RG21管理者 | | RG21

China-Iran: No Permanent Alliances, Only Permanent Interests

Xi meets Larijani.jpg President XiJinping and Iranian Speaker Ali Larijani (Photo: FMPRC)

by David Parmer

These days, China- Iran relations center on two key points: oil and trade. China is Iran’s biggest customer for crude oil. Iran has been hard hit with U.S. sanctions that have frozen assets and crippled its oil industry. Sanctions are aimed at Iran’s nuclear program, which Iran claims is designed for peaceful energy production, while countries around the world, led by the U.S. see it as a cover for the development of nuclear weapons.

On November 20, 2013, China’s president, XiJinping urged his Iranian counterpart to “seize the opportunity” to improve relations with other world powers at the third round of the current Geneva meetings.

In October, both China and South Korea cut imports of Iranian crude; China to stay within agreed U.S. guidelines. The Financial Times reported on November 22, 2013 that in October 2013 there was a 45% decline in Iranian crude exports, and a resulting cutback in production. Crude oil accounts for 80% of Iran’s exports and half of the Iranian government’s income.

Clearly the pressure is on Iran to come and make some concessions at the Geneva meetings in exchange for easing of sanctions and partial un-freezing of its international assets.
The Obama administration is gambling that it can deal with the less-hardline regime of President Hassan Rowhani. Opposition to any deal comes from Israel and Saudi Arabia. In a world economy experiencing a certain slowdown, a deal to allow Iran greater oil exports could cause a glut in the market and drive down prices worldwide.

As for non-oil trade, Iranian Customs reported $4.06billion worth of exports to China, while Iran imported $5.7billion from China in the first eight months of 2013. One area of China-Iran friction centers around complaints that cheap Chinese goods have flooded the Iranian market seriously damaging smaller Iranian concerns. While China-related infrastructure projects already exist, there is sentiment for more of that type of activity as opposed to the inflow of cheap goods. Moreover, since China pays for Iranian petroleum in Yuan (RMB), Iran’s payments are locked in China’s banks. Estimates of these funds range from $20-47 billion. Reports quoted Iran’s Tasnim News as saying that a deal had been struck between China and Iran during meetings in October 2013 with Speaker Ali Larijani and Chinese leaders in Beijing to fund development projects in Iran using some $22billion of the above-mentioned funds.

(This report was compiled from various Web sources)

Okinawa and China interpretation of the UNCLOS as part of a grand strategy

by Philippe Valdois

Okinawa

Okinawa has long been at the center of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, and since the decision by the Obama administration to implement a Pacific pivot or rebalancing, even if not the only place concerned by the building of American military assets in the region, it will play a growing role. This might be of concern to China due to the geographical situation of the Okinawa prefecture and the fact that, since 1972, this same treaty includes the Senkaku (Diaoyu Islands) because of the Article 5. In the following essay I will briefly talk about Okinawa history, its geostrategic importance, describing in particular how the Okinawa Reversion Treaty of 1971, or “Treaty Between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands”, applies to the Senkakus (Diaoyu Islands). I chose not to expand on the details of the well-documented recent developments related to the anticipated transfer of Marines to Guam or the transfer of Futenma Marine Corps air station to another part of Okinawa, the deployment of the Osprey transport aircraft or the military exercises taking place this Autumn of 2013, but to talk more in depth about the perception many analysts have of China’s own plans in relation to the waters surrounding the Senkakus (Diaoyu) and Okinawa in East China Sea, focusing on legal aspects (in particular related to the law of the sea) also pertaining to South China Sea territorial claims. This should help us understand better the extent and nature of present and future misunderstandings.Okinawa Prefecture is located in the southernmost part of the Japanese Archipelago. It is also the southern half of the Nansei Shoto, a 1200 km stretch of islands extending from Kyushu to Yonaguni Island. Shanghai, Taipei, Hong Kong, Manila and Tokyo are all situated less than 1500 km from Naha, the seat of the Okinawa prefectural government, where we can also find the main commercial airport. There are 48 inhabited islands with the island of Okinawa accounting for 53% of the prefecture’s area. The total population of the prefecture is approximately 1.31-million. Okinawa Island alone has approximately 1.15-million residents. 14 U.S. military bases occupy 18% of the main island. As we will see, the proximity of those bases to densely populated areas has created a dangerous situation.Regarding the terms of the Treaty of 1971, in relation to the Senkaku (Diaoyu) issue, we find a clear expose of the United-States position of neutrality, that I will quote in part, in the January 22, 2013 Congressional Research Service report on Senkaku (Diaoyu/Diaoyutai) Islands Dispute: U.S. Treaty Obligations, by Mark E. Manyin (p. 5)

During Senate deliberations on whether to consent to the ratification of the Okinawa Reversion Treaty, the State Department asserted that the United States took a neutral position with regard to the competing claims of Japan, China, and Taiwan, despite the return of the islets to Japanese administration. Department officials asserted that reversion of administrative rights to Japan did not prejudice any claims to the islets. When asked by the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee how the Okinawa Reversion Treaty would affect the determination of sovereignty over the Senkakus (Diaoyu/Diaoyutai), Secretary of State William Rogers answered that “this treaty does not affect the legal status of those islands at all.”

