South Korea's president is calling for Pyongyang to guarantee the safety of a group of young North Korean refugees who were forcibly repatriated with the apparent cooperation of Laos, China and North Korea.
The nine North Koreans, ranging in age between 15 and 23, had been in hiding in China after fleeing their country in 2011.
They were detained on May 10 in Laos, where they were making plans to get to South Korea as refugees.
The Laotian government sent the group back to China on ...
Monday, June 3, 2013
Friday, May 31, 2013
Chinese cyberthreat
Peter Navarro and Ann Lee debate the threat of Chinese hackers to U.S. military secrets.
India Places Its Asian Bet on Japan...and Asian Neo-Nationalism?
In a dismaying week for the PRC, India turned its back on China...and thereby drifted further away from the narrative of Japanese criminal aggression in World War II that China and the United States have exploited for the last half century.
First Post:
It’s true that no other country in the world today feels as threatened by China’s so-called “peaceful rise” as Japan. But then India too feels threatened by China. That is why Shinzo Abe, the Japanese Prime Minister and a known India friend, had said in his address to the joint session of Indian parliament in the Central Hall in the summer of 2007 that the Indo-Japan relations were a “confluence of the two seas”, a phrase that he drew from the title of a book written by the Mughal prince Dara Shikoh in 1655.
Abe is an unabashed China-basher who says he is determined to see that the South China Sea does not become a “Lake Beijing”. He has proposed an ADSD – Asia Democratic Security Diamond, comprising Japan, India, Australia and the US.
This is what Abe said in a signed article in December 2012: “If Japan were to yield, the South China Sea would become even more fortified. Freedom of navigation, vital for trading countries such as Japan and South Korea, would be seriously hindered. The naval assets of the United States, in addition to those of Japan, would find it difficult to enter the entire area, though the majority of the two China seas is international water.”
Abe has forecast that in about a decade Japan-India relations would overtake Japan-China and even Japan-US relations. “I envisage a strategy whereby Australia, India, Japan, and the US state of Hawaii form a diamond to safeguard the maritime commons stretching from the Indian Ocean region to the western Pacific,” he said in this article.
With Shinzo Abe back in power in Japan with a convincing mandate and a will to resuscitate Japan from its "lost decades", India has a unique opportunity.
“The clouds in the sky cannot blot out the sunshine of Sino-Indian friendship,” said Premier Li Keqiang when describing the Sino-Indian ties on the last day of his stay in India.
Before Premier Li Keqiang’s visit, the China-India border standoff was hyped up by international media. The divergence and contradictions between the two countries were also exaggerated as if the Sino-Indian ties had been strained suddenly.
But what surprised the media was that China and India properly solved the issue in a short time. During Premier Li Keqiang’s visit, the top leaders of both countries had sincere and candid talks and came to a series of strategic consensus and cooperation. The shift of Sino-Indian ties in such a short time is a miracle.
In the development of Sino-Indian ties there are several divergence and contradictions. Some countries see these differences as an opportunity to provoke dissension.
Not long ago, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called on Japan, India, Australia and the U.S. to jointly form a “Democratic Security Diamond” to compete with the ascendant China. He also proposed that Japan should promote “Strategic Diplomacy” and “Values Diplomacy” and made visits in countries around China. Some politicians just made themselves petty burglars on China-related issues.
The so-called “Democratic Security Diamond”, “Strategic Diplomacy” and “Values Diplomacy” among other new terms seem very strategic. But in fact they unveiled the narrow-minded diplomatic thoughts of Japanese government. The conspiracy of these petty burglars is doomed to fail…
The dissenting judgement of Justice Radha Binod Pal is well-known to the Japanese people and will always symbolize the affection and regard our people have for your country.
On December 14, 2006, Singh upgraded Pal’s judgment to “principled” and an expression of Indian-Japan solidarity in his speech in the Japanese Diet. He stated:
Idon’t know if there is a term in the diplomatic lexicon for “deep tongue kiss accompanied by groans of mutual fulfillment”, but if there is, it seems it would be illustrated by the encounter between Indian President Manmohan Singh and Japanese PM Shinzo Abe in Tokyo May 27-29, 2013.
Speaking to an assembly of Japanese government and corporate worthies in Tokyo, Singh said:
Asia’s resurgence began over a century ago on this island of the Rising Sun. Ever since, Japan has shown us the way forward. India and Japan have a shared vision of a rising Asia. Over the past decade, therefore, our two countries have established a new relationship based on shared values and shared interests.
…
Our relationship with Japan has been at the heart of our Look East Policy. Japan inspired Asia's surge to prosperity and it remains integral to Asia’s future. The world has a huge stake in Japan’s success in restoring the momentum of its growth. Your continued leadership in enterprise, technology and innovation and your ability to remain the locomotive of Asian renaissance are crucial.
India's relations with Japan are important not only for our economic development, but also because we see Japan as a natural and indispensable partner in our quest for stability and peace in the vast region in Asia that is washed by the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
Our relations draw their strength from our spiritual, cultural and civilizational affinities and a shared commitment to the ideals of democracy, peace and freedom. We have increasingly convergent world views and growing stakes in each other’s prosperity. We have shared interests in maritime security and we face similar challenges to our energy security. There are strong synergies between our economies, which need an open, rule-based international trading system to prosper. Together, we seek a new architecture for the United Nations Security Council.
In recent years, our political and security cooperation has gained in salience. Japan is the only partner with whom we have a 2-plus-2 Dialogue between the Foreign and Defence Ministries. We have also begun bilateral exercises with the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force.
India's relations with Japan are important not only for our economic development, but also because we see Japan as a natural and indispensable partner in our quest for stability and peace in the vast region in Asia that is washed by the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
Our relations draw their strength from our spiritual, cultural and civilizational affinities and a shared commitment to the ideals of democracy, peace and freedom. We have increasingly convergent world views and growing stakes in each other’s prosperity. We have shared interests in maritime security and we face similar challenges to our energy security. There are strong synergies between our economies, which need an open, rule-based international trading system to prosper. Together, we seek a new architecture for the United Nations Security Council.
In recent years, our political and security cooperation has gained in salience. Japan is the only partner with whom we have a 2-plus-2 Dialogue between the Foreign and Defence Ministries. We have also begun bilateral exercises with the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force.
The romance was consecrated by an audience with the Japanese emperor and empress for Singh and his wife, and the announcement that the royal couple, apparently in Japan’s version of panda diplomacy, would be visiting India before the year’s end in only the second overseas trip for the aging emperor since 2009.
It should also be noted that India is studying Japan’s offer to sell an amphibious plane, the US-2, that would be de facto Japan’s first overseas military sale, though it would go out under the flag of “dual use”.
Compare and contrast Singh’s effusions in Tokyo with the proper but distant tone of the communique on Chinese PM Li Keqiang’s recent visit to India:
There is enough space in the world for the development of India and China, and the world needs the common development of both countries. As the two largest developing countries in the world, the relationship between India and China transcends bilateral scope and has acquired regional, global and strategic significance. Both countries view each other as partners for mutual benefit and not as rivals or competitors.
“Nettlesome neighbor” versus “strategic partner”. I think the picture is clear.
Much of the Indian coverage gave full rein to anti-PRC feelings (The Hindu being the exception, although it perforce titled its skeptical editorial on Singh’s Japan trip as “Love in Tokyo” ), implying that India’s vociferous China bashers were celebrating an overt shift in Indian government attitudes or, at the very least, Japan had been extremely thorough in its spadework with right-wing Indian media to cultivate a Japan-India alliance.
Times of India:
It’s true that no other country in the world today feels as threatened by China’s so-called “peaceful rise” as Japan. But then India too feels threatened by China. That is why Shinzo Abe, the Japanese Prime Minister and a known India friend, had said in his address to the joint session of Indian parliament in the Central Hall in the summer of 2007 that the Indo-Japan relations were a “confluence of the two seas”, a phrase that he drew from the title of a book written by the Mughal prince Dara Shikoh in 1655.
Abe is an unabashed China-basher who says he is determined to see that the South China Sea does not become a “Lake Beijing”. He has proposed an ADSD – Asia Democratic Security Diamond, comprising Japan, India, Australia and the US.
This is what Abe said in a signed article in December 2012: “If Japan were to yield, the South China Sea would become even more fortified. Freedom of navigation, vital for trading countries such as Japan and South Korea, would be seriously hindered. The naval assets of the United States, in addition to those of Japan, would find it difficult to enter the entire area, though the majority of the two China seas is international water.”
Abe has forecast that in about a decade Japan-India relations would overtake Japan-China and even Japan-US relations. “I envisage a strategy whereby Australia, India, Japan, and the US state of Hawaii form a diamond to safeguard the maritime commons stretching from the Indian Ocean region to the western Pacific,” he said in this article.
