The Catholic Hierarchy Has Learned Nothing

 

St. Mary's Cathedral, Tokyo

Over the next week we shall keep our focus on the breaking priest abuse scandal in Japan.

In 1984, a young boy told his parents that the parish priest had done “bad things” to him at the church in Louisiana. This would become the first case that would explode over the next years into the international priest abuse scandal. No diocese or mission territory in the Roman Catholic Church has been exempted from cases. Religious orders have been bankrupted settling cases.

At heart of all of this has been the bishops and popes protecting the institution over protecting parishioners from predator priests, and refusing to see justice dispensed to the guilty. Cardinal Bernard Law at the heart of the Boston scandal barely scratched the surface. Pope John XXIII knew in 1962 that priests in Ireland had abused over 30 boys at a school in Cork. Paul VI in 1968, was informed that priests and brothers at a school for the deaf in Warsaw had abused 8 boys. John Paul II in 1979, was informed that a school in Toronto had 3 boys abused by a priest. In all cases, the brothers and priests were transferred, and then the accused abused more children.

John Paul II already had a history of protecting accused religious back home in Krakow, Poland when he was archbishop. Transferring them to Austria, Germany, and all over Poland.

Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, who as a cardinal led the Vatican Office of the Faith, the most powerful position after the pope. Knew the total scope of the scandal years before it became public. His concern was solely in protecting the institution. Likewise for Pope Francis. Francis has known since 2014 about the secret children fathered by priests under vows. Francis has refused any and all support for the children. Showing not only children but also adults have been victimized by scoundrels dressed in clerical collar.

Now a cursory look at the situation in Japan is exactly the same. When accusations were made about priests the immediate reaction of chancery offices of diocese was to send a vicar from the office along with a lawyer. Get a nondisclosure agreement signed that prevented any visit to the police until an internal investigation was completed. No matter the result a cursory payment was made and a further NDA barring any discussion of the accusation or notifying police. Keep all inside the chancery. The exact same for religious orders. The provincial would send a representative priest and a lawyer. The goal was to keep strict silence not to help the victim nor punish the offender.

Today, we are told that the Letter of the Bishops of Japan that outlines the procedure has changed the “systemic practice of protecting the Church”. That is completely false. The victim is encouraged to cooperate with a church investigation and only go to the police when the church endorses that action. This is the exact process as before. Nothing has been changed.

The church in Japan has even doubled down with this from the statement: In all cases, the names of individual dioceses, religious congregations and mission societies as well as the number of reported cases in each will not be made public because doing so may lead to the identification of the individual victims.

If the process is conducted under an NDA then this is a total lie. There is no way for the victim to be discovered unless the victim themselves do so. This would lead to the victim being sued for breaking the very NDA to protect the church and not the victim. Again, more lies and no change.

For the last 21 years it is painfully obvious the church has learned nothing. The wagons still circle to protect the accused and the church. The victims are still painted as enemies to the faith. The church is still operating blissfully to its own demise from the crumbling of faith in the faithful. The faithful see the wolves have disguised themselves as the shepherds all this time, the poor sheep.

Dallas Brincrest, Editor

Emperor Naruhito Will Face Challenges

Emperor Naruhito

Whatever the future may hold for the new era under Emperor Naruhito, it’s clear that the majority of Japanese remain supportive of the imperial family and the sense of national unity the Chrysanthemum Throne provides.

However, the real test of the symbolic strength of the emperor and his family could well be how the imperial household fares when it comes to promoting Japan’s image and interests overseas.

While the new emperor and empress will be more than capable of serving as Japan’s ultimate ambassadors abroad, they will have to overcome considerable hurdles at home before they can realize their full potential as great diplomats.

Like Britain, Spain and Denmark, Japan too has a constitutional monarchy in which the sovereign has no political power.

Still, when it comes to enhancing relations abroad, the royals can be an asset in otherwise tricky situations, especially in dealing with other countries that also have monarchies. They can also add an extra layer of reassurance as well as glamor to countries with which Japan maintains well-established ties.

For example, Japan’s imperial household has been an essential diplomatic tool in reaching out to the Saudi royalty and the sultan of Brunei. Saudi Arabia and Brunei are two countries with which Japan has significant economic interests and yet may find it challenging to see eye-to-eye politically.

Meanwhile, relations with Western European allies such as Belgium and the Netherlands have benefited from friendly royal relations, not least through eye-catching photo opportunities showcasing the elegance of monarchies.

The pomp accompanying the imperial household will be on full display for Emperor Naruhito’s enthronement ceremony on Oct. 22. Leaders and royalty from nearly 200 countries will be invited to take part in the festivities in Tokyo.

The real diplomatic challenge for the new emperor and empress, though, is whether they will have the opportunities and will to make full use of their own attributes.

After all, the Oxford- and Harvard-educated Empress Masako was a career diplomat before she married Emperor Naruhito, while he too studied at Oxford and has publicly declared his two years there as one of the happiest times in his life.

Both are certainly more than up to the task of being part of Japan’s soft-power strategy, and while they may not be as alluring as the duke and duchess of Cambridge or the king and queen of Spain, they could no doubt contribute to adding more glamor to Japan on the global stage.