This position of neutrality has been restated in recent years but the inclusion of the islands in the Reversion Treaty makes Article II of the Treaty also applicable to the islets, and although Japan is primarily responsible for its own defense, the United States are obligated to defend Japan including the islets.No discussion about Okinawa would be complete without mentioning the local population and its relation to the military. Over the years, as I was able to see with my own eyes, and learn through discussions with Okinawans, an economic interdependency has developed between the U.S. forces and the local population, in particular around the bases. However, let’s not forget that the peaceful nature of the Islanders, who had to suffer greatly during the 82-day Battle of Okinawa (early April until mid-June 1945) at the hands of the hard-line Japanese military forces, being pressed into service, driven to suicide, starved or used as human shields, did not mean there were no tensions before the reversion. As an example, the Koza riot occurred on the night of December 20, 1970. The violent clashes between roughly 5000 Okinawans and 700 American MPs resulted in many injured and extensive damages, including inside Kadena Air Base. This was the product of anger against 25 years of occupation and the exemption from Okinawan justice of servicemen involved in accidents, under the standard status of forces. In fact, it could be seen as a prelude to the reactions of the population, faced with the numerous accidents and crimes which in the past few years have affected the relations between the US forces and the residents.

A non-official source, the Institute for Policy Studies gives the following numbers: From 1972, the year of the reversion, to the end of December 2008, there have been 1,434 incidents and accidents related to military exercises including 487 airplane-related accidents. During the same period, there were 5,584 criminal cases involving US military personnel, including 559 cases of murder, burglary and rape. A number, which might be much higher if we consider sexual and violent cases, not reported. It is also not be forgotten that the revisionism at work since the end of World War Two at the highest level of the Japanese government has also been criticized internally by citizens and scholars like the late Saburo Ienaga. A parallel might in fact be drawn between the outrage expressed by foreign countries regarding Japanese history textbooks’ contents and the ongoing disagreement between Okinawa’s local government and Japan’s national government regarding the position of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, a disagreement which has involved Nobel Prize-winning novelist Kenzaburo Oe, who defended successfully in court his statement that Japanese soldiers had ordered civilians in Okinawa to commit mass suicide and murder-suicide in 1945.

Unfortunately, the lack of interest for Okinawa, apart from the role it plays in the U.S.-Japan alliance, also expresses itself in the promotion of Okinawa’s economic development under the national government’s own terms and without taking into account the particularism of Okinawa. The Japan Ministry of foreign Affairs in its own website recognizes that: “Ryukyuan trade during the Sho Dynasties revolved around tributary trade with China begun during the Sanzan Period. Ryukyuans also acted as agents for vigorous transit trade with Japan and the Korean Peninsula to the north, and Siam, Malacca and Luzon to the south, among others. Foreign trade was the foundation of the Ryukyu Kingdom economy.”

However, to experience prosperity again, the prefecture should implement infrastructure projects conceived to facilitate trade expansion and access to the huge Chinese market. This is necessary to convince Japanese manufacturers to build factories in the prefecture. As Yan Shenghe says, the Japanese government has not approved of setting up a Chinese consulate in Okinawa, forcing local Chinese to fly to Fukuoka, a thousand kilometers away, to deal with relevant business.

Before going to the legal and diplomatic matters related to the Law of the Sea, at the root of the problem which is the central theme of this essay, I would like to mention another matter which is dear to the Okinawans and has an impact on the future of the prefecture. It concerns the recent efforts by the Abe government to secure amendments to the war-renouncing Constitution of Japan. In a joint statement issued October 3 in Tokyo by Secretary of State Kerry, Secretary of Defense Hagel, Minister for Foreign Affairs Kishida, and Minister of Defense Onodera, it is mentioned that “(Japan) is re-examining the legal basis for its security including the matter of exercising its right of collective self-defense, expanding its defense budget, reviewing its National Defense Program Guidelines, strengthening its capability to defend its sovereign territory, and broadening regional contributions, including capacity-building efforts vis-à-vis Southeast Asian countries. The United States welcomed these efforts and reiterated its commitment to collaborate closely with Japan.”

As Colonel Ann Wright writes, this is a way to say that the Obama administration wants Japan to “re-examine” the legal basis for Article Nine of its war-renouncing Constitution. In this same article, the author describes the military assets being deployed around the Pacific, including the long-range Global Hawk, an unmanned aerial surveillance aircraft, in Japan. She also gives a comparative assessment of the military budgets and equipment of the United States and China based in part on the Military Strength Comparisons published on GlobalFirepower.com as a way to debunk the fear- inducing statements regarding the danger Chinese military assets in their actual form might pose to the region.However, we should now mention the international community’s position and see how it differs from the position of the Chinese government regarding China’s territorial and maritime ambitions, and why.

China and the sea

The perception of many foreign experts and the public at large regarding the PRC’s territorial ambitions has been in general one of suspicion, if not fear. Those feelings are not to be seen as a mere echo of sensationalist medias but are based on concrete evidence, starting with the repeated efforts by Beijing to “clarify” legal issues pertaining to the exclusive economic zone (EZZ), most Chinese experts aligning themselves to the Party line, like Dr. Ren Xiaofeng and Senior Colonel Cheng Xizhong in 2004, in “A Chinese Perspective, China Institute for International Strategic Studies”, although the terms of the law of the sea regarding military activities in the EEZ had already been made clear in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Many observers see these efforts we will analyze as destabilizing.