…
India and Japan were never as close to each other as they are today. The bonding is to become all the stronger in the near future. All thanks to China.
A brief note: the “Democratic Security Diamond” was originally bruited about in Abe’s first term and independently championed by US Vice President Dick Cheney back in 2007 as an effort to stovepipe freedom into Asia with the help of a conservative regional ally against the wishes of the rest of the Bush administration, which had decided to sideline Cheney's team and was rather desperately trying to engage the PRC on the North Korea nuclear issue.
Japan occupies a large space in Manmohan Singh's heart, and he has logged enough frequent flyer miles to Tokyo to prove it. When he lands in Tokyo on Monday, Singh is certain to get the kind of reception that will show Japan reciprocates in full measure.
…
Japan has the kind of technological and innovation heft India needs in spades. Acknowledging this, the PM once famously listed three of India's relationships he described as "transformational" - US, Japan and Germany - that if India used these relationships wisely, they could help transform our nation. …With Shinzo Abe back in power in Japan with a convincing mandate and a will to resuscitate Japan from its "lost decades", India has a unique opportunity.
…
It is time India came out of the closet to strengthen the countries in the region: Indonesia, Vietnam and the real power in Asia - Japan. India should not waste its time looking for Japanese endorsement of Kashmir or Arunachal Pradesh, though many officials will tell you this is why we're kind of reticent with them. Instead, India should be more helpful on the Senkaku/Diaoyu issue - because if China gets away with this one, it will be unstoppable everywhere else.
Put China on the list of observers who came away with the impression of an Indo-Japanese lovefest.
For an illustration for the diplomatic equivalent of “green eyed monster that doth mock the meat it feeds on” i.e. jealousy/envy/sour grapes, read this People’s Daily editorial which attempts to put the resolution of a minor border intrusion during Li Keqiang’s visit to India on par with the multi-course love feast between Singh and Abe (while diplomatically putting the blame for Singh’s dalliance on Abe’s shoulders):
Sino-Indian diplomatic miracle embarrasses Japanese politicians
“The clouds in the sky cannot blot out the sunshine of Sino-Indian friendship,” said Premier Li Keqiang when describing the Sino-Indian ties on the last day of his stay in India.
Before Premier Li Keqiang’s visit, the China-India border standoff was hyped up by international media. The divergence and contradictions between the two countries were also exaggerated as if the Sino-Indian ties had been strained suddenly.
But what surprised the media was that China and India properly solved the issue in a short time. During Premier Li Keqiang’s visit, the top leaders of both countries had sincere and candid talks and came to a series of strategic consensus and cooperation. The shift of Sino-Indian ties in such a short time is a miracle.
In the development of Sino-Indian ties there are several divergence and contradictions. Some countries see these differences as an opportunity to provoke dissension.
Not long ago, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called on Japan, India, Australia and the U.S. to jointly form a “Democratic Security Diamond” to compete with the ascendant China. He also proposed that Japan should promote “Strategic Diplomacy” and “Values Diplomacy” and made visits in countries around China. Some politicians just made themselves petty burglars on China-related issues.
The so-called “Democratic Security Diamond”, “Strategic Diplomacy” and “Values Diplomacy” among other new terms seem very strategic. But in fact they unveiled the narrow-minded diplomatic thoughts of Japanese government. The conspiracy of these petty burglars is doomed to fail…
It is difficult to shed the feeling that Indian commentators who detect an anti-China shift in Indian government policy are on to something.
Certainly, the JapanIndia affair has sound diplomatic and economic bases.
India is not happy about its immense trade deficit with China; Japan sees India as a cheap overseas labor source and Abe needs some big ticket deals with India to keep the economy humming and keep Abenomics out of the ditch.
Various national quid pro quos are at work—several billion dollars in Japanese loans, Indian support for the Tokyo Olympics in 2020, and a promise to work together to change the structure of the UN Security Council, to date notably China-heavy and Japan- and-India-free.
But an interested reader—and, for that matter the Chinese government—cannot escape the sense that Singh, encouraged by Abe’s vigorous approach to restoring Japan’s national and regional stature, has decided to place an open bet on Japan—a fellow democracy and, until recent years at least, acknowledged master of the global economic and financial game--instead of obstreperous, state socialist China in the Asian sweepstakes.
Therefore, I for once and very gingerly take issue with the esteemed Mr. Bhadrakumar’s conclusion that China’s assertiveness in Ladakh strengthened the hands of India’s China bashers and queered Li Keqiang’s trip and Sino-Indian relations overall. Given the apparent desire of Prime Minister Singh to opt for a Japan partnership, maybe somebody thought an Indian provocation in Ladakh would yield a timely and useful piece of anti-Chinese framing to the encounter in Tokyo.
Maybe Mr. Singh’s heart was in Japan from the beginning.
Guided by an admonitory op-ed in Global Times, I looked up “Radhabinod Pal“ on Wikipedia.
In Internet speak, TIL (today I learned) that Pal was an Indian jurist on the Japan war crimes tribunal in 1946. Pal was enamored of the anti-colonial rhetoric that accompanied the Japanese “advance” into SE Asia. He believed the United States had provoked Japan into war (the Japanese response was therefore not “aggressive”), was concerned with unpunished Allied wartime atrocities, and declined to endorse the “triumph of civilization” narrative of Japan’s defeat or the creation of “Class A” war criminal category that the Occupation used to prosecute the Japanese military and civilian leadership.
While acknowledging the commission of atrocities in the field (though a Nanjing Massacre skeptic), Pal voted for acquittal of the “Class A” defendants and prepared a 1235-page dissenting opinion—suppressed by the Occupation until 1952-- stating that the trial was a “victor’s justice” travesty.
So far so good.
After his dissent was published, Pal, unsurprisingly, became a hero to Japanese nationalists. Given the legal and moral flaws of the tribunal, the standard explanation is that Pal was simply a scrupulous jurist whose dissent got cherrypicked by nasty nationalists for verbiage that supported their claim that the only thing Japan did wrong in World War II was lose it.
Actually, as an article at Japan Focus by Japanese scholar Tekeshi Nakajima points out, in his dissent Pal went beyond challenging the legality and validity of the tribunal to excusing Japanese--activities? Aggression? Advances? Choose your favorite word-- on the grounds that Japan was getting picked on by the West.
This is rather obvious in Pal’s treatment of Japan’s incursion into Manchuria, which Japan did on its own kick without the excuse that the US was forcing it into war.
Pal probably found it extremely awkward that Japan, in his mind the front line of resistance to western colonialism, adopted nakedly colonial policies in its dismemberment of China and subjugation of Manchuria.
He attempted to resolve his difficulties by deploying what might be characterized as the “monkey see monkey do” defense—that Japan, deluded by the precedent, pretexts, and spurious legality of Western colonial intrusions, mistakenly adopted the same methods and, indeed, erroneously adopted the very idea that it needed to occupy Manchuria, from the West.
After dismissing the Manchurian and Marco Polo Bridge incidents as examples of simple overexuberance by officers in the field and not elements of a conspiracy to justify occupation of north and northeast China, Pal deployed the “delusion” defense, as Nakajima writes:
Justice Pal then critically examined Western Imperialism, which, he asserted, Japan had imitated. Quoting the Survey of International Affairs 1932, he turned the target of the criticism toward the colonial policies of Western Powers:
Was it not Western Imperialism that had coined the word ‘protectorate’ as a euphemism for ‘annexation’? And had not this constitutional fiction served its Western inventors in good stead? Was not this the method by which the Government of the French Republic had stepped into the shoes of the Sultan of Morocco, and by which the British Crown had transferred the possession of vast tracts of land in East Africa from native African to adventitious European hands?30
For Justice Pal, Japan’s ‘farce’ was nothing but the result of imitating Western fashions of imperialism. From this point of view, he questioned why only Japan’s establishment of Manchukuo could be assessed as ‘aggression’. Weren’t Western countries morally guilty as well in practicing colonialism? If the acts of aggression by Western countries were not charged as crimes, why was the establishment of Manchukuo by Japan?