There are, however, three major hurdles at home for Emperor Naruhito and Empress Masako to playing a greater role in imperial diplomacy. First and foremost, the fact that their only child cannot inherit the throne simply because she is a female will only be highlighted as the question of succession and will invariably remain an issue.

Without changes to the succession rules, the 17-year-old Princess Aiko will never become empress and will actually relinquish her royal title after marriage.

Instead, her cousin, 12-year-old Prince Hisahito, who is the son of Emperor Naruhito’s brother, is in line to the throne. Gender equality is guaranteed by law and Japanese women are as well-educated as men.

Perhaps most importantly, it is apparent that Emperor Naruhito is a loving husband and a doting father, and incredibly protective of both his wife and daughter. Yet such facts are likely to be eclipsed by the fact that there is such blatant gender discrimination within the imperial household.

The second obstacle for imperial diplomacy remains the Imperial Household Agency itself. The fact that Empress Masako suffered from stress-related disorders as a result of pressures to adapt to imperial rules is evident.

In her new role there will be more public duties for Empress Masako to attend and she will be less able to sit out highly visibility functions both at home and abroad.

Whether there will be greater flexibility and tolerance on the part of the rule-makers to allow Empress Masako to be able to take on those roles without any emotional turmoil remains to be seen.

Finally, the challenge of Japan being able to improve relations with its immediate neighbors, particularly South Korea, will continue to be an issue for the imperial family.

This is not least due to the fact that Japanese aggression was virulent across Asia during the reign of Emperor Naruhito’s grandfather, Emperor Showa.

That said, his son, Emperor Emeritus Akihito, was personally committed to expressing remorse about Japan’s wartime past and offering condolences across the Asia-Pacific, especially in the Pacific islands.

Expectations for Emperor Naruhito to carry on his father’s legacy on the one hand, while navigating the evolving political minefield of reaching out to former occupied countries on the other, will continue to be a balancing act for the new sovereign with no end in sight.

Whether the emperor will be able to meet those expectations remains to be seen. What is clear at this juncture is that there is no end to the list of issues Emperor Naruhito could tackle in his new role at home as well as abroad.

Ryo Hasegawa

Trump Better For Japan Than Clinton Would Have Been

The American politician bend for upbraiding Japan about trade issues did not begin with Donald Trump. It began with Jimmy Carter in 1979, when he began his run for reelection. President Ronald Reagan made it part of his platform during his campaign in 1980, during his reelection campaign in 1984, and throughout his administration. From Carter to Trump every candidate for presidency has made criticism of Japan's refusal to negotiate true free trade agreements part of their platform. Hillary Clinton in June 2015 said to a crowd in Detroit, “The TPP must be reworked to assure our automobiles will be as accessible in Japan as their automobiles are here.”

Trump criticizing Japan on trade issues is part and parcel of US politics, just as protecting Japan's bloated and subsidized agriculture sector is to Japanese politics. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his LDP crew need to stop criticizing the usual rhetoric and begin looking at how Trump is much better for Japan than Clinton would have and Bush and Obama failed Japan.

It is true that Bush and Koizumi shared a rare bromance that few presidents of the USA and prime ministers of Japan ever did. Bush also failed to back Japan for a UN resolution against North Korea to demand return of remains and release the whereabouts of abducted Japanese citizens in North Korea. Bush also failed to implement a missile defense shield for Japan due to Chinese objections.

Obama did visit Hiroshima last year but it was an empty political gesture since it was reciprocation for Emperor Akihito visiting Pearl Harbor during June 2014 and also as a thank you for Prime Minister Abe agreeing to visit Pearl Harbor last year. Obama's policies that enabled China to expand territory and failing to demand Chinese military stay out of Japan's territories caused Japan more trouble than an empty visit to Hiroshima was worth.

Trump is willing to back Japan in two areas that Japan needs. One, the renegotiation of the Status of Forces Agreement rushed out by President Clinton and Prime Minister Maruyama in 1995. Two, the desire to put an end to North Korean military aggression once and for all.

The Status of Forces agreement that Clinton and Maruyama rushed into signing in 1995 before Japanese Diet elections has been a thorn in both nations. For Japan it has caused continual confrontation between Okinawa and Tokyo. Okinawans are tired of shouldering over 80% of US military forces in Japan and do not want an expansion of bases. Tokyo has taken a “shut up do as we say” attitude toward Okinawa. When Okinawan Governor, Takeshi Onaga, flew to Washington DC to visit President Trump in February, he received an assurance by Trump to look into the issue. Trump spoke with Abe just recently in Germany about re-looking at SOFA to perhaps ease Okinawa's situation. This is more than Clinton, Bush, or Obama ever offered.

As North Korea keeps firing missiles daily, Trump has ordered US military forces to begin setting up the missile defense shield and has put the USS Vincent aircraft carrier group off the coast of North Korea in South Korean and Japanese waters. These actions are much more action than Bush or Obama ever even conceived of putting into motion.