China has to awake to the realization it is entirely zone-locked by other countries’ EEZs, and if those countries were to exert the same type of control China is trying to implement in its own EEZ, China would not be able to enter the open sea without the consent of neighboring countries. The signing in 2002 of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Declaration of the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea was a step in the right direction, and China agreeing this year to hold “consultations” with the ASEAN on a code of conduct for disputes in the South China Sea is a sign of hope, but some diplomats and analysts, in particular in South-East Asia seem to think that China is in fact aiming to drag the talks out while consolidating its maritime claims. In fact, China has until now resisted discussing the territorial issue with the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or addressing the issue in public forums, preferring to settle disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations with individual claimants. This plays in the favor of China, which has the capacity to dictate its exigencies. This reinforces a measure of goodwill towards the United States which is pushing for multilateral talks as a way for small countries to be able to resist the economic and political pressures that would occur if China were to negotiate with individual countries. Washington, in July 2010, through its Secretary of State at the time Hillary Clinton, had already challenged Beijing to participate in multilateral dialogue without success. Also, the United States’ constant advocacy of freedom of navigation makes their naval presence less a threat than a protective presence against regional territorial ambitions, even if Washington, as we have seen, has also adopted a policy of not siding with any party regarding territorial claims, promoting instead the adherence to the existing international treaties and the peaceful resolution of dissensions by legal means. In fact, if we were to make an analogy between the South China Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, we could imagine what would happen if any country in this sea surrounded by three continents decided to exert a control over the free passage and activities of military ships by claiming they might conduct activities contrary to their “indisputable rights”. An article published on Xinhuanet.com on October 26, 2010 was titled: “China opposes any military acts in exclusive economic zone without permission.” However, “… PRC naval units routinely conduct submarine operations, military survey operations, and surveillance/intelligence-collection operations in foreign EEZs throughout the Asia-Pacific region.” Similarly, the Chinese navy, in mid-2013, had acknowledged conducting patrols inside the U.S.’s EEZ, without any interference from the US navy.

Closer to Okinawa, in the East China Sea, we can observe repeated attempts by China to expand its EEZ. On May 11, 2009, for example, China submitted a 17-page “Preliminary Information Indicative of the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles of the People’s Republic of China” to the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea at the UN, which was answered by a laconic Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of Japan to the United Nations stating that ” It is indisputable that the establishment of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in an area comprising less than 400 nautical miles and subject to the delimitation of the continental shelf between the States concerned cannot be accomplished under the provisions of the Convention.”

Territorial claims by China are numerous, but what might exacerbate the unease of most countries in the region is the fact that the restrictive maritime laws advocated by China are part of a clearly defined strategy, adopted in 2003 by the Chinese Communist Party and the Central Military Commission under the name of “Three Warfares”, or san zhong zhanfa, composed of psychological, media and legal “warfares”. For example, by trying to influence scholars, create dissensions and promote a redefinition of concepts included in treaties and other legal instruments China had itself signed, Beijing hopes to shape international opinion in its favor. It is then not surprising that the quasi-majority of scholars and journalists, as we have mentioned previously are in lockstep. In fact as the “2009 Report to Congress of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission” mentions on page 289:

“ Additionally, the Chinese government seeks to shape opinion in elite policy-making circles by influencing the commentary about China and U.S.-China relations that emerges from U.S. academics and think tanks. This effort includes giving rewards to ”friendly” scholars, such as preferred access to career enhancing interviews and documents, as well as taking punitive actions, such as visa denials, for academics who anger the authorities. These rewards and punishments offer the Chinese government leverage over the careers of foreign scholars and thereby encourage a culture of academic self-censorship. By influencing scholars, these actions also shape analysis and public understanding of China.”

It is becoming evident that the rebalancing is done not only by the United States but is gaining support from many countries of the region which are doing their own balancing by “developing the components of an ‘anti-access/area-denial’ (A2/AD) capability to offset China’s impressive regional maritime build-up”. It is possible the Three Wars strategy will attain some measure of success. However, most of the press articles and essays, found via an Internet search focused on EEZs and China, signal the failure of the Chinese expansion strategy. It might be time for China to consider its geographic position and take into account the perverse effects a divisive strategy; exaggerated territorial claims (especially coming simultaneously, encouraging a Forbes magazine contributor to title his op-ed “China And The Biggest Territory Grab Since World War II”) might produce. Nationalism is not a vision in itself and can in fact blind policy-makers to the reality of a world in constant evolution. Thinking and planning a virtual domination over the area by 2050 by denying foreign military vessels and aircraft access to its EEZ while exposing itself to retaliation by countries, in Africa and elsewhere, is apt to develop enough in the next 20 years or so to advance their own claims and adopt the same restrictive definitions of EEZ and free passage, is not a good idea. Also, internal restrictions on the circulation of information might make it difficult for Chinese policy-makers to anticipate or even imagine how much of their strategy and plans are exposed in foreign medias, a strategy definitely interpreted as nothing but aggressive by most foreign observers. An example could be the suggestion, contrary to all what China stands for (as an anti-colonialism force), offered by a Chinese military official to the Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command in 2009, to split the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean into two spheres of influence and control them respectively under China and the U.S. This was rejected and China claimed it was a joke. Joke or not, it might have made many countries in the region cringe!