Justice Pal further quoted the Survey of International Affairs 1932:
Though the Japanese failed to make the most of these Western precedents in stating their case for performing the farce of ‘Manchukuo’, it may legitimately be conjectured that Western as well as Japanese precedents had in fact suggested, and commended, this line of policy to Japanese minds.31
By saying, ‘[i]t may not be a justifiable policy, justifying one nation’s expansion in another’s territory’,32 he emphasised that both Japan and the Western countries were morally responsible for the colonisation of other nations. Justice Pal explained that Japan was at that time possessed with a ‘delusion’ and believed that the country would face death and destruction if it failed in acquiring Manchuria.33
Pal regarded this as the reason for Japan’s attempts to establish interests which it saw as necessary for its very existence. Justice Pal said that carrying out a military operation driven by ‘delusion’ was not unique to Japan as it had been repeatedly practised on a large scale by Western countries for many years. Saying, ‘[a]lmost every great power acquired similar interests within the territories of the Eastern Hemisphere and, it seems, every such power considered that interest to be very vital’, Pal argued that Japan had the ‘right’ to argue that the Manchurian Incident was necessary for the sake of ‘self-defense’.34
Japan claiming national ‘self-defense’ in regard to its territorial expansion in China was in step with international society at the time, Pal said, and thus Japan’s actions stemmed from the ‘imitation’ of an evil practice of Western imperialism. Based on this premise, he concluded: ‘The action of Japan in Manchuria would not, it is certain, be applauded by the world. At the same time it would be difficult to condemn the same as criminal.’35
I, for one, find that Pal’s brief goes beyond the questioning of a dubious legal proceeding by a distinguished and experienced international jurist to rather dishonorable special pleading on behalf of his favorite country, Japan on the grounds of “everybody else was doing it, so it should have been OK, oops, make that that 'necessary'.”
Try that defense next time you’re caught cheating on your taxes.
And there’s this:
In In 1966, the Emperor of Japan conferred upon Pal—who stated his lifelong admiration of Japan as the one Asian country that stood up to the West-- the First Class of the Order of the Sacred Treasure.
The Pal dissent is more than ancient history; it is a cornerstone of the recent nationalist tilt of the Japanese government and the determination of Japanese nationalists to claim an untainted leadership role for Japan as the pre-eminent Asian practitioner of the modern arts of economics, democracy, and warfare (defeated but not discredited in the "great war"), as can be seen from this Telegraph report of the aftermath of the LDP’s victory at the polls in 2012:
"The view of that great war was not formed by the Japanese themselves, but rather by the victorious Allies, and it is by their judgement only that [Japanese] were condemned," Mr Abe told a meeting of the House of Representatives Budget Committee on Tuesday.
In his previous short-lived spell as prime minister, for 12 months from September 2006, Mr Abe said that the 28 Japanese military and political leaders charged with Class-A war crimes are "not war criminals under the laws of Japan."
Pal was enshrined at Yasukuni, which gives the lie to the claim that it is simply a war dead memorial and not a revisionist shrine. The photo illustrating Pal’s entry in Wikipedia is his Yasukuni stele.
Prime Minister Abe made a pilgrimage to Kolkata in 2007 to meet with Pal’s son and receive a couple pictures of Pal with Abe’s father-in-law, ex-Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi, who was detained after the war as a suspected Class A criminal but never indicted or tried.
For those who like their national history convoluted, it should also be pointed out that Pal was an admirer of the Indian National Army, which fought with the Japanese against the British in Malaya and Burma. When the British tried to try the leaders of the INA for treason after the war, the combination of outrage in the Indian military and popular revulsion against the British exercise of justice was a crucial factor in Great Britain throwing in the towel and granting Indian independence.
So, by an alternate reading of history, Japan can claim credit for the decolonization of India as well as Malaysia and Burma.
Prime Minister Singh is unlikely to go the final mile in supporting the Japanese liberation narrative as his primary political patrons are the Gandhi family, which demands sole credit for India’s independence on behalf of Mohandas Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru.
Nevertheless, Prime Minister Singh’s attitude to the potent symbolism of the Pal dissent and the Japanese decolonization narrative was displayed in Singh’s toast to Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi in 2005:
On December 14, 2006, Singh upgraded Pal’s judgment to “principled” and an expression of Indian-Japan solidarity in his speech in the Japanese Diet. He stated:
"The principled judgment of Justice Radhabinod Pal after the War is remembered even today in Japan. Ladies and Gentlemen, these events reflect the depth of our friendship and the fact that we have stood by each other at critical moments in our history."
This does not look like a matter of parsing the legal and moral flaws Pal detected in the war crimes tribunal. It looks like Singh’s heart, like Pal’s was with Japan—and its view that it got jobbed by history as written by the World War II victors and China benefited excessively from the unfair Japan = monster framing.
As memories fade of the concrete miseries of Japan’s romp through Asia, resurrecting the comforting abstraction of the Japan decolonization narrative is a potent political and diplomatic weapon, despite the fact that Japan has to be discreet in wielding it before the United States, which is completely vested in the Greatest Generation/triumph over evil version.
Anyway, maybe India thinks it’s time to repudiate the idea of war guilt along and give Japan back its rightful place in the sun (and consign its undeserving rival, the PRC, to the moral and geopolitical doghouse).
Singh did not have to endorse that reliable if somewhat misleading anti-Chinese bugbear “freedom of navigation” and claim an overt Indian strategic role in East Asia through the Look East policy.
But he did so in his remarks in Tokyo.
Our Look East engagement began with a strong economic emphasis, but it has become increasingly strategic in its content.
…
Our relationship with Japan has been at the heart of our Look East Policy. Japan inspired Asia's surge to prosperity and it remains integral to Asia’s future. The world has a huge stake in Japan’s success in restoring the momentum of its growth. Your continued leadership in enterprise, technology and innovation and your ability to remain the locomotive of Asian renaissance are crucial.
India's relations with Japan are important not only for our economic development, but also because we see Japan as a natural and indispensable partner in our quest for stability and peace in the vast region in Asia that is washed by the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
Our relations draw their strength from our spiritual, cultural and civilizational affinities and a shared commitment to the ideals of democracy, peace and freedom. We have increasingly convergent world views and growing stakes in each other’s prosperity. We have shared interests in maritime security and we face similar challenges to our energy security. There are strong synergies between our economies, which need an open, rule-based international trading system to prosper.
India's relations with Japan are important not only for our economic development, but also because we see Japan as a natural and indispensable partner in our quest for stability and peace in the vast region in Asia that is washed by the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
Our relations draw their strength from our spiritual, cultural and civilizational affinities and a shared commitment to the ideals of democracy, peace and freedom. We have increasingly convergent world views and growing stakes in each other’s prosperity. We have shared interests in maritime security and we face similar challenges to our energy security. There are strong synergies between our economies, which need an open, rule-based international trading system to prosper.
For outside observers, India’s overt buy-in validates the idea of the alliance and the narrative that the PRC is a rogue actor that needs containment.
It appears that Singh decided to follow his heart and match Abe’s boldness with his own, making a risky move to help Abe's anti-China gambit succeed with some conspicuous Indian buy-in.
My personal feeling is that Singh is going too far by “Looking East” and meddling in the China seas together with Japan, the world’s third-largest economy and committed China-basher, even if it is simply in retaliation for China’s conclusion of a “strategic cooperative partnership” with Sri Lanka and port-related initiatives –the notorious ‘string of pearls’- with India’s troublesome but less than intimidating neighbors Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Myanmar.
The confrontation between Japan and the PRC over the Senkakus may very possibly not end well, and having India sticking its oar in will probably not make things better.
If Singh’s ambitions go beyond playing the Japan card in order to wring better behavior out of China on South Asia and Himalayan issues to concluding an overt alliance with Japan against the PRC to alter the balance of power in Asia, I think he’s writing checks that the world—let alone India—can’t afford to cash.
History, as they say, will judge if Singh made the right bet. If it goes bad, people will be asking why he placed it so early in the game.
Global Times talked tough on the occasion of the Singh visit, putting the onus on Abe once again but presumably also sending a message to India not to end up on the wrong side of (long term) history (as well as reassuring itself that, despite the pretty unfavorable set of current circumstances, the PRC will come out on top in the end):
It will take time for Japan to face the reality that the once only great power in East Asia has to give way to China, whose GDP and marine strength will surpass that of Japan. The process will be tougher for Japan, which will be sincerely convinced some day.
The day will come sooner or later. The little tricks that Japan is playing are nothing but a struggle for self-comfort, which will not affect the development of Asia.
Japan is trying every means to hide its decline against China in order to boost its national morale, but China does not need to compete with Japan to regain confidence and prove its strength.
The conflict between China and Japan should not be regarded as a "strategic" game. In fact, the overall strategic future of Japan and China has already been determined. Gains and losses incurred by the frictions between China and Japan make no difference to the futures of either country. There is no need for China to exert too much energy on Japan.
As a growing but young giant, Chinese society will unavoidably have to deal with various conflicts with Japan. It will be a long journey for China to become mature enough so that a real great power will emerge with confidence.
This is not a final showdown between China and Japan, neither is it an opportunity for China to mend its broken fences with Japan. All China should do is "take it easy." China should be aware that Japan tricks can never impact China strategy. China should take the initiative to decide when and how seriously we respond to it.