Trump sees Japan as an important ally and is showing actual motions to prove such. Abe and his LDP posse need to recognize the reality that Trump is much better for Japan than any US president has been since Ronald Reagan. Trump's bluster is easily ignored and his actions speak much loader than the rhetoric puked out by Clinton, Bush, and Obama. They spoke in kind terms but their actions did more to hurt Japan's security and stability than Trump speaking the truth - that when it comes to trade Japan has a poor track record.

Trump is refusing a nuclear armed North Korea and is showing willingness to fight for that, and that is alone is what is best for Japan. Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State did nothing to confront North Korea. Trump has made it clear North Korea will be confronted - including military intervention. Clinton, Bush, and Obama all failed in that respect and thus Japan is in the situation on North Korea in all fronts Abe is contending with.

Bishop Daniel Rea, Christian Church of Japan

The Trade Deal That Isn't

The trade deal that really is not a trade deal was trumpeted as a success last week. Not so much as break through as a failed tweak on Trump's and the UK's noses. The deal is this: The EU and Japan have made a deal to meet again and try to get a deal worked out. All that was agreed to concretely is what was agreed to last year. Tariffs on EU produced non automotive industrial products sold in Japan would be cut by 30% in 2019 and phased out completely by 2025. On the Japan side, Japanese electronics would have tariffs in the EU cut by 30% in 2018 and phased out completely by 2023. This has already been agreed to in December last year and waited to be signed during the G20 meetings this month as a symbolic symbol to the USA and UK.

Maybe the shelves in local Japanese won't be bulging under the weight of European quality cheeses, cold meat, or clinking with fine wine just yet. But the deal, or accord rather, is the correct terminology politically for the agreement, declaration is a means to and end. That is to scold President Trump policy of protectionism and isolation.

As for the Jean-Claude Juncker and European Council President Tusk to trumpet their Global Europe policy in the face of GB Prime Minster Theresa May. Not particularly subtle or objective, however the message is that Japan and the EU are going to give Kabuki Show appearance to the fact try as hard as they will Japan will not lower or remove tariffs on EU automobiles and agricultural products. The EU will not allow Japanese robotics in the EU without strong limits. So what was worked out is that they will try hard and accomplish nothing in the future.
 
Shinzo Abe as protector of free trade? Not likely – ever. For Japan free trade means we're free to sell our stuff anywhere we like at any price we like and keep your stuff out.

The Chinese will take note! And the USA, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, African nations that feel the EU and Japan are too stringent and unequitable on “free trade” deals will negotiate their own among each other. The EU and Japan will simply be shut out from a majority of nations that see national sovereignty as far more important than meaningless labels as “free trade” that is not free trade and “globalization” that is nothing but national sovereignty sacrificed to unelected bureaucrats in the UN and EU.

The cry of 'The let them eat sushi' is not quite so fresh as the fish need to be. Japan also faces fights with EU on wanting to expand fishing rights into EU waters in the North Sea and Atlantic. And instead of buying Japanese cars (which are set to go up in price) Australians and New Zealanders are buying Chinese and Amrican cars and are now undercutting Japanese sales. In Australia alone Japanese auto sales have plummeted 60% over the last decade. In China the goal is to own a Cadillac or Lincoln and Japanese auto makers have all but closed out of the more lucrative midclass and luxury car markets. Toyota pulled its Lexus brand out of China in 2012 and has no plans to return. Is this what they call 'negotiating'? Junker was recently complaining about an empty chamber the other day which was evidenced by footage showing it to be so. And the Abe government is on the slide after the worst vote ever for the LDP in the Tokyo elections outsmarted by Tokyo's first successful female politician. Four years a-coming but not signed yet? Abe full of ideas except none of them work out. A true analysis is that this will yet be another dead on arrival accomplishment. A further and another example of Abenomics.

A true account of something I was told years ago comes to mind. A product being made for a Japanese buyer in the USA. Everything was questioned and changed from the original, even the color. It was a leather product. Come the presentation and the Japanese buyer still hovered. Frustrated the seller asked what now was wrong. "We have done everrything you requested". The Japanese buyer replied “Ah, yeah, but I don't like the smell! It is too leathery smelling.” Imagine leather smelling like leather and not lilacs or sakura.

But for the LDP showing off is just letting the dog and pony show of working hard and accomplishing nothing go on further. I would not say that choice is too limited for European products in Japan, rather some type of censorship about what is best as quality and their price of products is limiting their sale. Abe needs to keep his rural farmer voters happy for a few more years.

It has been decided in Tokyo, when Prime Minister Abe returned from Europe Tuesday, that a shift has been made. The Abe administration now has decided there will be no deal at all if the old system of investment structure is changed in any way. This is a deal breaker for Brussels and as of that announcement EU nations all but declared the talks over if Tokyo keeps that tone. Japan's reply is “We shall keep this tone, the system will not change.”