However, not everything is intimidation and coercive diplomacy in this game. Many efforts are made to develop mutual trust at various levels. Actually, according to James Kraska, who quoted also the above-mentioned incident, Chinese officials had told their American counterparts in private that they understood Beijing’s expansive claims over the EEZ were not consistent with UNCLOS, while saying they viewed military activities and reconnaissance flights as “impolite”. James Kraska continues with the following analogy to describe the Chinese view: “It may be lawful to peer into the window of someone else’s house, but it is going to make them very uncomfortable.”

Cultural understanding might be a step towards more courteous exchanges. It is however very improbable, seeing the utmost priority being given to the survival of the Communist Party and those whose power depends on its continuity, that the most reasonable voices will feel encouraged to abandon nationalism as a social unifying tool, even if keeping it alive for a later use means amplifying the risks of war as was recently seen when China for a time went so far as claiming ownership of Okinawa in early 2013.

________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES

[1] http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&a/ref/1.htm

[1] Military policeman’s ‘hobby’ documented 1970 Okinawa rioting”, The Japan times, December 17, 2011

[1] http://closethebase.org/us-military-bases/incidents-involving-us-military-in-okinawa/

[1] Court sides with Oe over mass suicides, The Japan Times, March 29, 2008

[1] Okinawa’s future lies in Chinese tourists, not Philippine experiences, Global Times, September 23, 2013

[1] http://m.state.gov/md215070.htm

[1] America’s Military Pivot to Asia: Obama Wants Japan to be “Able to Wage War” against China, Global Research, November 08, 2013

[1] http://community.middlebury.edu/~scs/docs/ScienceDirect%20-%20Marine%20Policy%20%20A%20Chinese%20Perspective.htm

[1] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/eez.htm last modified in July 2012

[1] Financial times. com June 2, 2013, Chinese navy begins US economic zone patrols, by Kathrin Hille in Singapore

[1] http://www.uscc.gov/Annual_Reports/2009-annual-report-congress

[1] http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/11/01/chinas-achilles-heel-in-southeast-asia/

[1] http://www.indianexpress.com/news/china-proposed-division-of-pacific-indian-ocean-regions-we-declined-us-admiral/459851/

[1] Maritime Power and the Law of the Sea, Oxford University Press, 2011

A Tsunami In A Teacup

A tsunami in a teacup: when Tokyo goes nuclear against a French newspaper

by Jack Fourrier

Since the landslide victory of the Liberal Democratic Party (LPD) in December 2012 and Shinzo Abe’s return to power thereafter, the Japanese government has upped the ante with regards to communication. Yoshihide Suga, the Chief Cabinet Secretary, is the de facto spokesperson of this government and communicator extraordinaire. The 65-year old politician is in charge of promoting and publicising Abenomics, reining in vocal members of the Abe administration as well as coalition partners and allies, and making sure that Japan’s perceived best interests are protected.

There has been a growing sense of unease as the Abe government is faced with major challenges. On the home front, the aftermath of the March 2011 Great Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami and the subsequent handling of the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi plant has been a PR disaster for the former Administration and continues to plague the present government. Abenomics, a set of economic policies advocated by Prime Minister Abe and designed to put Japan back on track after the Lost Decade, is drawing criticisms and some circles voice concern as some of Abe’s initiatives threaten the sustainability of Japan’s economy. The country’s foreign policy is experiencing major shifts, what with Washington new Asia pivot policy and the territorial disputes on a backdrop of a more assertive China. Understandably, pressure is mounting on Abe and the government is pulling out all the stops to explain and justify its every move and decision.

In its September 11 edition, the French satirical weekly Le Canard Enchaîné published two controversial cartoons, one of them showing two emaciated sumo wrestlers with extra limbs competing next to a crippled nuclear plant and a sports commentator saying:

Marvellous! Thanks to Fukushima, sumo wrestling has become an Olympic discipline.

Le Canard Enchaîné - Sumo Contest - Sept 11, 2013.jpg

Yoshihide Suga reacted promptly, calling the cartoon insensitive and misleading.

This article will show that while Japan wants to play a bigger international role, its communication strategy remains demagogic, at odds with what is expected from a world power.

All pumped up against Le Canard Enchaîné

It wasn’t the first time: Le Canard Enchaîné took a few shots at Japan after the Fukushima disaster. The French satirical newspaper was created in 1915 and has been the bane of the political and cultural elite since then. It prides itself of a loyal readership, mainly through subscription, which in turn guarantees its independence and freedom of expression. The newspaper has a tradition of uncovering scandals through investigative journalism and leaks from officials. Le Canard Enchaîné is known for its impertinence and its cartoons, but also for its constant use of puns and spoonerisms, impossible to translate in a foreign language.

