The sweeping victory of the Democratic Party of Japan over the Liberal Democratic Party has stunned the world.
The election of Yukio Hatoyama’s party ends 54 years of nearly LDP uninterrupted rule.
Although the victory had long been predicted by pollsters, it was the thumping mandate for reform that surprised observers.
The DPJ has increased its seats from 112 to 308 in the 480-seat lower house, coupled with its dominance of the Diet’s Upper Chamber, now can forge ahead with its new agenda unencumbered with parliamentary obstacles.
A change of government in Japan in itself is healthy sign and an expression of democratic will that it has hitherto been reluctant to realise. The LDP has shuffled through an ineffective cadre Prime Ministers, yet none were able to satisfy the public’s demand for change.
Yet, the LDP has been competent in its administration of the nation’s economy – overseeing its transformation from a war-battered, defeated people to the most developed country in the world. This success partly hinged on the “iron triangle” the close relationship between the LDP, the banks, and big-business representatives.
Japan was badly hit by the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, and its economy has been in the Doldrums since. The inability of the establishment to find any alternative beyond the old institutions sapped national confidence from the LDP on an unprecedented level.
So now, will we see a “revolution” as the new Prime Minister suggests? It is important to note that Hatoyama is himself the grandson of a former LDP prime minister, and is a product of the old conservative institutions.
Quite how revolutionary the new administration will be is unclear. The DPJ seems to advocate a more Asia-centric foreign policy, although still wishes to retain the US as the bedrock of its defence.
There are confusing messages on dealing with public debt – which currently stands at 170% of GDP. The DPJ promised to remove some education fees, and providing a minimal guaranteed income for farmers, but has denounced media expenditures on the 2009 Budget "wasteful spending." Including the cancelling of a ¥11.7 billion Media Centre.
Japan’s economy urgently needs reform. Specifically, its public and business sectors require genuine transparency and accountability.
Currently, unless the new government develops a much needed ambitious new vision of Japan, the DPJ is in danger of finding itself as a LDP Mark II.
Showing posts with label international affairs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label international affairs. Show all posts
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
Monday, 31 August 2009
North Korea embarks on a new round of reconciliation
The seesawing relationship between North Korea and the rest of the world has begun to move to towards détente after a prolonged period of heightened tensions. The two Koreas have agreed to resume the programme of reuniting families divided by the 1953 War, and officials now talk of opening to border to Southern tourists. Pyongyang has even invited a special US envy to discuss its nuclear programme.
But seasoned Northern Korean watchers will treat these latest developments with scepticism. The foreign policy of the North is a delicate balance of shocking denouncements and concessionary tokens entreating aid - conducted in the context of a gradual proliferation of nuclear weapons.
On the annual August military exercises between South Korean and the US, the DPRK regime released the following official statements:
“The U.S. and the south Korean puppet warmongers claimed that the war manoeuvres are "ordinary drills for defence" and they "do not involve field mobile exercises" but this is nothing but sheer sophism intended to cover up the aggressive nature and the ulterior aim sought by them through this sabre rattling.”
And then:
“This story may fool those imbeciles who know nothing about politics and military affairs or naive children who have just started learning the four rules of arithmetic.”
Their approach to diplomacy appears to work on a cyclical basis of blowing hot and cold in reiterated rounds of reconciliation and rows. North Korea joined the Six Party talks to much fanfare, before eventually flouncing from the negotiation table. Official talks with Southern representatives and even Seoul’s president have been held, to no ostensive effect. The DPRK has ratified international treaties, suggesting a movement towards diplomatic normality, only to abrogate later from their obligations.
The belligerence and brinkmanship of the North is difficult, but not impossible to contain. Since the 1953 Armistice, Northern aggressors have penetrated the 38th Parallel on 24 recorded occasions. In October 1968, over 100 commandos crossed the Demilitarised Zone with the objective of assassinating the Southern President. To date, four tunnels have been detected under the border. Fortunately none of these incursions led to war.
Recently, after apparently abandoning its policy of kidnapping Japanese citizens, Pyongyang imprisoned two American journalists for “producing and broadcasting a documentary slandering the DPRK” and sentenced them to 12 years hard labour. The journalists were only recovered when Pyongyang insisted that Bill Clinton should lead a personal mission apologising for their crimes.
