing there. This summer, it was Bill Graham, Canada's defence minister. Denmark complained and dispatched an icebreaker to reinforce its own claim. The two governments agreed to meet in September to discuss the island's status.
This story has been brewing for the past few weeks, but the FT piece provides the best overview I've seen thus far. As with many other disputes in the aforementioned "Barren Rocks" Folder, this one is actually rather interesting, in a petty sort of way. Like most other spats of this kind, the value of the Hans Island dispute isn't so much in its specifics as it is in the more relevant issues the dispute highlights. In this case, those issues are the growing importance of the fabled Northwest Passage -- in the context of both a booming China as well as global warming -- and Canada's increasing inability to exert sovereignty over the passage. Plus, a quant shadow of colonialism is cast over the whole dispute; that Denmark even has a claim to Hans Island stems from the fact that nearby Greenland is a Danish overseas dependency.
In any event, Hans Island isn't big news, and it shouldn't be. That doesn't make it uninteresting, however, or even completely irrelevant.
Posted by Daniel Widome at 11:44 PM to Americas
August 12, 2005
Historical issues
In this season of disquieting anniversaries and rocky politics (more on that later), the Japanese Foreign Ministry is doing its part to smooth the waters:
The Foreign Ministry on Friday posted on its website information about Japan's positions on history with regard to other Asian nations before and during World War II and postwar compensation.
The information has been posted only in Japanese so far, which in itself is very interesting. The most virulent critics of Japan's post-war recollection are those foreign states once occupied by Japan but with the impudence to have rejected adoption of the Japanese language. And the Japanese Foreign Ministry is not an understaffed, underfunded, backroom ministry that lack the capacity to produce material in multiple languages. So perhaps the Foreign Ministry is targetting a domestic audience, first and foremost, with this information. That's not entirely unreasonable, but it still doesn't explain the absence of English and Chinese translations, at the very least.
My guess is that this is just one of many examples of the eccentricity and ambiguity of Japnese society. Think of the dance often performed by the Japanese: matching effusive apologies for wartime misdeeds with simultaneous government visits to Yasukuni, modest diplomatic gestures with the simultaneous approval of revisionist textbooks, and conciliatory words with aggressive gestures along disputed maritime boundaries. Who knows how the government -- or even society as a whole -- feels about questions of wartime recollection. It is so quitessentially Japanese to be profoundly proper yet frustratingly opaque at the same time.
In any event, with the material in Japanese only, it's not of great use to me. The Foreign Ministry does, however, have an entire section of their website devoted to "Historical Issues." Until the Ministry produces their new material in English -- maybe a month or so away, we're told -- this section will have to suffice
Posted by Daniel Widome at 05:35 PM to Asia
August 11, 2005
Council membership
Jai may think it's lame to cite a piece from Foreign Policy's website, but thankfully I face no such constraints:
But these same qualifications [for a Japanese seat on the UN Security Council] raise an important question: Has Japan truly conducted a foreign policy worthy of a world leader? What difference does it make if Japan frequently serves as a rotating member of the Security Council if its diplomats are seen as wallflowers? When has Japan introduced bold new initiatives or helped build coalitions to lead an international effort? How much stronger would Japan’s bid for membership be if Tokyo had led a global effort to address the crisis in Darfur? How many times has Japan’s foreign ministry offered to help broker a peace between disputing parties? Critics are mistaken to assume that a pacifist nation has no place on the Security Council. (You could argue that Japan’s modern incarnation is one of the most in keeping with the United Nations’ mission.) But it’s also true that Japan cannot use its “peace constitution” as an excuse for its own diplomatic inaction or lack of imagination.
Read the whole piece; it's not long, and it's largely correct. I would only disagree, in my estimation of the depth of China's opposition to a Japanese seat on the Council. Even if Japan had taken a more consistent foreign policy leadership role over the years, absolutely nothing would dissuade the Chinese in their opposition to Japanese membership on the Council. No amount of post-war contrition from the Japanese, I feel, will ever be enough for China. Or rather, the contrition that China wants will never come from a government freely elected by the Japanese people. It's one of the pesky things about a democracy ...
Posted by Daniel Widome at 01:17 AM to Asia
August 09, 2005
Diamond's view
Larry Diamond -- Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, former CPA advisor, and friend of the Watson Institute -- drops some wisdom (via Kevin Drum):
One of the issues that most baffles me in a way is the question of long-term military bases in Iraq. It’s now pretty clear that the ambition to establish long-term American military bases in Iraq, in order to secure the Persian Gulf region, contain Iranian expansion, and enable us to draw down or withdraw altogether our forces in Saudi Arabia, was an important motivation for going to war. When we pressed so vigorously and relentlessly in the drafting of the interim constitution for the easiest possible means of ratifying a treaty, it became clear to me that we were looking to smooth the way for an eventual treaty with Iraq giving us long-term basing rights.
At the same time, we know from a variety of sources, private as well as public, that intense opposition to US plans to establish long-term military bases in Iraq is one of the most passionate motivations behind the insurgency. There are many different strands to the violent resistance that plagues Iraq: Islamist and secular, Sunni and Shiite, Baathist and non-Baathist, Iraqi and foreign. The one thing that unites these disparate elements is Iraqi (or broader pan-Arab) nationalism—resistance to what they see as a long-term project for imperial domination by the United States. Neutralizing this anti-imperial passion—by clearly stating that we do not intend to remain in Iraq indefinitely—is essential to winding down the insurgency.
This conforms nicely to my own view of the administration's underlying motivation in Iraq: we went there to stay there, plain and simple. Check out the rest of Larry's stuff at TPMCafe. Not only does he write clearly and eloquently from ample experience -- both academic and practical -- but his blogging is generating a great discussion over there.