In its June 15, 2011 edition, three months after the Fukushima disaster, Le Canard Enchaîné published an article underscoring the findings made by the French Nuclear Safety Authority (IRSN). Abnormal quantities of iodine-131 and cesium-134 and cesium-137 originating from the crippled reactors were found in vegetables and goat’s milk in large areas of France. While the Authority claimed that these levels wouldn’t harm public health, an independent French research centre (Criirad) highlighted errors and inconsistencies in these measurements, pointing at higher levels of toxicity.

In its September 7, 2011 edition, the newspaper stressed that while international media focus has shifted from Fukushima, the situation is far from being solved. More importantly, it concludes :

The Japanese have started asking questions and have voiced their anger on Internet blogs: how have we come to believe the promises of such arrogant people? How have we allowed them to cheat us?

In its March 7, 2012 edition, Le Canard Enchaîné published an in-depth report on France’s fourth generation nuclear reactors. As the caption put it, “for the nuclear lobby, Fukushima is already a thing of the past…Whatever they say, the population has to take their word for it.”

In its September 26, 2012 edition, the newspaper jibed :

In Fukushima, everything’s fine. There’s a slight impediment though. The pool. Reactor number 4… Its roof has collapsed. A nondescript tarpaulin covers it.

According to experts, as quoted by the newspaper, a typhoon or a new earthquake would cause a disaster. It would be the “end of modern Japan.”

Two major events occurred in Japan after this date: the PLD won the general election on a bold economic platform in December 2012 and secured a majority in the House of Councillors, the upper house of the Diet in July 2013. Two months later, Tokyo was chosen to host the 2020 Olympics. Enter a more assertive Japan on the diplomatic arena. High on this agenda are the issues of territorial integrity and national sovereignty, the review of the military alliance with the Washington and the revision of the Constitution (Article 9) leading to the establishment of a full-fledged army. Moreover, Japan is looking outside its borders: Tokyo has been very active in strengthening economic cooperation and promoting trade with South East Asian countries and Africa. This all-out diplomatic offensive is echoed by a rhetoric verging on the irrational and openly nationalistic. Deputy Prime minister and Finance minister Taro Aso’s comments on the Constitution are an example of the actual mindset of Japan’s new rulers. On July 29, 2013, Aso declared that Japan’s government should learn from Nazi Germany, when the country’s “Weimar Constitution was changed before anyone noticing it.” He partially retracted his remark a couple of days after, saying that he wasn’t condoning Nazi Germany and that they were lessons to be learned from the failure of the Weimar republic. Prominent politicians in Japan have a tendency to refer to Nazi Germany, WW2 and controversial historical issues in a compulsive fashion. They suffer from the Basil Faulty’s syndrome (Faulty Towers). The more they say to themselves “don’t mention the war”, the more they feel compelled to mention it, either explicitly or implicitly. When Prime Minister Abe, in blue military jacket, wriggled into the cockpit of a T-4 training jet fighter of the Air Self-Defence Force on May 12, 2013, the number 731 was clearly visible in the fuselage of the aircraft. For most people in China and Korea, this number brings back memory of the notorious Unit 731, a covert biological and chemical warfare unit of the Imperial Japanese Army in China. This number should have evoked past atrocities to anyone present, but the Prime Minister chose to climb onto the jet.

Japanese leaders bitterly reminisce a fabled time when Japan was strong and they hanker after a new dawn for the country. Chairing the “Restoration of Sovereignty Day” on April 28, 2013 to mark the day in 1952 when the San Francisco Peace Treaty took effect, Shinzo Abe said:

We have a responsibility to make Japan a strong and resolute country that others across the world can rely on.

Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko attended this highly symbolic ceremony and both were greeted by cheers from the participants, as they threw theirs hands up in the air shouting “Long Live the Emperor.” This rallying cry is a throwback of a nationalistic and militaristic Japan that most want to forget but still insidiously rears its ugly head in one of this world’s most advanced society.

Next on Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s agenda is controlling its public communication, first and foremost the media. He proposed the nomination of five close allies at the board of governors of the NHK, Japan’s public broadcaster. The Diet approved their nominations on November 8. The board of governors will appoint NHK’s new president in January. There is little doubt as to the fate of what was left of editorial independence and critical reporting in this organization.

On the public relations front, the hyperactive Prime Minister and his cabinet have decided to be as reactive as possible for two reasons. First, there is undoubtedly a public malaise following the government’s response to the March 11 disaster and the responsibility of TEPCO in the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown. The government also continues to face criticism over the US presence in Okinawa. Other thorny issues related to the proposed free trade Transpacific Partnership, the recent tax hike and the country’s nuclear policy have prompted concern and reignited discontent in a broad swathe of the population. As the Japanese grow wary of their political elite, abstention in recent elections has reached record high proportions, leaving the grassroots political ground to activists, die-hard extremists and above all a large disillusioned electorate. The constant need to explain and justify decisions in the media highlights the lack of democratic debate. Who needs a democratic debate after all when the government appears to be doing its best on national television ? Who needs a democratic debate when officials relentlessly explain that nuclear power is safe ? Who needs a debate when the media are banging on about the China threat ?

This burst of activity in the media goes hand in hand with a proactive approach to public relations. The government needs to stoke up public indignation and resentment, resorting to fallacious argument.