The Great Powers dealing with the hermit regime, appear to have successfully contained the threat, but have calculated, in the long term, the disparity between it and its neighbours, burgeoning internal unrest of its staved population and possibly the departure of the aging Kim Jong Il from office will inevitably lead to political collapse.
Yet, the DPRK has survived 20 years without the buttressing support of Soviet Russia, and for the last 10 years with decreasing Chinese assistance by specialising its economy to function on minimal resources. The regime has already managed the transition from one god-like leader to another, and it appears to be beginning the process of regime change again. There are no external signs that these will led to an improved situation.
It would be prudent to resist the temptation of optimism. It would be misguided to interpret these new measures as the first steps in the path towards normalisation, but we might hope that a prolonged period of relatively friendly relations may push the centre of DPRK relations cycle towards a less threatening centre.
But seasoned Northern Korean watchers will treat these latest developments with scepticism. The foreign policy of the North is a delicate balance of shocking denouncements and concessionary tokens entreating aid - conducted in the context of a gradual proliferation of nuclear weapons.
On the annual August military exercises between South Korean and the US, the DPRK regime released the following official statements:
“The U.S. and the south Korean puppet warmongers claimed that the war manoeuvres are "ordinary drills for defence" and they "do not involve field mobile exercises" but this is nothing but sheer sophism intended to cover up the aggressive nature and the ulterior aim sought by them through this sabre rattling.”
And then:
“This story may fool those imbeciles who know nothing about politics and military affairs or naive children who have just started learning the four rules of arithmetic.”
Their approach to diplomacy appears to work on a cyclical basis of blowing hot and cold in reiterated rounds of reconciliation and rows. North Korea joined the Six Party talks to much fanfare, before eventually flouncing from the negotiation table. Official talks with Southern representatives and even Seoul’s president have been held, to no ostensive effect. The DPRK has ratified international treaties, suggesting a movement towards diplomatic normality, only to abrogate later from their obligations.
The belligerence and brinkmanship of the North is difficult, but not impossible to contain. Since the 1953 Armistice, Northern aggressors have penetrated the 38th Parallel on 24 recorded occasions. In October 1968, over 100 commandos crossed the Demilitarised Zone with the objective of assassinating the Southern President. To date, four tunnels have been detected under the border. Fortunately none of these incursions led to war.
Recently, after apparently abandoning its policy of kidnapping Japanese citizens, Pyongyang imprisoned two American journalists for “producing and broadcasting a documentary slandering the DPRK” and sentenced them to 12 years hard labour. The journalists were only recovered when Pyongyang insisted that Bill Clinton should lead a personal mission apologising for their crimes.
The Great Powers dealing with the hermit regime, appear to have successfully contained the threat, but have calculated, in the long term, the disparity between it and its neighbours, burgeoning internal unrest of its staved population and possibly the departure of the aging Kim Jong Il from office will inevitably lead to political collapse.
Yet, the DPRK has survived 20 years without the buttressing support of Soviet Russia, and for the last 10 years with decreasing Chinese assistance by specialising its economy to function on minimal resources. The regime has already managed the transition from one god-like leader to another, and it appears to be beginning the process of regime change again. There are no external signs that these will led to an improved situation.
It would be prudent to resist the temptation of optimism. It would be misguided to interpret these new measures as the first steps in the path towards normalisation, but we might hope that a prolonged period of relatively friendly relations may push the centre of DPRK relations cycle towards a less threatening centre.
Friday, 19 June 2009
Iran’s revolution through our own eyes
The recent election and following controversy in Iran has not so much as provided insight into a complex society struggling to connect modern thinking with traditional values, as revealed a simplistic media, struggling to find stories that reflect our own parochial hopes.
Undoubtedly, the recent election is important to a young democracy – if we can still label it as such.
However, the British press greeted the tumultuous events with the same platitudinous heralds following the Orange and Rose Revolutions. Good triumphs over evil again.
Cut backs at foreign news desks have forced a greater reliance on news wires and 24-hour news channels, resulting in a uniformity of analysis and a pre-packaged “one-size-fits-all” approach at looking at other nations.