The day will come sooner or later. The little tricks that Japan is playing are nothing but a struggle for self-comfort, which will not affect the development of Asia.
Japan is trying every means to hide its decline against China in order to boost its national morale, but China does not need to compete with Japan to regain confidence and prove its strength.
The conflict between China and Japan should not be regarded as a "strategic" game. In fact, the overall strategic future of Japan and China has already been determined. Gains and losses incurred by the frictions between China and Japan make no difference to the futures of either country. There is no need for China to exert too much energy on Japan.
As a growing but young giant, Chinese society will unavoidably have to deal with various conflicts with Japan. It will be a long journey for China to become mature enough so that a real great power will emerge with confidence.
This is not a final showdown between China and Japan, neither is it an opportunity for China to mend its broken fences with Japan. All China should do is "take it easy." China should be aware that Japan tricks can never impact China strategy. China should take the initiative to decide when and how seriously we respond to it.
But maybe Singh sees a once-in-a-career opportunity for rollback against the PRC with Abe in Japan, the US in Myanmar, and China’s problems with ASEAN on a prolonged, ugly boil.
It is already clear that India is slow-walking its negotiations with the PRC over a free trade agreement. If India and Japan both insist that China’s proposed regional trade zone regime, the RCEP, needs to look more like the TPP, negotiating initiative for all of the region’s trade pacts may switch over to Japan and India.
The PRC might decide it is a good idea to draw closer to the United States (which Abe is discreetly shouldering aside as he pursues his Japan-centric initiatives and promotes his vision of Japan as a victim of “victor’s justice”).
The PRC premier, Le Keqiang, found himself in the unlikely position of trying to reawaken nostalgia for the Potsdam declaration—which mandated the return to their owners of territories like Taiwan, the Pescadores, and Manchuria that Japan had stolen—during his trip to Germany. Beyond giving the PRC some kind of claim to the Senkakus, invoking the Potsdam declaration is probably meant to remind the United States of a happier time when the West’s writ was respectfully acknowledged and not covertly defied by the subjugated and defeated nations of Asia.
It will be interesting to see if the PRC decides that, given the Japan-India partnership, maybe the time has finally come to throw North Korea under the bus for the sake of Sino-US rapprochement.
On the other hand, if the weakened yen and Abe’s frenetic regional dealmaking fail to keep the Nikkei afloat and the long-expected revulsion against Japanese bonds (and the 240% of GDP national debt they fund) materializes and spikes Japan’s borrowing costs, Japan will be licking its wounds a few months from now and Singh will face some awkward moments in dealing with Beijing.
But for the time being, the vision (or to the PRC, the specter) of an active Japan-India alliance inciting and recruiting opposition to Chinese strategic and economic penetration in Asia offers the prospect of an interesting rejuggling of Pacific relationships.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
JAPAN: Osaka Mayor Dodges Censure over Comfort Women Remarks
Osaka mayor Toru Hashimoto has been haunted by his choice of words ever since igniting furious public debate a few weeks ago when we suggested that Japan’s use of some 200,000 comfort women during WWII was “necessary”. Yesterday he narrowly avoided being censured for his remarks, made on May 13, which were as follows:
“To maintain discipline in the military, it must have been necessary at that time. For soldiers who risked their lives in circumstances where bullets are flying around like rain and wind, if you want them to get some rest, a comfort women system was necessary. That's clear to anyone."
People shocked by Hashimoto’s views were quick to condemn his remarks in no uncertain terms. Citizens protested outside Osaka city hall on May 24, demanding an apology. Protestor Nobuko Kamenaga said: "I cannot stand thinking that women were taken against their will, held captive for 24 hours a day, and forced into sex slavery for the Japanese military."
Governments were also outspoken on the matter. “Mayor Hashimoto’s comments were outrageous and offensive,” said U.S. state department spokesperson Jen Psaki. “What happened in that era to these women who were trafficked for sexual purposes is deplorable and clearly a grave human rights violation of enormous proportions.”
The Japanese government, which formally apologized in 1993 for the use of comfort women, has also distanced itself from Hashimoto’s comments.
Making matters worse, Hashimoto also recently suggested that U.S. soldiers in Okinawa should visit legal brothels as a means of decreasing sexual crimes committed on the island. In response to the groundswell of disapproval, Hashimoto formally apologized to the U.S. military and public for his remarks.
The backlash from his series of incendiary remarks culminated yesterday in the Osaka city assembly’s vote on a possible censure of Hashimoto – a measure that did not pass.
“We do not seek Hashimoto’s resignation,” a New Komeito party executive said. “But it is necessary to urge him to reflect on the stalled situation of the city administration.”
“I think what I said was right," Hashimoto said in response to the censure motion, adding that does not intend to take back his remarks. He added, "I made remarks that could be misunderstood. I feel sorry for the citizens."
There was strong support behind the push for his censure, which was jointly submitted by 17 members of the Liberal Democratic Party, the nine members of Osaka Mirai, which has ties with the Democratic Party of Japan, and eight members of the Japanese Communist Party.
In the end, the motion was voted down by 33 members of Osaka Ishin no Kai, a regional wing of the Japan Restoration Party, which Hashimoto co-leads, as well as 19 New Komeito members. Ultimately, it was down to the fact that holding an election was deemed undesirable by New Komeito members.
The censure motion read: “The mayor has plunged the municipal administration into chaos. We strongly demand that the mayor reflect (on his remarks) seriously and take action that demonstrates awareness of his political responsibility.”
While Hashimoto has gotten off the hook for now, his remarks have made a lasting negative impression that will be very difficult indeed to live down. Some outlets are suggested that his political future hangs in the balance.
Shortly after realizing the extent of the backlash from his comments, Hashimoto was scheduled to meet on May 17 with two former Korean “comfort women”, Kim Bok-dong and Kil Won-ok. The women, however, canceled the appointment for fear that the meeting would be exploited for political purposes and that the mayor’s apology would ring hollow.
“We cannot compromise our painful past as victims and the reality that we still live today for Mayor Hashimoto's apology performance,” the two women said in a statement. “We don't need to be trampled on again.”
Jonathan DeHart is assistant editor of The Diplomat.
“To maintain discipline in the military, it must have been necessary at that time. For soldiers who risked their lives in circumstances where bullets are flying around like rain and wind, if you want them to get some rest, a comfort women system was necessary. That's clear to anyone."
People shocked by Hashimoto’s views were quick to condemn his remarks in no uncertain terms. Citizens protested outside Osaka city hall on May 24, demanding an apology. Protestor Nobuko Kamenaga said: "I cannot stand thinking that women were taken against their will, held captive for 24 hours a day, and forced into sex slavery for the Japanese military."
Governments were also outspoken on the matter. “Mayor Hashimoto’s comments were outrageous and offensive,” said U.S. state department spokesperson Jen Psaki. “What happened in that era to these women who were trafficked for sexual purposes is deplorable and clearly a grave human rights violation of enormous proportions.”
The Japanese government, which formally apologized in 1993 for the use of comfort women, has also distanced itself from Hashimoto’s comments.
Making matters worse, Hashimoto also recently suggested that U.S. soldiers in Okinawa should visit legal brothels as a means of decreasing sexual crimes committed on the island. In response to the groundswell of disapproval, Hashimoto formally apologized to the U.S. military and public for his remarks.
The backlash from his series of incendiary remarks culminated yesterday in the Osaka city assembly’s vote on a possible censure of Hashimoto – a measure that did not pass.
“We do not seek Hashimoto’s resignation,” a New Komeito party executive said. “But it is necessary to urge him to reflect on the stalled situation of the city administration.”
“I think what I said was right," Hashimoto said in response to the censure motion, adding that does not intend to take back his remarks. He added, "I made remarks that could be misunderstood. I feel sorry for the citizens."
There was strong support behind the push for his censure, which was jointly submitted by 17 members of the Liberal Democratic Party, the nine members of Osaka Mirai, which has ties with the Democratic Party of Japan, and eight members of the Japanese Communist Party.
In the end, the motion was voted down by 33 members of Osaka Ishin no Kai, a regional wing of the Japan Restoration Party, which Hashimoto co-leads, as well as 19 New Komeito members. Ultimately, it was down to the fact that holding an election was deemed undesirable by New Komeito members.
The censure motion read: “The mayor has plunged the municipal administration into chaos. We strongly demand that the mayor reflect (on his remarks) seriously and take action that demonstrates awareness of his political responsibility.”
While Hashimoto has gotten off the hook for now, his remarks have made a lasting negative impression that will be very difficult indeed to live down. Some outlets are suggested that his political future hangs in the balance.