On two occasions in September and October 2013, mainstream French media indulged in cheap jibes at Japan’s expenses. First, on September 11, Le Canard Enchaîné published the two cartoons, prompting the Japanese government to announce that a formal complaint will be lodged. According to Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga, said that one of the cartoons is :

(…) inappropriate and gives a wrong impression of the Fukushima contaminated water issue.

Needless to say, apart from the temporary hullabaloo, the government decided to leave it to rest and didn’t lodge any formal complaint.

In another instance of typical French satire, on October 12, Laurent Ruquier, the host of one of France’s most popular TV talk show “On n’est pas couché”, ran a countdown of the ten best blunders of the week. According to Ruquier, the top one blunder of the week was the defeat of the French football squad against Japan 1-0. Ruquier went on to praise Konno, Japan’s defender, whose name in French means “idiot” (connaud) and the goalkeeper Eiji Kawashima. In the punch line, he attributed Japan’s victory to the “Fukushima effect” while a doctored picture of a four-armed Kawashima appeared on the screen.

Following the show, the Japanese government asked its embassy in France to protest. Jean Reveillon, the president of TV public channel France 2, apologized the following week on behalf of Ruquier for having “hurt the feelings of the Japanese people.”

Much ado about pumping

The first cartoon published by Le Canard Enchaîné on September 11, 2013, illustrated an article work in progress in Fukushima. Its main caption says:

Meanwhile in Fukushima, the Shadoks keep pumping…

More than two years after the disaster, the crippled plant is still heating up and leaking everywhere. Technicians cool it down and pump out the water at the same time. It could last for years.

The Shadoks is an animated TV series broadcast from 1968 to 1974 created by French cartoonist Jacques Rouxel. The series has gained cult status over the years for its post-1968 absurd take on human behaviour. The Shadoks are bird-like ruthless and stupid creatures living in a two-dimensional world. In their world, pumping was everything. Paraphrasing Descartes, they would say: “I pump, therefore I am.” One of the most famous absurd lines of this TV series was:

It’s best to pump even if nothing happens than risk something worse happening by not pumping.

The reference to the Shadoks is a case in point. Had the Fukushima incident been handled by the Shadoks, the situation wouldn’t have been different. Again the Shadoks:

Only when you pump can you get the job done, but even if you fail, at the end of the day, it’s not that terrible !

In this article, Le Canard Enchaîné makes a list of the inconsistencies and the blunders that have occured since the beginning of the incident. Even though Abe tried to reassure the International Olympic Committee in Buenos Aires on September 7, swearing, cross my heart, and hope to die, that everything was under control, the situation would be bordering on the grotesque if it wasn’t so tragic. This is what Le Canard Enchaîné wanted to convey, and what made the Japanese government so tetchy.

In the same edition of the newspaper, another cartoon greeted Tokyo’s hosting the 2020 Olympics in the same satirical fashion.

2020 Olympics in Japan: the swimming pool has already been built.

Le Canard Enchaîné - Olympic Swimming Pool - Sept 11, 2013.jpg

The cartoon shows two technicians donned in protective gear and standing by the pool, one of them holding a Geiger counter. The caption says:

They will probably allow swimsuits again in the swimming competitions !

Louis-Marie Horeau, the editor-in-chief of Le Canard Enchaîné, commented on the Japanese govenrment’s response, telling the AFP on September 12:

It’s not because we have a go at humour that we hurt the feelings of the victims. Here (in France), we can report on a tragedy in jest, but apparently, in Japan, that is not the case. We are absolutely stunned by this outburst and by the fact that such harmless cartoons have been so hyped. What is really outrageous is the way the Japanese government has managed the crisis.

We haven’t received any formal complaint yet, but a Japanese chargé d’affaires called us to say that things were fine in Fukushima.

Posturing has always been a strategic PR move in authoritatrian countries, but Japan has a democratic tradition – or has it really- that allows its government to take such harmless jibes with a pinch of salt and adopt a more dignified attitude.

Pump up the volume : Chinese posturing

In a recent example of posturing and feigned indignation, China has recently reacted to the ABC show Jimmy Kimmel! Live!

Aired on October 16, the show asked children how to solve the debt problem in the US. America owes China a lot of money, he said, how should we pay them back ? One of the children replied: “Kill everyone in China. ” A young Asian American girl, sitting next to him, them burst out laughing. Jimmy Kimmel echoed the answer, saying “That’s an interesting idea” in a tone that suggested how ridiculous it was. The show went on as all the children voice their opinion.

The reaction to the show was vociferous. Hundreds of American Chinese took to the streets and demanded that Jimmy Kimmel be dismissed. On October 19, a petition calling for the suppression of the program was posted on the White House website. Despite Jimmy Kimmel’s heartfelt apologies, the controversy showed no signs of ebbing. Enter Qin Gang, spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. What was an harmless and unintentional skit was treading into the troubled waters of diplomacy and business (diplobusiness), ABC being involved in the Disney Park project in Shanghai. On November 11, Qin Gang said :

Overseas Chinese in the US have spontaneously held demonstrations to protest the ABC’s offensive remarks against China. It must be pointed out that disseminating racial discrimination and hatred is against the social responsibility of the media. The ABC should squarely face its own mistake, make sincere response to the legitimate requirements of the overseas Chinese in the US and avoid the reoccurrence of similar incidents.