Japanese time is slow and even slower in today's world where one consumer now knows with smart phone effort what is available all over the Earth through the Internet. Globalism has been replaced by Amazon, Ebay, and Alibaba. Just as Fed-Ex, Yamato Kuro Neko, and Sagawa replaced the post office for express delivery. National sovereignty is easily kept when the buying and selling is done on screens and keyboards. Seems Abe and Junkers have yet to realize this. The future is not free trade agreements and globalization but rather shoring up technology infrastructure and managing the virtual currency markets. The net marketplace has already steadily replaced the brick and mortar markets.

Dallas Brincrest, Editor

Bureauctrats, Red Tape, Land Deals, And Shinzo Abe

Have you met a government employee at a government office who mercilessly scanned every detail of a written application and rejected it for any small issue? Such people are said to have a "bureaucratic" mind. Their sole purpose is to approve or reject the piles of government red tape.

The expression "red tape" originates with the red ribbon that once bound official documents in Britain. Today, it has come to represent what we mere common people see as document worship by the staff of government offices. In recent times, the bureaucracy's "document-ism" is intended to guarantee the preservation of evidence of official government actions, projects and decision-making so that it can be examined later. 

It needs to be impossible for the government to be bereft of records to show how it decided to sell a plot of state-owned land for just 14 percent of its appraised value. Of course, we are talking about the Finance Ministry's handling of just such a sale to nationalist private school operator Moritomo Gakuen. Surely those responsible for caring for Japanese people's assets have an obligation to maintain proof that they are carrying out this management fairly. 

What is surprising about the Moritomo affair is that the finance bureau head who so bluntly insisted during Diet discussions that the sale was "appropriate" while maintaining that "there are no records" has gone on to the top post in the National Tax Agency. Taxpayers struggling with the ample volumes of tax-system red tape must be astonished at the Finance Ministry's idea of "fairness." 

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga, who is in the nerve center of the government which now holds authority over bureaucrats' postings, stated recently that the aforementioned promotion stemmed from the principle of "the right person in the right place." Surely he did not mean that the government thought highly of the new National Tax Agency chief's handling of the Moritomo scandal, in which he could not verify the legitimacy of the land sale and as a result fueled public distrust in the government. Neither the administration nor the Finance Ministry should be so dismissive of taxpayers' feelings. 

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is now obsessed with revising the Constitution, but we would like him to think about what in this world gave rise to two other constitutions, namely Britain's Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, it was unjust taxation and unfair spending that sparked the fury of the people to demand the reforms embodied in these documents.

Abe - Putin Summit Will Change Little

Abe and Putin at UN Sept 28

Among the various disputes in East Asia that have garnered significant attention over the past two years, the Russia-Japanese dispute over the Kuril Islands ( or Northern Territories as they are known in Japan) has been treated as an almost afterthought. While the potential for conflict over this dispute is minimal, it has served to complicate Russia-Japan relations. Recent actions by Moscow have angered Tokyo and while both sides wish to reach a peaceful resolution, Moscow insists that the status of the islands is not up for debate. With Russian President Putin pursuing a more active foreign policy and nationalism growing in Japan under Prime Minister Abe, a resolution to this dispute does not seem likely in the short term.

Several islands in an island chain north of Hokkaido were developed by Japanese migrants from the 18^th century onward and in 1855, Russian and Japan signed the Treaty of Shimoda granting Japan the four southernmost islands in the chain. Japan maintained control of these islands until the end of World War II when they were occupied by Russia. In 1949, Russia deported all of the Japanese residents on them to Japan. Japan renounced “all right, title and claim to the Kuril Islands” in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty though this was not signed by Russia nor did the Japanese recognize the southernmost four islands as part of the Kuril chain. Since then the dispute has remained unresolved and since Japan views Russia as an occupying force, neither countries have signed a peace treaty to end their World War II hostilities.

There have been numerous attempts at settling the dispute but they have always fallen far short of what Tokyo has sought and what Moscow was willing to concede. By 2013, relations between Japan and Russia were improving and the possibility of a resolution being realized was becoming more likely. The 2014 revolution in Ukraine ended this as Russia-Japan relations suddenly thawed. Since then, Russia has taken provocative military steps in the region and has signaled its intent to retain control of the islands.

This summer marked not only the 70th anniversary of the Soviet Union’s victory against Japan in World War II and the start of its occupation of the northern territories but also a worsening of the situation. In response to Abe’s June visit to Kiev, Ukraine, Moscow announced that the construction of military facilities in the Kurils would speed up. In August, Russian Prime Minister Medvedev in a widely publicized event visited the Kuril Islands on Russia’s state Flag Day. Tokyo immediately lodged a protest against this visit which was one of many made by senior Russian government officials over the summer.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov commented during the World War II anniversary celebrations that the territorial issues between Russia and Japan had been solved 70 years ago. Japan immediately protested these comments with Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida calling them “unacceptable” and “unproductive and false”.  Later in September, Kishida travelled to Russia on a three-day visit to discuss the disputed islands.  Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov though stated that the only topic to be discussed is that of a peace deal, not the status of the territories. Lavrov said, “Moving forward on this issue is possible only after we see clearly Japan’s recognition of historic realities. The work is difficult and the difference in positions is vast”.