Shortly after realizing the extent of the backlash from his comments, Hashimoto was scheduled to meet on May 17 with two former Korean “comfort women”, Kim Bok-dong and Kil Won-ok. The women, however, canceled the appointment for fear that the meeting would be exploited for political purposes and that the mayor’s apology would ring hollow.
“We cannot compromise our painful past as victims and the reality that we still live today for Mayor Hashimoto's apology performance,” the two women said in a statement. “We don't need to be trampled on again.”
Jonathan DeHart is assistant editor of The Diplomat.
RUSSIA proposes exporting power to JAPAN
Russia has offered to export electricity from the island of Sakhalin to the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido, using undersea cables, the Nikkei business daily said on Friday, in what would be Japan’s first imports of electric power.
The proposal calls for a total transmission capacity of 4 gigawatts by 2025 at a project cost of US$5.68 billion (HK$44.1 billion), the paper said, citing an interview with Alexey Kaplun, deputy general director of Russia’s RAO Energy System of East, the biggest power utility in the Russian Far East.
The proposal calls for a total transmission capacity of 4 gigawatts by 2025 at a project cost of US$5.68 billion (HK$44.1 billion), the paper said, citing an interview with Alexey Kaplun, deputy general director of Russia’s RAO Energy System of East, the biggest power utility in the Russian Far East.
CHINA: Aging Chinese Face a Bleak Picture
China's elderly are poor, sick and depressed in alarming numbers, according to the first large-scale survey of those over 60, an immense challenge for Beijing and one of the greatest long-term vulnerabilities of the Chinese economy.
Monday, May 27, 2013
CHINA, US Search for New Model of Relations
U.S. National Security Advisor Tom Donilon is holding talks with Chinese officials in Beijing in preparation for an upcoming meeting between the two countries' presidents. As differences grow between the United States and China, they are searching for a new model for relations.
During their meetings Monday, U.S. and Chinese officials stressed their hope that the informal early June talks between President Barack Obama and China’s new leader Xi Jinping will help the two sides ...
During their meetings Monday, U.S. and Chinese officials stressed their hope that the informal early June talks between President Barack Obama and China’s new leader Xi Jinping will help the two sides ...
JAPAN Becoming Major Economic Force in Burma
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has forgiven billions of dollars of Burmese debt and promised new aid. Analysts said despite China being its largest investor, Burma is increasingly looking to Japan as the dominant economic force.
During the first visit by a Japanese prime minister in 36 years, Shinzo Abe not only forgave Burma's debt, but also pledged a new development loan.
Japan cancelled $1.74 billion in debt and on Sunday agreed to lend Burma over half a billion dollars ...
During the first visit by a Japanese prime minister in 36 years, Shinzo Abe not only forgave Burma's debt, but also pledged a new development loan.
Japan cancelled $1.74 billion in debt and on Sunday agreed to lend Burma over half a billion dollars ...
Sunday, May 26, 2013
SOUTH KOREA: Wage bills set to rise
Controversy heats up in wake of court ruling that regular bonuses should be classified as ‘standard wages’, which are used as base for calculating overtime
Saturday, May 25, 2013
CHINA: Beyond the duck: 20 best Beijing restaurants
In food-mad Beijing, the problem is too many choices, not too few. We narrow the field
Article Page
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Japan slump tests faith in Abenomics run
Nikkei dives 7%, the steepest fall since the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami, in the first setback to Abe’s drive to reflate third-largest economy
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
JAPAN: Protests on Okinawa aren't always what they appear to be
In Okinawa, frustration over U.S. military bases and renewed threats from abroad, mainly China’s growing influence in the region, can lead down a disorienting corridor of smoke and mirrors. For example, a 65-year-old driver blasting pro-China and pro-North Korea slogans is actually pro-U.S. military.
MALAYSIAN Student Activist Charged with Sedition After Calling for Protests
A Malaysian student activist has been charged with sedition after he called for protests against the results of an election that the opposition says was fraudulent.
Prosecutors on Thursday charged Adam Adli under the country's controversial Sedition Act for allegedly telling a political forum that Malaysians should take to the streets and "seize back power."
The 24-year-old, who pleaded not guilty, faces up to three years in prison, if convicted. He was arrested Saturday and ...
Prosecutors on Thursday charged Adam Adli under the country's controversial Sedition Act for allegedly telling a political forum that Malaysians should take to the streets and "seize back power."
The 24-year-old, who pleaded not guilty, faces up to three years in prison, if convicted. He was arrested Saturday and ...
TAIWAN: U.S. congressmen back Taiwan's position over Philippines row
Washington, May 22 (CNA) Two more members of the U.S. Congress expressed their support for Taiwan Wednesday over the tension
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Family Quits Singapore Inquiry Into U.S. Engineer’s Death
The family of an American engineer found hanged in the city-state last year has quit the city-state's inquiry into the cause of death, saying they have lost "confidence" in the process.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Friday Asia Update: Top Five Stories for the Week of May 10, 2013
1. China offers to play peacemaker, but Bibi and Abbas don’t bite. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas both visited China this week. The Chinese media enthusiastically reported on the possibility that the country could serve as neutral territory for the two leaders to negotiate a peace settlement. However, the Chinese government made sure the leaders stayed far apart throughout the trip and were never in the same city at the same time. Netanyahu, for one, was far more interested in discussing trade and economic issues—China is Israel’s third-largest trading partner—as well as China’s potential role in halting Iran’s nuclear program. This is the first time that China has offered to play a role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and while mostly symbolic, could represent a new era in Chinese diplomacy and international reach. As a recent pro-Palestine opinion article in the state-run Global Times asserted, “China is no longer a weak country to be bullied by imperialist powers as it was more than a century ago, but an economic and military power capable of claiming what is rightly China’s. This is justice, and China wants to see justice served in the international arena.” But is China willing to see justice through to the end? Doubtful, but it will be interesting to see what other kinds of international justice the Chinese government will want served.
2. New Defense Department report calls out the Chinese government and military in cyberattacks. The U.S. Department of Defense released its annual report to Congress this week, and for the first time it explicitly accused China’s military of attacking American computer systems. The report said that cyberattacks around the world “appear to be attributable directly to the Chinese government and military,” a sharp deviation from last year’s report, which describes attacks “which originated within China.” A Chinese defense ministry spokesman expressed “strong dissatisfaction with” and “firm opposition to” the report, and stated that it damaged mutual trust.
3. Malaysia wraps up the closest election in its history, though opposition claims fraud. Barisan Nasional (BN), the political party that has ruled Malaysia since the 1950s, will remain in power after the most recent election, which had a high voter turnout of nearly 85 percent. BN won less than 47 percent of the popular vote but will hold 60 percent of parliamentary seats, thanks to gerrymandering. The Party could face serious difficulties leading a nation where the majority of voters, especially urban and wealthy ones, voted for the opposition.
4. Is China expanding its territorial claims? An editorial (Chinese) in the state-run People’s Daily on Wednesday called for a “reconsideration” of the historical status of Japan’s southernmost Ryukyu island chain, which includes Okinawa. The authors, scholars from the prestigious China Academy of Social Sciences, claim that Japan encroached upon the islands during China’s Qing dynasty, when the country was weakened by foreign forces and could not protect the island chain. Japan lodged a diplomatic protest to the claim, with Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga stating Okinawa “is unquestionably Japan’s territory, historically and internationally.” Okinawa is home to 1.4 million Japanese citizens, as well as over 15,000 U.S. troops. This expansion of territorial claims is likely a tactic to gain leverage in the debates over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.
5. Obama backs President Park’s North Korea policy. Recently elected South Korean president Park Geun-hye paid a visit to President Obama this week. Obama declared their approach to North Korea as “very compatible” during a news conference following the meeting, and the two leaders discussed deepening economic ties. Park also addressed a joint meeting of Congress, an honor reserved only for close U.S. allies. Obama had a very close working relationship with former South Korean President Lee Myung-bak; all signs point favorably towards the development of a similar relationship with Park, despite the fact that she is generally considered to be more conservative and hawkish than her predecessor.
Bonus: Rodman asks Kim to do him ‘a solid.’ Dennis Rodman, former basketball star and junior statesman (in light of his February visit to North Korea), tweeted, “I’m calling on the Supreme Leader of North Korea or as I call him ‘Kim’, to do me a solid and cut Kenneth Bae loose.” Kenneth Bae is an American tour operator who was arrested in North Korea in November for unspecified “hostile acts” and sentenced to fifteen years of hard labor. No tweets from Kim yet.