Notwithstanding the vagueness and the evasiveness of such a response, it is important to note that such trivial issues are now being discussed at the highest levels of the Chinese State in an exercise of demagogic point-scoring.

If you want something done wrong, do it yourself (The Shadoks)

China and Japan are respectively the world second and third largest economies but its leaders haven’t yet acknowledged that in an era of 24/7 rolling news, digital information and social media, these damage-control exercises are a vicious trap. Governments are now so intent on communicating that they are risking negative outcomes. There is obviously a disproportion of sorts between the stern rebuke of Japan’s Cabinet Chief and some inoffensive cartoons in an obscure French satirical newspaper. How could China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs even comment on a late-night talk show broadcast in the US ?

In both instances, they have spun a yarn by distorting, deleting and generalizing. Now that readers and viewers have the means and the wherewithal to check directly for themselves and make up their own minds, governments need to refrain from comments that are nakedly beyond the pale. Why did Suga said that everything was fine in Fukushima when it’s a blatant lie? Why did Qin Gang ever evoke the worn rhetorical chestnut of racial discrimination and hatred ? If these two countries want to be seen as key players in the international diplomatic arena, they will have to consider more subtle ways of communicating or else, they might be at risk of losing any credibility or provoking unwanted outbursts of public anger.

21st Century Asia-Headed Where?

Which way is Asia headed in the twenty-first century? Will we see greater economic cooperation, or will we see greater competition? Will Asian countries, particularly Central Asian countries move more toward democracy and transparency? Will Central Asia experience its own version of the “Arab Spring”? And will racial and ethnic tensions be resolved so that all levels of society can enjoy prosperity? So, what do you think the future will look like? Post your comments below.

New Silk Road Again Links Asia-Europe

Train Uzbek.jpg

(Photo: ADB)

by David Parmer

The Silk Road-just the name brings to mind images of camel caravans crossing vast empty spaces bringing trade goods from one civilization to another. The total distance of the ancient trade routes connecting East, South and Western Asia with the Mediterranean world and North Africa is estimated to be about 8,000 km, or about 5,000 miles. From the second century BC, goods crossed those vast distances and connected civilizations. Then, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with the rise of global navigation and the opening of sea lanes, these ancient trade routes fell into decline and disuse.

Things stayed pretty much the same with little but historical interest until around the turn of this century, when things again began to heat up. Interest in the revival of the Silk Road came from two major sources, the United States and the Asian Development Bank.

The United States needed to supply its forces and coalition forces in Afghanistan after the closure of its Pakistan supply route. In 2009, it created the Northern Distribution Network (NDN) which was a logistics chain that stretched from Europe down to Afghanistan. At the same time the U.S. proposed a new Silk Road. The problems inherent in this venture included complicated customs procedures and the widespread existence of bribery. The US initiative was rated as having mixed results. Meanwhile, the Asian Development Bank had its own vision of a new Silk Road to accelerate growth and reduce poverty in central Asia. To facilitate this vision, it created the Central Asian Regional Economic Cooperation Program (CAREC) back in 1997. Countries involved were Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, The PRC (China) Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Mongolia, Pakistan Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. To date, it has spent $USD 38 billion to build road, rail logistics and border facilities. Its aim is to develop new road and rail links between central Asia, China and South Asia.

China has long looked west, and seen Urumqi in its western end as the logical jumping off point. And once again, Chinese made goods are headed toward Europe overland. The prime mover this time is not the camel caravan, but is rail transport, a nineteenth-century technology that is still very much with us. Manufactures in China both domestic and foreign are looking to rail as their shipping means of choice. While rail can be up to 25% more expensive than sea transport, the time efficiency is greater. Time by rail is estimated to be 20 days, loading dock to loading dock, a savings of 10 days over sea transport.

Rail is not without its problems. One of the biggest being rail gauges, i.e. track size. China, Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan use standard gauge, while Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia use the wider Russian gauge. This causes delays including off loading and on-loading of China cargo in Kazakhstan were gauges change. Other problems include complicated customs procedures and corruption as mentioned. Of note was a simple customs union set up by Kazakhstan, Russia and Belarus in 2012 which resulted in the elimination of lengthy inspections and the reduction in the amount of theft.

The new Silk Road is already beginning to have far reaching effects. For example, many manufacturers, including computer giant Hewlett Packard have moved to Chongqing in Southwestern China and now ship overland from China to Europe via Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus, Poland, and Germany. HP’s precedent will clearly inspire others to test the waters and export west along the new/old Silk Road.

Should Developing Countries Have Space Programs?