In the past there were indications that Russia might eventually hand over the disputed territories to Japan. Now that does not seem likely as Russia is unwilling to portray the issue as one where Japan has a legitimate claim; instead all Russia wants is to reach a peace deal without a change in territory. As far as Moscow is concerned, the islands belong to Russia and if a peace deal is to be reached, Japan must recognize them as part of Russia.

High-level talks will restart October 12 in Moscow for the first time since last January. It is uncertain though what these talks will produce given Russia’s new position on the issue. Furthermore, Russia cannot afford to suddenly backtrack since such a move would be seen as weakness at a time when Moscow is actively involved in Ukraine and Syria. Japan though will not back down either as Tokyo has nothing to lose. For these reasons, this dispute will continue to live on for years to come.

Stephen Brooker

The Nightmare Of Hillary Clinton

By Dallas Brincrest 

Seeing the name Hillary in a headline last week—a headline about Sir Edmond Hillary, a person of real achievement. I felt a mouse stirring in the attic of my memory. Eventually, I was able to recall how the two Hillarys had once been mentionable in the same breath. On a first-lady goodwill tour of Asia in April 1995—the kind of banal trip that she claimed part of her foreign-policy "experience" that qualified her to be Secretary of State. 

Mrs. Clinton had been in Nepal and been briefly introduced to the late Sir Edmund Hillary, conqueror of Mount Everest. Ever ready to milk the moment, she announced that her mother had actually named her for this famous and intrepid explorer. The claim "worked" well enough to be repeated at other stops and even showed up in Bill Clinton's memoirs almost a decade later, as one more instance of the gutsy tradition that undergirds the former diplomat.

Sen. Clinton was born in 1947, and Sir Edmund Hillary and his partner Tenzing Norgay did not ascend Mount Everest until 1953, so the story was self-evidently untrue and eventually yielded to fact-checking. Indeed, a spokeswoman for Sen. Clinton named Jennifer Hanley phrased it like this in a statement in October 2006, conceding that the tale was untrue but nonetheless charming: "It was a sweet family story her mother shared to inspire greatness in her daughter, to great results I might add." Oh yes, when the liar is caught it is always mommy or daddy's fault.

Perfect, the gullible and low information crowd of Democrats ate it up. It worked, in other words, having been coined long after Sir Edmund became a bankable celebrity, but now its usefulness is exhausted and its untruth can safely be blamed on Mommy. Yet isn't it all—all of it, every single episode and detail of the Clinton saga—exactly like that? And isn't some of it a little bit more serious? 

For Sen. Clinton, something is true if it validates the myth of her striving and her "greatness" (her overreaching ambition in other words) and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose. And we are all supposed to applaud the skill and the bare-faced bravado with which this is done. In the New Hampshire primary in 1992, she knowingly lied about her husband's uncontrollable and pathological sex life and put him eternally in her debt. This is now thought of, and referred to in print, purely as a smart move on her part. 

In the Iowa caucuses of 2008, he returns the favor by telling a huge lie about his own record on the war in Iraq, falsely asserting that he was opposed to the intervention from the very start. This is thought of, and referred to in print, as purely a tactical mistake on his part: trying too hard to help the spouse. The happy couple has now united on an equally mendacious account of what they thought about Iraq and when they thought it. What would it take to break this cheap little spell and make us wake up and inquire what on earth we are doing when we make the Clinton family (dynasty) drama—yet again—a central part of our own politics?

What do you have to forget or overlook in order to desire that this dysfunctional clan once more occupies the White House and is again in a position to rent the Lincoln Bedroom to campaign donors and to employ the Oval Office as a massage parlor? You have to be able to forget, first, what happened to those who complained, or who told the truth, last time. It's often said, by people trying to show how grown-up and unshocked they are, that all Clinton did to get himself impeached was lie about sex. That's not really true. What he actually lied about, in the perjury that also got him disbarred, was the women. 

What this involved was the Clinton Strategy - a steady campaign of defamation, backed up by private dicks (you should excuse the expression) and salaried government employees, against women who I believe were telling the truth. In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton. (For the full background on this, see the chapter "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?" in the paperback version of Christopher Hitchen's book No One Left To Lie To. This essay, I may modestly say, has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton "rapid response" team.) Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's "issues." 

One also hears a great deal about how this awful joint tenure of the executive mansion was a good thing in that it conferred "experience" on the despised and much-deceived wife. Well, the main "experience" involved the comprehensive fouling-up of the nation's health-care arrangements, so as to make them considerably worse than they had been before and to create an opening for the worst-of-all-worlds option of the so-called HMO, combining as it did the maximum of capitalist gouging with the maximum of socialistic bureaucracy. This abysmal outcome, forgiven for no reason that I can perceive, was the individual responsibility of the woman who now seems to think it entitles her to the presidency. But there was another "experience," this time a collaborative one, that is even more significant. 

During the Senate debate on the intervention in Iraq, Sen. Clinton made considerable use of her background and "experience" to argue that, yes, Saddam Hussein was indeed a threat. She did not argue so much from the position adopted by the Bush administration as she emphasized the stand taken, by both her husband and Al Gore, when they were in office, to the effect that another and final confrontation with the Baathist regime was more or less inevitable. Now, it does not especially matter whether you agree or agreed with her about this (as I, for once, do and did). What does matter is that she has since altered her position and attempted, with her husband's help, to make people forget that she ever held it. And this, on a grave matter of national honor and security, merely to influence her short-term standing in the Iowa caucuses. 