Malaysia’s Disastrous National Election
On May 5, Malaysians went to the polls in what was expected to be the closest national election since independence. Massive turnout was reported, particularly in urban areas, with many districts reporting that over 80 percent of eligible voters came to the polls. In the early part of the vote counting, opposition supporters seemed jubilant, and opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim even announced that he believed his three-party opposition alliance had taken down the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, which has dominated the country since independence, never losing an election. Of course, BN has used massive gerrymandering, enormous handouts from state coffers, thuggish election day tactics, and outright vote-buying in the past to secure its victories. Still, the May 5 vote seemed to be a potential watershed, putting the opposition into power and putting Malaysia onto the path of a real, consolidated two-party democracy.
Unfortunately, the election seems to have solved nothing, and may only exacerbate Malaysia’s serious internal problems. Although the ruling coalition claims victory, Anwar and the opposition allege massive fraud that could have cost them the win. So, the status of Malaysia’s electoral institutions has been badly damaged. Indeed, the opposition coalition appears to have won a higher percentage of the popular vote, yet gerrymandering and potential frauds have given the BN a majority of seats. Since the election commission is run by the prime minister’s office, and thus by the BN, it’s almost impossible anyone is going to overturn the election results.
So, for one, Malaysia now enters a period in which huge percentages of the population—particularly in urban areas—did not vote for the government and are extremely angry about the result. Anger is going to simmer for weeks or months, and is already growing fiercer on Malaysia’s free online media. This anger could lead to renewed street protests, a completely ineffective national government, or greater capital flight and educated Malaysians emigrating, already one of Malaysia’s biggest challenges. Without domestic capital being reinvested in the country, it will be impossible for Malaysia to escape the middle-income trap that it has been caught in for years.
Second, the election now has torn apart any remaining fictions about interethnic harmony in Malaysia. The ruling coalition used to be comprised of ethnic Malay, Indian, and Chinese parties, but the BN’s ethnic Chinese components were all but wiped out in this election by the opposition’s ethnic Chinese party. At the same time, the BN expended far more of its resources in ethnic Malay-dominated districts, and so instead of being a multiethnic coalition, the new BN government is really just one party, the Malay-dominated UMNO. A graph on New Mandala shows the correlation between BN victories and percentages of Malays in each district.
Malaysia now has a situation in which ethnic Malays totally dominate the ruling party, and minorities, including the Chinese, have almost completely gone to the opposition. Not a recipe for interethnic harmony. Private companies run by ethnic Chinese, already tired of affirmative action laws favoring Malays, are even more likely to close up and leave. Meanwhile, since the BN did not deliver an overwhelming victory, current Prime Minister Najib Razak, a relative moderate, is likely to lose his job to a figure in the BN who is more hard-line pro-Malay and less willing to promote reconciliation among all ethnic groups in Malaysia.
All in all, not a situation with a lot of bright sides.
Friday, May 3, 2013
MALAYSIA: Support for Najib falls ahead of election
KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - Support for Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak fell among all the country's main racial groups in an opinion poll, signaling the tough fight he faces in an election in the Southeast Asian country on Sunday.
Holy Week nearly over in RUSSIA, Easter celebrations at hand
Easter services are also organized at all Russian Orthodox churches across the world, the number of which exceeds 30,000.
After midnight and for the next 40 days after Easter Sunday, Orthodox Christians will be greeting each other with the words "Christ is risen!" expecting the reply "He is risen indeed!" The end of the short dialogue is celebrated by three traditional kisses.
Christians celebrate Easter to mark the resurrection of Jesus Christ on the third day after his crucifixion. The Resurrection of the Savior symbolizes his victory over sin and death.
Preparations for Easter celebrations begin on the last day of the Holy Week, known in Russia as Passion Week. On Holy Saturday believers come to churches to have their paschal cakes and eggs blessed by priests.
The Easter service begins shortly before midnight. Then, priests and believers carrying crosses and icons get going around the church glorifying the Resurrection. The service lasts several hours, well into the early hours of Sunday.
Easter is preceded by a long period of fasting. Believers abstain from meat, fish, eggs and dairy products for 48 days, spending time in prayer.
The real challenge is to help people refine their souls and learn to restrain desire.
Russians celebrate the end of Lent by painting colorful eggs – as a rule red, as a symbol of the blood of Christ - they exchange with each other, and preparing rich Easter cakes with raisins and nuts.
Easter is a moveable feast. Eastern and Western Christianity base their calculations on different calendars. The former uses Julian calendar, the latter Gregorian, so their Easter days differ.
Last year it was marked by the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant and Anglican churches on the same day, which happens quite rarely.
In 2012 nearly half a million Muscovites flocked to the country's churches to take part in evening and night services across the Russian capital. The largest service drew 6,000 people and was held at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. Patriarch Kirill, who heads the Russian Orthodox Church, led the Easter service in Moscow's landmark Cathedral.
In MALAYSIA, online election battles take a nasty turn
KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - Ahead of Malayasia's elections on Sunday, independent online media say they are being targeted in Internet attacks which filter content and throttle access to websites, threatening to deprive voters of their main source of independent reporting.
Friday Asia Update: Top Five Stories for the Week of May 3, 2013
1. Shanghai diners fed rat, mink, and fox instead of lamb. Despite many jokes that restaurants in China replace expensive cuts of meat with cat and dog, it turns out that fox, mink, rat, and other small creatures are the counterfeiters’ animals of choice. A recent raid in Shanghai alone netted ten tons of counterfeit meats and sixty-three suspects, who are accused of earning about $1.6 million in illicit sales of fake mutton. The raid was part of a crackdown by the Ministry of Public Security that started in January, and the police have since arrested 904 suspects and raided 1,721 butcheries and workshops across the country. “In fake lamb, it is easy to pull apart the fat from the red meat. In real lamb, the fat is difficult to separate,” explained a police tweet on Weibo that was forwarded more than 10,000 times.
2. China and India still at an impasse. Officials in New Delhi are increasingly worried about China’s incursion into Indian-controlled territory, and the Indian media has been covering the story extensively (see Sinocism for May 2 for a full roundup of stories). Though both sides have tried to play down the incident, with Chinese media curiously silent on the issue, the confrontation represents the most serious rise in tensions between the two Asian giants since the 1980s. The question that is puzzling analysts is: why now? What does China gain from reigniting old tensions? With maritime disputes in the East and South China Seas, Beijing seems to be antagonizing—by its own actions—many of its neighbors. Could Russia be next?
3. North Korea sentences a U.S. citizen. Though Pyongyang has dialed down its bellicose rhetoric of late, the hermit kingdom continues to draw the wary eye of Washington. Most notably, North Korea sentenced naturalized U.S. citizen Kenneth Bae to fifteen years of hard labor for unspecified “hostile acts.” He has been detained since late last year and was originally charged with crimes “aimed to topple” the government. Further south, the last South Korean workers left the Kaesong Industrial Complex, marking the first time all workers have withdrawn. Meanwhile, the Pentagon issued a report to Congress warning that the North “will move closer” to having the ability to hit the United States with a nuclear-armed missile, but it neglected to provide a timeline.
4. CEIP releases report on China’s military. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace released a report on Friday entitled “China’s Military and the U.S.-Japan Alliance in 2030: A Strategic Net Assessment.” In short, the report argues that China’s military will close the gap with that of the United States, but economic interdependence between the world’s two largest economies will prevent cold war or all-out war. On the other side of the Pacific, Australia just released its 2013 Defense White Paper, striking a more conciliatory tone towards China’s military modernization while promising to update its own fleets of aircraft, submarines, and patrol boats. The white paper is in stark contrast to former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s 2009 document, which took a much more confrontational approach towards China.
5. Alibaba buys stake in Weibo. Internet commerce giant Alibaba bought an 18 percent stake in China’s popular Weibo microblogging service for $586 million. The two companies hope the collaboration will draw Weibo users to Alibaba’s e-commerce sites and increase advertising and social commerce services revenue for Weibo. The deal shores up one of Alibaba’s weaknesses, social media, as it prepares for its IPO in the next year.