India’s recent launch of its Mars satellite mission drew criticism from some quarters stating that the money could have been better spent eradicating poverty on Earth, specifically in India. They said India could not afford such a costly venture. The price tag was a relatively modest USD 73 million (see linked article). Still could funds be better spent either directly in eradicating poverty or in doing research on Earth? If space programs are simply a matter of pride, how much is pride worth? What is your opinion-do space programs return enough benefits to developing countries to justify the cost? Please post below.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/11/a-mission-to-mars-on-the-cheap.html

Asian Space Race Heats Up In 2013

Mars Orbiter Liftoff.jpg Liftoff: India’s First Mars Mission 5 November 2013 (Photo: ISRO)

by David Parmer

2013 has been an active year for Asian space programs. After a successful satellite launch by South Korea early in the year, and ballistic missile tests and tensions from the DPRK (North Korea) in the spring, the fourth quarter has witnessed other notable space events.These include India’s launch on November 5 of its first Mars orbiter mission, a November 7 launch of a Russian Soyuz mission to the ISS (International Space Station) carrying the Olympic torch, and a planned Chinese Chang’e 3 mission to the Moon in December with a planned Moon landing and the deployment of an unmanned lunar rover.

Despite India’s flawless launch, the mission is still a gamble as Mars missions have about a 50% chance of success. China and Japan have both come up short on their Mars missions. India is said to have the world’s sixth largest space program, and its successes include 70 successful satellite launches as well as a Moon mission in 2008. Critics of India’s space program say funds could be better spent on Earth, while defenders point to the immense benefits in communication, education and medicine brought about by the program. Now that the focus has shifted to exploration it may be harder to justify off-world budgets as more than boosters of national pride.

While some see India’s successful launch of its Mars mission as putting it “ahead” of China, the PRC boasts a solid and accomplished space program which includes an astronaut program, an orbiting lab (Tiangong-1) and the upcoming lunar mission complete with lunar rover deployment.

Japan’s progress has been steady, and while her astronauts have hitched rides on various other countries’ vehicles, it is only a matter of time before she develops her own capability to rival both the U.S. and Russia. Of note was a recent June 2012 Diet bill permitting the development of military application space technology including early-warning capabilities.

Rounding out the Asian card are Iran and the DPRK, both of which had launches this year. Critics contend that their stated scientific purposes were simply cover for the development of military capabilities.

Japan China War of Words–For Now

by David Parmer

China has lodged a strong protest with Japan claiming interference with its naval drills that ran from October 24, 2013 to November 1, 2013. The Chinese side claims that Japanese vessels entered waters where the Chinese were conducting announced military drills. Japan claims that it was conducting normal surveillance. This type of activity is reminiscent of the cold war, when the U.S. and Soviet military assets shadowed each other, and the nuclear stakes were high indeed. Now China and Japan seem to both be engaged on a similar course of action. Fortunately the cold war game of cat and mouse did not result in shooting incidents or loss of life. But what about the present situation? Emotions and national pride are on display in the Pacific waters. Can this go on for some time to come, or will it come to a head and a shooting incident (s) occur? What do you think? Post your opinion below

China MOD protests: http://eng.mod.gov.cn/Press/2013-11/01/content_4473429.htm

Japan denies incurion: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/11/01/national/japan-denies-disrupting-china-drills/#.UnToH5TUaN4

Photo: China Military Online

Person of Interest: Neil Shen Sequoia Capital China

Neil Shen.jpg (Photo: World Economic Forum Davos)

by David Parmer

Sequoia Capital, founded in 1972 by legendary venture capitalist Don Valentine, is a Menlo Park California company that has funded some of the biggest players in Silicon Valley, including Apple Computer, CISCO Systems, Oracle, Yahoo, Goggle and Zappos. 10% of NASDAQ- traded companies are said to have been Sequoia funded. In 2005 Sequoia opened its doors in China with Neil Shen at the helm as founding and managing partner.

Shen’s career has had a steady and upward arc. A graduate of Shanghai’s prestigious Jiao Tong University and Yale, he worked in investment banking in New York and Hong Kong for such companies a Deutsche Bank, Chemical Bank Lehman Brothers and Citibank. Shen’s solo career began as co-founder of Ctrip , China’s largest travel booker, in 1999 which listed on the NASDAQ in 2003. In 2002 he was co-founder of Home Inns, China’s largest budget hotel chain which went public in 2006.

Since its founding in 2005, Sequoia Capital China has reported raised more than $USD 3 billion. Unlike venture capital companies in the US, SCC has gone beyond the standard venture areas of tech, media and telecom to include areas like health care and clean tech. Sequoia deals have included LandV, a vegetable producer, Mecox, a mail order business, Great Dreams, an animation studio and 51.com, a social networking concern.

China’s Xi : Things Can’t Go On Forever Vis-à-Vis Taiwan

At the recent APEC meeting on the Indonesian island of Bali, China’s President Xi Jinping told Taiwan’s representative that the political question should not be passed on from generation to generation. His remarks suggested that a sense of urgency should be introduced into the equation. Taiwan’s president Ma Ying-jeou answered Xi’s remarks in a long interview with the Washington Post, in which he stated that there was not yet consensus, and that, in fact, very important work in cross strait relations was ongoing and highly positive. Ma restated the KMT position: no unification, no independence, no use of force. So what is happening? Why is President Xi applying some gentle pressure, and will the pressure be increased if Ma and Taiwan maintain their position? Post your comments below.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/full-transcript-interview-with-taiwanese-president-ma-ying-jeou/2013/10/24/e430ceb0-3ce0-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story.html

Photo: thierry ehrmann via flickr