Posted by Daniel Widome at 08:39 PM to Middle East
August 07, 2005
Anniversary celebrations
This weekend marked the 60th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing. As if to remind us how far Japan has come since then, and to highlight the uncertainties of its future, the past week has brought a bevy of important developments. Collectively, they serve as a reminder of who and what will dominate the next 60 years of Japanese foreign policy.
First, the New York Times had a nice overview piece of recent tensions between Japan and China. I read it almost as a reminder that relations between the two countries remain very uneasy, despite the relative calm since the Chinese protests last spring. Couple interesting tidbits in the piece. The first:
A right-wing vandal seemed to capture a growing sentiment last week when he tried to scrape off the word "mistake" from a peace memorial in Hiroshima that said of Japan's war efforts: "Let all the souls here rest in peace, as we will never repeat this mistake."
This phrase on the Hiroshima cenotaph has been a point of controversy and ambiguity for some time. Does the "we" refer to Japan, the United States, or humanity in general? Is the "mistake" the U.S. dropping of the atomic bomb, the Japanese initiation of the Pacific War, or violent conflict itself? Obviously, this particular vandal interpreted the inscription as a slight so general as to indict Japan for its wartime transgressions. On the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing, such vandalism is indicative of a very real sentiment on Japanese society.
And then there's this:
In Tokyo, 291 teachers have been reprimanded in the last year and many may face dismissal for refusing to stand before the rising-sun flag at school enrollment and graduation ceremonies and sing Japan's national anthem, "Kimigayo," or "His Majesty's Reign," considered symbols of Japanese imperialism by most Asians and some Japanese. Those signals of respect used to be optional, or shunned because of their associations with Japan's past militarism.
In some ways, it's a story like this that is the most disconcerting. Politicians will do what politicians will do; they have their own constituencies, their own agendas, and their own ways of doing things that often do not accurately or proportionally represent popular sentiment. But to be reprimanded for not participating in an optional show of respect to the national anthem smacks of a deeper and narrower cultural bias.
Also this week, the Japanese Defense Agency released a report on China's military build-up:
"Beijing is shifting from using its air and sea forces for defensive purposes to unifying its defensive and offensive capabilities," the report observed.
The report said Japan should carefully study whether the objectives in China's military modernization do not exceed the scope needed for its defense.
Putting aside the subtle irony of whether it is the place of one country to determine the defense needs of another, it appears that the Japanese report follows in the same vein as the Pentagon's report a few weeks ago. It sounds a cautious note about China's increasing military expenditure and capabilities, but isn't excessively alarmist.
The Chinese, of course, chose to read the report in the most offensive light:
Japan publicly plays up the so-called "China's threat" in its official documents. It is completely groundless and extremely irresponsible. Instead of helping build mutual security trust, it will only misguide the public and lead to mutual misgivings and emotional antagonism, thus undermining China-Japan relations. We hope the Japanese side to make more efforts in the benefit of stronger mutual trust and friendship between our two sides by proceeding from the overall picture of the long-term development of our relations, rather than doing the opposite.
Nothing surprising there. As with their reaction to the Pentagon's report, the Chinese have an obligation to protest its findings, an obligation that provides only limited insight into China's actual military policy. If they're upset about the Japanese report, though, they're sure to be even more upset by this:
The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has called for the creation of a fully fledged army for self-defense in its draft of proposed revisions to the Constitution.
The LDP's constitutional revision committee has been discussing how to revise the pacifist Constitution, with the focus being on how to review Article 9 that renounces Japan's right to wage war and maintain armed forces.
The timing here is almost too exquisite to be accidental. Japan's "peace constitution" is the greatest legacy of the country's suffering (and culpability) during the Pacific War. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- 60 years ago this week -- were the horrific culmination of that war. I can't imagine how the LDP thought the timing of these discussions would in any way benefit their attempt to modify Article 9, so perhaps it really was accidental. But along with "China's rise," it is the evolution of Article 9 that will define the East Asian security environment in the long-term.
I'm somewhat torn regarding Article 9. On one hand, it really is a profound repudiation of force as a means to settle inter-state disputes. Coming from a country with a history as violent as Japan's gives it even greater moral weight. On the other hand, the Self-Defense Forces are already some of the most capable "militaries" in the world, yet their capabilities are hampered by politics and by the force structure that such politics dictate. Japan still has serious problems in reconciling its collective memory of the Pacific War with historical reality, and any talk of reforming Article 9 should be paired equally with (if not exceeded by) a genuine dialogue with other East Asian states on wartime reconciliation. But Japan is a leading member of the capitalist, democratic world, and It should take full responsibility for the obligations that its strength and position grant it. Accordingly, Article 9 should be re-examined, on a constant basis, with the intention of ultimately modifying it as public opinion will allow. Sixty years on, such a process represents nothing less than the culmination of Japan's post-war re-entry into the community of nations.
Again, China isn't amused. In response to the LDP's deliberations, as well as to the supposedly brazen differences between the Diet's 60th anniversary resolution and its 50th anniversary one, Xinhua boils it all down to one sentence:
Without a guilty conscience, Japan is attempting to turn itself into a regional military bully.
Exaggeration of fact, yes. Exaggeration of sentiment? Not at all.
Posted by Daniel Widome at 05:03 PM to Asia
August 01, 2005
Possible solution
For some reason, I find this extremely amusing:
Asked whether he would send a blessing to Chavez, [Rosalio Castillo, Venezuela's only cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church] said: "More than a blessing, I'd give him an exorcism."
I wonder if that solution wouldn't also address Bush's problems with Chavez ...