Then never forget the “What does it matter?” attitude she took over the death of a US Ambassador and his staff at the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. Well, gosh, I can think of a few reasons why it matters. First, it mattered enough for the Obama administration to send Susan Rice to five different Sunday talk shows to insist that the sacking was a spontaneous demonstration of anger over a months-old YouTube video, while saying that there was ‘no evidence’ that it was a terrorist attack. It also matters because Barack Obama at the time had been bragging about crippling al-Qaeda while on the campaign trail. There’s also the matter of Barack Obama’s intervention in Libya and his undeclared war against Moammar Qaddafi.

Surely that on its own should be sufficient to disqualify her from consideration? Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry.

Abe Needs Better Diplomatic Approach

SK Pres. Park, USA Pres. Obama, Japan PM Abe

 

The Japanese government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe last week became the target of diplomatic criticism at home and abroad.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS) pointed out the Abe administration has ''jeopardized the U.S. strategic interests in the region by taking steps that have aggravated historical animosities between Japan and its neighbors, particularly China and South Korea."

The CRS report reflects increasing annoyance among U.S. politicians about the Japanese government's historical revisionism that hinders the U.S.-Japan-Korea alliance against China and North Korea.

It also noted that the Abe government's investigation into the drafting process of the 1993 Kono Statement which admitted and apologized for the imperial Japanese army's involvement in coercing and coaxing Korean and other Asian girls and women to work in military brothels can be regarded as a move to "undermine the legitimacy of the apology."

The congressional report was seeing through and pointing out Tokyo's scheme to corrode the statement's credibility a preliminary step to retracting it  while pledging not to revise the first official apology on the surface, in what is seen as a typical dual play that marks the Abe government's diplomacy. Behind the rare direct criticism lies the U.S. Congress' frustration with Tokyo's obfuscation about historical issues.

It was a stinging rebuke to Prime Minister Abe who dedicated almost all of his U.N. speech to the issue of women's human rights but spoke not a word on the most egregious abuses committed by imperial Japan. Japanese nationalists should realize enough is enough. There are clear limits to the international community's overlooking of Tokyo's attempts to whitewash even deny Japan's wartime wrongs and atrocities.

It comes as a relief for Koreans that U.S. researchers and experts are drawing, if belatedly, a red line for Tokyo. We hope Washington will follow the private sector's footsteps. Doing so would not only help to enhance the U.S. strategic interests and promote the universal value of human rights but send a strong warning regarding Japanese nationalists' thinly-veiled intention to deny the post-war system created by the San Francisco Treaty of 1946, as shown in their attempt to revise Japan's peace constitution and become a ''normal" country.

In Japan, meanwhile, a survey of 3,000 college students showed that up to two thirds of respondents thought Tokyo should apologize and compensate the surviving victims of sexual slavery. A women's organization also blasted Abe, noting that his recent appointment of five women to the Cabinet posts cannot hide Tokyo's unrepentant stance on the issue of comfort women.

These developments show the way for Seoul to follow: approach the comfort women dispute as a human rights issue, and form a joint front with conscientious citizens, including those in Japan, until Tokyo makes an official apology and provides compensation for the surviving victims.

The Park Geun-hye administration should stick to this and Washington is also advised not to force Seoul to hold a summit with Tokyo unless the latter comes up with sincere and substantial measures on comfort women and other historical issues.

If President Park meets Prime Minister Abe without the latter's guarantee on this matter, it will result in a popular backlash, damaging the trilateral alliance beyond reparation for the foreseeable future.

We Stand With Freedom

Has Japan Learned From WWII?

Japan's militarist nationalists never really went away after World War II, they just bided their time and waited for the day when they would be able to return to power. At last, they have done so; Shinzo Abe, the current prime minister, is the grandson of Nobusuke Kishi, an important WWII nationalist whom the U.S. initially imprisoned for war crimes, and later let out (probably to fight against Communism), and who himself because prime minister of Japan in the 50s. It's not clear whether Abe himself thinks his ancestors did anything wrong in the militarist era, but many of his political appointees clearly do not think so.

 Naoki Hyakuta, whom Abe appointed to the board of governors of Japan's public broadcaster, claims that Japan committed no atrocities in World War II and was acting to free Asia of Western colonialism. Another board member described the Japanese Emperor as "a living God."

The return of the rightists seems to lend credence to the claims of China and Korea that Japan as a country has not properly atoned for World War II. If people who think Japan was on the side of good can gain national power, then the country as a whole must agree with them...right? Sure, Japan has made a litany of apologies for World War II, and even offered some monetary reparations. But mustn't those have been pro forma gestures to appease the United States, rather than heartfelt expressions of regret?

Actually, I don't think this is the case. Japan's rightists have power now, but that seems due much more to Japan's dysfunctional political system than to any general militarist/nationalist sentiment among the Japanese people and elites.