Bonus: Giant rubber ducky invades Hong Kong. A six-story tall inflatable duck floated into the Hong Kong harbor on Thursday. The duck was created by Dutch artist Florentijn Hofman, who said it represents global unity and the idea that the world is “one giant bathtub.” See pictures from the event here.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Looming Clash Between Seoul and Washington Over Nuclear Technology
When South Korean President Park Geun-hye visits Washington on May 5 she will be reaffirming the 60-year alliance between the U.S. and her country with cordiality. Relations between Washington and Seoul are better than ever thanks to a free-trade agreement, greater policy coordination and solidarity against North Korea’s provocations. But there is an unresolved question in their relationship: How much nuclear technology should South Korea possess? Representatives from both countries have tried to answer that question since October 2010, when they started negotiating over the 1974 nuclear-cooperation agreement, which permits commercial nuclear trade between the two nations. Under the pact, South Korea is banned from reprocessing spent U.S. fuel and enriching uranium — technologies that could be used to make weapons. Now, nearly 40 years after the agreement was signed, South Korea wants Washington to lift that ban. The U.S. refuses to do so. Washington and Seoul were supposed to come up with a new deal this spring before the original agreement expires in March 2014. They haven’t done so, but to prevent a hiatus in nuclear trade the two decided to extend the current agreement for two years and hold additional negotiations every three months until the new expiry date. “Because our cooperation is increasingly broad and deep, there are several complex technical issues that will take some additional time and effort to resolve,” said the U.S. State Department in a statement. The stopgap extension helps avoid potential awkwardness between Park and Obama at their first summit, but it ultimately underscores the clash between Seoul’s goals to expand its nuclear-energy industry and Washington’s efforts to contain the spread of nuclear technologies that could be used to produce weapons. (PHOTOS: North Korea Ratchets Up Tension on The Peninsula) Washington’s argument is that if South Korea has enrichment and reprocessing rights, then other countries that are trying to sign nuclear-cooperation agreements with the U.S. will also ask for the same rights and undermine nonproliferation efforts. That line of thinking does not go down well in South Korea, which considers itself a
Friday, April 26, 2013
JAPAN: Why Resurrect the Divisive Politics of Yasukuni?
Just as I thought I could put the finishing touches on my book manuscript, Japanese Domestic Politics and the Rise of China (Columbia University Press), which has a chapter on Yasukuni, the issue erupted again to confound Japan’s diplomatic relations.
The revival of Yasukuni Shrine visits presents a serious diplomatic setback for Tokyo. The costs have been high and the benefits hard to find. (Jennifer Lind wrote a great piece on this in March before this week’s headlines.)
More importantly, it reveals the reactive nationalisms afoot in Northeast Asia that are dangerous and unpredictable.
The debate over Yasukuni is fraught with political tensions, even within Japan. There are some who would liken it to America’s Arlington Cemetery, but this is wrong. There are no deep divisions in the United States over Arlington, or over those who lie there. Postwar Japanese however have been deeply ambivalent about the politics of Yasukuni Shrine, and the effort to try to give it the same standing as Arlington cemetery—to legally designate it as a national war memorial—has been defeated over and over again in the Japanese parliament on the grounds that the Shinto shrine violated the postwar Constitution’s separation of church and state.
Yasukuni Shrine also carries the stigma of state secrecy and complicit activism. The inclusion of the Class-A war criminals was done furtively in 1978 at the behest of a Yasukuni Shrine official, Nagayoshi Matsudaira. When the Japanese media found out almost a year later, it reignited the emotional differences between left and right over the proper place for commemorating Japan’s defeat and the losses, both civilian and military, the nation suffered. It is significant that Japan’s Emperor Hirohito, who had presided over the invasion of China and the Pacific War, stopped visiting Yasukuni Shrine once the Class-A war criminals were included.
The annual ceremony presided over by the Emperor and Empress of Japan, and attended by the prime minister and his cabinet, continues to be the place of preference for commemorating August 15 among the Japanese public. In Japanese, August 15 is referred to as the day World War II ended (終戦記念日); the official commemoration is referred to as “the day for mourning of war dead and praying for peace” (戦歿者を追悼し平和を祈念する日).
Previous prime ministers have sought to demonstrate their sympathy with Japan’s Imperial veterans by visiting Yasukuni on August 15. Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone visited Yasukuni Shrine in 1984/5 and Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi promised Japan’s veterans families that he would do so as well. Koizumi finally realized his promise in 2006, his fifth year in office. Nakasone and Koizumi both confronted the outrage of China and South Korea when they visited, and the balancing act between their desire to satisfy their conservative followers and to maintain good relations with neighboring countries proved extraordinarily difficult.
The Koizumi years proved salutary, however, for the national conversation in Japan over war responsibility and Yasukuni Shrine’s place in the national commemoration of Japan’s war dead. As chief cabinet secretary under Koizumi, Yasuo Fukuda led a task force to consider an alternative national memorial, one that would not be of a religious nature. Former prime minister Taro Aso also advocated for a national secular memorial when he ran for the leadership of his party, and thus his visit to Yasukuni as deputy prime minister this week seems puzzling.
Not all of those whose family members died in World War II find solace in the politicization of Yasukuni. During the Koizumi-era debate, the idea that the Emperor of Japan could visit Yasukuni seemed more important to some families of Japan’s war dead than the prime minister’s visit.
Likewise many Japanese were forced to consider the question of war responsibility. A Yomiuri Shimbun series of articles prompted a national conversation, and even those with longstanding and deep differences over the question of Japan’s history—the leading editorial writers of the Asahi Shimbun and Yomiuri Shimbun respectively—got together to discuss the assumptions in their positions on the war and on how it shapes Japanese postwar national identity.
Yet this remains an incomplete conversation, one that today has become deeply entwined with Yasukuni Shrine’s role as a symbol of conservative nationalism. For others, Yasukuni Shrine has become a symbol of Japan’s inability to make a break with its past, and to fully allow the generation who died in the war—civilians and those who wore the Emperor’s uniform—to be given a place where all Japanese can honor them.
Yasukuni Shrine visits have always been steeped in politics. The domestic debate over Yasukuni prompted by Koizumi’s pledge to his followers in many ways encouraged a healthy conversation about topics that had long been too difficult for many Japanese to address. But it did not legitimize the practice. Since then, many individual politicians have made their own trips to Yasukuni, including Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who has visited on several occasions although not as prime minister.
But there is a new edge to the domestic activism on Yasukuni this week.
Nationalism seems to beget nationalism among the nations of Northeast Asia, and political leaders should find little comfort in the growing popular sensitivities in Beijing, Seoul, and Tokyo to perceived slight and impugned motive. The diplomatic protest, and cancellation of the visit to Tokyo by South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se, seemed to invite a reaction in kind. The defiant march into Yasukuni Shrine on Tuesday, sponsored by the Let’s Go to Yasukuni Together group of politicians, was clearly meant as a political signal to Japan’s neighbors.
Even the language used in Japan’s parliament to the effect that Japanese won’t be intimidated suggested a new reactive motive for Yasukuni Shrine visits, a motive that many of us outside the country find difficult to understand.
Tokyo today needs to look outward, to find common cause with its friends in Asia and across the globe, rather than retreat into isolation. Postwar Japan’s accomplishments, not the divisive symbols of its past, should continue to guide its choices. Japan’s postwar generation, conservatives and liberals alike, embraced a new future with different values, and created the tremendous energy needed to lead their nation into a different era.
Rather than turn to defiant gestures, Japan’s contemporary political leaders—conservative and liberal alike—must have the courage to lead the way to firmer ground upon which to base their children and grandchildren’s future. Yasukuni may always be the place of commemoration for a generation of Japanese who seek to honor their family members who fought in the name of the Emperor.
But for the Japan of today, the nation that has committed itself to avoiding war and building peace and democratic values, perhaps the time has come to embrace Mr. Fukuda’s plan for the construction of an alternative memorial, one where all Japanese and non-Japanese can honor those who gave their lives for their country.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
RUSSIA: Vladimir Putin’s Live Q&A Sessions: 10 Facts
President Vladimir Putin is set to hold his 11th question and answer session with the Russian public on Thursday.
JAPAN court rejects demand to evacuate children
TOKYO (AP) — A Japanese court has rejected a demand that a city affected by the fallout of the country’s 2011 nuclear disaster evacuate its children.
The unusual lawsuit was filed on behalf of the children by their parents and anti-nuclear activists in June 2011. The Sendai High Court handed down its ruling Wednesday.
The case had drawn international attention because it touched the uncertainties about the effects of continuous low-dose radiation on health, especially that of children, who are far more vulnerable than adults.
The lawsuit argued the city of Koriyama had legal responsibility to evacuate children at elementary schools and junior-high schools, which are part of compulsory education under Japanese law.
The court acknowledged radiation in the city exceeded levels deemed safe prior to the disaster. But it said the government shoulders no responsibility for evacuating the schools as demanded — in effect, telling people to leave on their own if they were worried.
Toshio Yanagihara, one of the lawyers, said the ruling was unfair as the children were “victims with absolutely no responsibility for the nuclear accident.”
A lower court threw out the original case in December 2011, but that ruling was appealed. The latest ruling can also be appealed.
Koriyama is a city of 330,000 people located about 60 kilometers (40 miles) west of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant, which went into multiple meltdowns more than two years ago after a giant tsunami destroyed it cooling system. That set off the worst nuclear catastrophe since Chernobyl.
Thousands of children got cancer after the Chernobyl disaster, but the cases did not surface for several years.
It is unclear whether Fukushima children are equally prone, as cancer has various causes, and radiation affects people differently. Radioactive contamination is complex, tainting not only the air but also getting in the food, soil and water.