The same explanations are pulled out: The anti-Western tyrant is besieged by a pro-Western people that he tries to suppress. The anti-us baddies are oppressing the pro-us goodies.
In Iran, we have persuaded ourselves that Mahmouhd Ahmadinejad has rigged an election, and the losing opposition have vehemently denounced its legitimacy. The Western press, viewing the underdogs using the only method available to the powerless - street protest – and swallowed their argument. We approve of the opposition, and we disapprove of establishment, and we allow this position to seep into our “objective observations.”
Firstly, there is no reason to suppose that the election has been fixed. The chief reason for reaching this conclusion is a list of circumstantial evidence, and, of course, a stolen vote corroborates our good vs. evil narrative. Our attention was drawn to this issue by the opposition that immediately accused Ahmadinejad of dodgy practice. In an unsophisticated yah-boo campaign between competing personalities, this knee-jerk response was hardly surprising. But the British media has not even attempted to confirm the substance of these allegations. Speedy vote counting and higher than expected performance in supposed opposition strongholds is not proof of a fixed election.
Secondly, there is no reason to suppose that Mir Hossein Mousavi would be any better (read: “pro-us”). During his eight year spell as prime minister, he advocated the taking of Americans as hostage by Iranian militants to “further the revolution”. Indeed, there has been very little reporting on the substantive difference between the presidential candidates. Rather, we prefer to force current affairs to correspond to our pre-programmed ideas of good and evil.
I am not condoning the election, or how it was run. I do not doubt the possibility that the people re-elected a president, who enjoyed high polls prior to voting day, who has repeatedly stood up for his small nation against a perceived threatening superpower.
I do, however, object to the shoddy reporting, and the speed to which we revert to a thin narrative of unfolding events. In a country where unelected clerics vet candidates and non-Muslims are forbidden from voting, it seems more likely that hardline people are backing hardline candidates, and whether it will exchange one group of hardliners for another remains to be seen.
Undoubtedly, the recent election is important to a young democracy – if we can still label it as such.
However, the British press greeted the tumultuous events with the same platitudinous heralds following the Orange and Rose Revolutions. Good triumphs over evil again.
Cut backs at foreign news desks have forced a greater reliance on news wires and 24-hour news channels, resulting in a uniformity of analysis and a pre-packaged “one-size-fits-all” approach at looking at other nations.
The same explanations are pulled out: The anti-Western tyrant is besieged by a pro-Western people that he tries to suppress. The anti-us baddies are oppressing the pro-us goodies.
In Iran, we have persuaded ourselves that Mahmouhd Ahmadinejad has rigged an election, and the losing opposition have vehemently denounced its legitimacy. The Western press, viewing the underdogs using the only method available to the powerless - street protest – and swallowed their argument. We approve of the opposition, and we disapprove of establishment, and we allow this position to seep into our “objective observations.”
Firstly, there is no reason to suppose that the election has been fixed. The chief reason for reaching this conclusion is a list of circumstantial evidence, and, of course, a stolen vote corroborates our good vs. evil narrative. Our attention was drawn to this issue by the opposition that immediately accused Ahmadinejad of dodgy practice. In an unsophisticated yah-boo campaign between competing personalities, this knee-jerk response was hardly surprising. But the British media has not even attempted to confirm the substance of these allegations. Speedy vote counting and higher than expected performance in supposed opposition strongholds is not proof of a fixed election.
Secondly, there is no reason to suppose that Mir Hossein Mousavi would be any better (read: “pro-us”). During his eight year spell as prime minister, he advocated the taking of Americans as hostage by Iranian militants to “further the revolution”. Indeed, there has been very little reporting on the substantive difference between the presidential candidates. Rather, we prefer to force current affairs to correspond to our pre-programmed ideas of good and evil.
I am not condoning the election, or how it was run. I do not doubt the possibility that the people re-elected a president, who enjoyed high polls prior to voting day, who has repeatedly stood up for his small nation against a perceived threatening superpower.
I do, however, object to the shoddy reporting, and the speed to which we revert to a thin narrative of unfolding events. In a country where unelected clerics vet candidates and non-Muslims are forbidden from voting, it seems more likely that hardline people are backing hardline candidates, and whether it will exchange one group of hardliners for another remains to be seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