To see this, look at the votes cast on the 1995 "Fusen Ketsugi" resolution. That resolution was an apology for World War II. The text read:

The House of Representatives resolves as follows:

On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, this House offers its sincere condolences to those who fell in action and victims of wars and similar actions all over the world.

Solemnly reflecting upon many instances of colonial rule and acts of aggression in the modern history of the world, and recognizing that Japan carried out those acts in the past, inflicting pain and suffering upon the peoples of other countries, especially in Asia, the Members of this House express a sense of deep remorse.

We must transcend the differences over historical views of the past war and learn humbly the lessons of history so as to build a peaceful international society.

This House expresses its resolve, under the banner of eternal peace enshrined in the Constitution of Japan, to join hands with other nations of the world and to pave the way to a future that allows all human beings to live together.

This resolution was approved, but almost half of the members of the Diet abstained from voting! This means they didn't believe Japan should apologize, right?

Actually, no. A large number of the abstainers wanted an even stronger apology. From Wikipedia:

Out of 502 representatives, 251 participated in the final vote on the revised resolution, and 230 of them supported the resolution; 241 representatives abstained from voting; 70 absentees belonged in one of the three parties in the coalition cabinet that sponsored the resolution (Japan Socialist Party, Liberal Democratic Party, and New Party Sakigake)

14 members of the Japanese Communist Party voted against the resolution because they wanted much stronger expressions in the resolution.

50 members of the conservative Liberal Democratic Party did not participate because the expressions in the revised resolution were still too strong for them.

14 members of the Japan Socialist Party did not participate because the expressions were not strong enough for them.

141 members of New Frontier Party abstained from voting, some of whom wanted stronger expressions. [Wikipedia]

So if we total up those who voted against the bill with those who abstained because the apology was too strong for them, we get at least 71 out of 502 representatives, or 14 percent. Now, some of the New Frontier Party might also have believed that the apology was too strong, so let's conservatively assume that half of them, or 71/502, believed this; that brings the total percentage of Imperial apologists to 28 percent. Fourteen percent is not that big of a bloc, but 28 percent is a pretty substantial minority.

But either way, we see that a majority of Japanese politicians supported a World War II apology in 1995. Now, 1995 may have been an unusually liberal moment for Japan; perhaps the electorate voted for a less nationalist Diet than they would prefer?

Actually, polls suggest that the Japanese public is less nationalistic than its politicians. This supports the notion that it is Japan's dysfunctional political system, which is dominated by old political families, that keeps the thin flame of militarism/nationalism alive. At the elite level, there is a non-trivial minority of Japanese bluebloods who thought World War II was the right thing to do. But they are definitely a minority, and their attitude is not shared by the Japanese public. (Caveat: Among young people, right-wing attitudes may have become more common in recent years.)

In other words, the Chinese and Korean perceptions of an unrepentant Japan are not very accurate. But Japan itself has a serious problem: It finds itself ruled by a right-wing fringe element. Unless Japanese people can shake off their traditional attitude of political powerlessness, apathy, and ennui, they will increasingly find their country being moved in a direction they don't like. Freedom ain't free, folks.

 

Noah Smith

Putin's China Pivot Won't Reshape Russian Economy

As Ukraine's political crisis poisons Russia's relationship with the West, Moscow is increasingly talking of China as a possible replacement for the European Union as Russia's key economic ally.

Such a pivot would mean Russia exchanging a partnership with the world's most economically developed region for closer ties with another developing nation. How will that shift transform the Russian economy?

Analysts interviewed by the Moscow Times said China can become a good-enough, if imperfect, replacement for the EU in most sectors of Russia's economy, including petroleum exports, technology and investment.

But an alliance with a developing nation would only solidify the economic status quo, they warned, doing nothing for Russia's chances of moving beyond a commodity economy.

Also, embracing China as its sole economic ally risks giving Beijing de facto control of the Russian economy — though that can be avoided if Moscow remembers to diversify its economic ties.  What does a 30 year 400 billion dollar gas deal actually mean between two emerging economies that are still far from being a "superpower" in any sense of the term?

The deal is big for Gazprom and for the Chinese lust for a coal alternative.  But both are still major rural and agricultural nations that have industrial capabilities.  Both are far from the technology innovators and financial capitals of Europe and the US, or even Japan and South Korea.  Neither has a Google, an Apple, a Samsung, a Toyota, or any innovative company that is not reliant on a joint venture with a Western corporation.  Most of Russia's joint ventures are in alternative energy, their consumer products are South Korean, Japanese, German, and American.  The same for China except where the government can use Chinese nationals in Europe and the US to steal technology and plans.  Again, this will not help to create a climate of trust.  In an alliance of thieves where is integrity or trust?

First Steps

And diversification seems to have been low on Russia's priority list in recent years, said Vasily Kashin of the Moscow-based Institute of Far Eastern Studies: Currently, Russia's trade relationship is unhealthily skewed toward Europe.

"We are just a raw materials supplier for a single market now," Kashin said. "So we can at least make it more than one market."