Some experts say radiation outside the restricted zone right around Fukushima Dai-ichi is so low the probability of getting cancer is no different from the rest of Japan. But many Fukushima residents are worried and have moved out.
The government’s handling of the Fukushima disaster has led to widespread public distrust. Thousands of people have taken to the streets, demanding a phase-out of atomic power. The government has expressed a desire to restart reactors after checking on their safety.
The unusual lawsuit was filed on behalf of the children by their parents and anti-nuclear activists in June 2011. The Sendai High Court handed down its ruling Wednesday.
The case had drawn international attention because it touched the uncertainties about the effects of continuous low-dose radiation on health, especially that of children, who are far more vulnerable than adults.
The lawsuit argued the city of Koriyama had legal responsibility to evacuate children at elementary schools and junior-high schools, which are part of compulsory education under Japanese law.
The court acknowledged radiation in the city exceeded levels deemed safe prior to the disaster. But it said the government shoulders no responsibility for evacuating the schools as demanded — in effect, telling people to leave on their own if they were worried.
Toshio Yanagihara, one of the lawyers, said the ruling was unfair as the children were “victims with absolutely no responsibility for the nuclear accident.”
A lower court threw out the original case in December 2011, but that ruling was appealed. The latest ruling can also be appealed.
Koriyama is a city of 330,000 people located about 60 kilometers (40 miles) west of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant, which went into multiple meltdowns more than two years ago after a giant tsunami destroyed it cooling system. That set off the worst nuclear catastrophe since Chernobyl.
Thousands of children got cancer after the Chernobyl disaster, but the cases did not surface for several years.
It is unclear whether Fukushima children are equally prone, as cancer has various causes, and radiation affects people differently. Radioactive contamination is complex, tainting not only the air but also getting in the food, soil and water.
Some experts say radiation outside the restricted zone right around Fukushima Dai-ichi is so low the probability of getting cancer is no different from the rest of Japan. But many Fukushima residents are worried and have moved out.
The government’s handling of the Fukushima disaster has led to widespread public distrust. Thousands of people have taken to the streets, demanding a phase-out of atomic power. The government has expressed a desire to restart reactors after checking on their safety.
KOREA PENINSULA: South Korea Warns North of ‘Grave Measure’ in Factory Dispute
Concerns grow that South Korea could withdraw from a jointly operated industrial complex located in North Korea.
ASEAN makes progress on trade, not on sea disputes
BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN, Brunei (AP) — Southeast Asian leaders were upbeat Thursday about progress made on an ambitious plan to weld the region into a European Union-style economic community as a counterweight to Asian powerhouse China, while efforts were stalling on South China Sea disputes.
Leaders attending the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in Brunei had hoped China would soon agree to start talks on a nonaggression pact to prevent a major clash in the disputed territories that
could smoke out their region’s robust economies.
Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, left, Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, center, and Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung pose for a group photo session during the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, Thursday. Pic: AP.
But China has given no clear indication when it would agree to negotiate such a stopgap accord, known in ASEAN parlance as a “Code of Conduct.”
“Everybody is interested in having a peaceful resolution and also in voicing a concern that there have been increasing sea disputes,” Philippine President Benigno Aquino III told reporters after he and the other heads of state sat in a traditional dinner Wednesday.
Although overshadowed by security issues, an ambitious plan by ASEAN to transform itself into an E.U.-like community of more than 600 million people by the end of 2015 has sparked more optimism, with diplomats saying the bloc was on track to meet the deadline.
About 77 percent of the work to turn the bustling region into a single market and production base, first laid out in a 2007 blueprint, have been done, according to a confidential draft statement to be issued after the summit.
Nine leaders in the 10-nation bloc huddled behind closed doors Thursday at a cavernous, stone and marble building Brunei’s Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah had ordered built for the annual two-day summit. Absent from the session was Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Rasak, who was campaigning for re-election back home.
Carl Thayer, an expert who has extensively studied the territorial conflicts, said ASEAN may have committed a strategic mistake of agreeing to a crucial process that could easily be stalled by China, which would not commit to anything that would restrict its plans.
“ASEAN is stuck in a bureaucratic rut,” Thayer said.
The battle for ownership of potentially oil-rich territories in the South China Sea has settled into an uneasy stand-off since the last fighting, involving China and Vietnam, that killed more than 70 Vietnamese sailors in 1988. The other claimants are Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Taiwan.
New skirmishes, however, have erupted in the last two years, involving Vietnam, the Philippines and China, which claims the busy waterway virtually in its entirety.
Concerns have been exacerbated by China’s deployment of a patrol ship, equipped with a helipad, to guard its claimed areas and establishment last year of what they called Sansha city on a remote island 350 kilometers (220 miles) from southern Hainan to administer areas being contested by rival claimant countries.
A tense standoff erupted last year between Chinese and Filipino ships over the Scarborough Shoal has remained unresolved, prompting the Philippines in January to take a daring legal step that challenged China’s vast claims before a tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. China has ignored the move.
Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario said all the five arbiters of the tribunal have been appointed and they could now start looking into the case if they declare they have jurisdiction.
The long-raging disputes have threatened to divide ASEAN. Last year, its foreign ministers failed to issue a joint statement — a first in the bloc’s 45-year history — after Cambodia refused mention of the territorial rifts in the communique, provoking protests from Vietnam and the Philippines.
Cambodia, a known China ally, has towed Beijing’s line that the disputes should not be brought to the international arena. China wants the disputes settled by negotiating one on one with each of the rival claimants, something that will give it advantage because of its sheer size.
During the summit, ASEAN leaders also expressed concern about North Korea’s latest threats.
Leaders attending the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in Brunei had hoped China would soon agree to start talks on a nonaggression pact to prevent a major clash in the disputed territories that
could smoke out their region’s robust economies.
Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, left, Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, center, and Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung pose for a group photo session during the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, Thursday. Pic: AP.
But China has given no clear indication when it would agree to negotiate such a stopgap accord, known in ASEAN parlance as a “Code of Conduct.”
“Everybody is interested in having a peaceful resolution and also in voicing a concern that there have been increasing sea disputes,” Philippine President Benigno Aquino III told reporters after he and the other heads of state sat in a traditional dinner Wednesday.
Although overshadowed by security issues, an ambitious plan by ASEAN to transform itself into an E.U.-like community of more than 600 million people by the end of 2015 has sparked more optimism, with diplomats saying the bloc was on track to meet the deadline.
About 77 percent of the work to turn the bustling region into a single market and production base, first laid out in a 2007 blueprint, have been done, according to a confidential draft statement to be issued after the summit.
Nine leaders in the 10-nation bloc huddled behind closed doors Thursday at a cavernous, stone and marble building Brunei’s Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah had ordered built for the annual two-day summit. Absent from the session was Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Rasak, who was campaigning for re-election back home.
Carl Thayer, an expert who has extensively studied the territorial conflicts, said ASEAN may have committed a strategic mistake of agreeing to a crucial process that could easily be stalled by China, which would not commit to anything that would restrict its plans.
“ASEAN is stuck in a bureaucratic rut,” Thayer said.
The battle for ownership of potentially oil-rich territories in the South China Sea has settled into an uneasy stand-off since the last fighting, involving China and Vietnam, that killed more than 70 Vietnamese sailors in 1988. The other claimants are Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Taiwan.
New skirmishes, however, have erupted in the last two years, involving Vietnam, the Philippines and China, which claims the busy waterway virtually in its entirety.
Concerns have been exacerbated by China’s deployment of a patrol ship, equipped with a helipad, to guard its claimed areas and establishment last year of what they called Sansha city on a remote island 350 kilometers (220 miles) from southern Hainan to administer areas being contested by rival claimant countries.
A tense standoff erupted last year between Chinese and Filipino ships over the Scarborough Shoal has remained unresolved, prompting the Philippines in January to take a daring legal step that challenged China’s vast claims before a tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. China has ignored the move.
Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario said all the five arbiters of the tribunal have been appointed and they could now start looking into the case if they declare they have jurisdiction.
The long-raging disputes have threatened to divide ASEAN. Last year, its foreign ministers failed to issue a joint statement — a first in the bloc’s 45-year history — after Cambodia refused mention of the territorial rifts in the communique, provoking protests from Vietnam and the Philippines.
Cambodia, a known China ally, has towed Beijing’s line that the disputes should not be brought to the international arena. China wants the disputes settled by negotiating one on one with each of the rival claimants, something that will give it advantage because of its sheer size.
During the summit, ASEAN leaders also expressed concern about North Korea’s latest threats.
CHINA: Tibetan monks die after immolations
Two Tibetan monks die after setting themselves alight in a Tibetan area of China's Sichuan province, reports say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