Russian exports to the EU stood at $238 billion, significantly above the imports, worth a mere $134 billion, according to the Federal Customs Service. Exports to China were at $35 billion over the same period, compared to $53 billion in imports.

Moscow has spent years mulling an eastward move, which can only be done through oil and gas, the linchpin of the Russian economy and the main reason to embrace Russia both for Brussels and for Beijing.

A breakthrough came Wednesday, when China signed a long-delayed 30-year deal worth $400 billion to buy Russian gas. The final price was not made public, but is estimated at $350 per 1,000 cubic meters — at the lower end of the price range Russia gets from European buyers.

The EU has long declared that it wants to cut dependence on energy exports from Russia. The issue has snapped into focus thanks to the crisis in Russia-West relations caused by the standoff in Ukraine, where Brussels and Moscow back opposing sides in a tense and occasionally bloody standoff teetering on the brink of civil war.

However, changing the direction of gas exports would take several years — most Russian pipelines are westward-bound.

Natalya Orlova, chief economist at Alfa Bank, sees benefits for both sides in Russia's reorientation east — Europe would diversify its energy imports, she said, while Russia could reduce the dependence of its economy on political conflicts like the one unfolding over Ukraine.

Luring In Chinese Money

European funds accounted for 75 percent of all direct foreign investment in Russia as of 2012, the latest year for which the Russian Mission to the EU has released figures. Russian official statistics put total direct foreign investment for that year at $18.6 billion.

European businesses have so far been keen to invest in Russia because it was outpacing the EU on growth, Orlova said. European funds have flowed into sectors ranging from energy to construction, IT, retail and manufacturing.

But whether China is interested in the Russian market beyond oil and gas is open to question.

China trounces Russia on economic growth, achieving 7.7 percent last year as against Russia's 1.3 percent. This means that Chinese investors, unlike European ones, will get a better return on their capital if they invest it at home, Orlova said.

"Chinese investment in Russia has been a trifle compared to investment from the rest of the world," agreed Konstantin Styrin, a professor of the Higher School of Economics in Moscow. "We have nothing to offer [the Chinese] but oil."

But Kashin pointed out that the Chinese government is still encouraging businesses to invest abroad, which means at least some of the money will likely trickle down to Russia. China is chiefly interested in infrastructure and trade, but would invest in major industrial projects in Russia if they are well pitched and backed by the state — which basically leaves the ball in Moscow's court, he added.

While the deal will be paid in the local currencies by abandoning the dollar both risk a financial crash.  Both China and Russia play too many games with their currency values and this will likely cause both to become distrustful and suspicious.  Many in Putin's regime are already questioning the logic of dumping the dollar.  China simply has rigged its currency valuation and Russia does the same to get an upper hand on exchange.  

Neither has shown an interest in changing their valuation being linked to non-currency backing.  Neither China nor Russia have a reserve bank like European nations or the US that actually has the authority to reign in over aggressive currency printing.  This may what begins a long list of complaints against the other.  Neither Putin nor Jinling actually trrust each other.  Medvedev and Xi also are said to be rather suspicious of the other.

Copying From Copycats

What Russia gets from Europe is technology: High-tech products and industrial equipment constituted 47 percent of imports inbound from the EU in 2013, according to Europe's statistics service, Eurostat. In contrast, 77 percent of Russian exports to the EU are oil and gas.

China, a developing nation, is no match for Europe when it comes to innovation, Styrin said.

But technology can still be had from China, which, while not a trailblazer in this field, is good at adopting advances made elsewhere and is not picky about sharing it, according to Kashin, who added: "It is not state-of-the-art, but it is good enough for us."

Besides, he said, many products imported by Russian companies from Europe are already Chinese-made — they are purchased in the West simply because the market is more familiar to Russians, where more businessmen read English than Chinese.

This is another issue that is likely to cause trouble.  All through the talks leading to this deal, which was nearly abandoned altogether Tuesday, the delegations became flustered when translators had to be changed for rest.  One Russian negotiator complained, "We are wanting to trade with people who understand nothing of Russia.  This is insane."  The Chinese delegation also found it irritating that "Russia wants us to spend our money in their gas but cannot provide anyone who speaks Chinese."  The talks having to be translated into English shows neither side is taking the other seriously and went in expecting the other to acquiesce to them.  Not a good beginning, the honeymoon is over before it began. 

Alone With the Celestial Empire

The expert consensus was that Russia's main risk is over-reliance on China at the expense of other potential partners — China will have no qualms exploiting an over-exposed Russia if it can.

"China gets a very strong negotiating position" if Russia cuts ties to Europe, Orlova stated. Styrin was less equivocal, speaking about the risk of Russia becoming "hostage to buyer's market."

But Styrin also said the talk about severing ties with Europe is likely just a smokescreen for geopolitical bargaining over Ukraine and not a serious strategy.

And if Russia manages to strengthen its link to China while keeping other economic partners it would not bring about any structural change to the economy, but would actually be a long-awaited boost to development, Kashin said.

"If that happens, you could say this Ukrainian nightmare had some unexpected benefit, prompting an overdue move for which we have long lacked the political will," he said.