日本語
English
中国語50 years from now what kind of world will we have? It is safe to say that many current problems will be solved, or will solve themselves, and new ones will be front page news (assuming newspapers are still around). Minor territorial disputes in Asia may be resolved peacefully, or military action may have altered the map. Of interest is Taiwan which has remained independent since 1949. Recent murmurs from the PRC indicate that this situation can not continue indefinitely. Will the PRC let time sort out the situation, or will direct action be taken? Great powers are rising in Asia, and India will certainly pull itself together much the same way Japan and China have done. Pakistan remains an enigma, for it often appears more a collection of tribal areas than a sovereign nation. The map of the Middle East is right now being re-drawn. Of particular interest is Iran, a nation yet to come into its own in the 21st century. But surely Iran will be a major player in this century, if not in the first half, then surely in the second half. A peaceful, prosperous and powerful Iran could be a great force for stability in its neighborhood. Well, we will just have to wait and see what happens in 50 years, or maybe the seeds are being sown now, and a careful scrutiny can give us some inklings of things to come. What do you think? Please log in and let us know.
50 Years Ago – The World in 1964
50 years–If you are young it is forever, if you are old, it’s just last week.
by David Parmer
In 1964 Japan hosted the Summer Olympics in Tokyo from October 10-24. If ever there was a symbolic meaning to the venue of the games, this was it. In Just 19 years from 1945, Japan had transformed herself from a defeated, bombed-out shell of a country into a world economic power, respected for its hi-tech products of unquestionable quality, whose names like Sony, Panasonic, Nikon, Toshiba and Honda were known worldwide. Domestically, the Japan National Railways (JNR) ran the Shinkansen or Bullet Train from Tokyo to Osaka. It was another amazing feat of post-war Japanese engineering and technology. Also, in 1964 Japanese citizens were again given the right to travel abroad, and travel they did in flag-following groups to all parts of the world.
In 1964, China too made its mark on the international stage. On October 16, 1964 China exploded its first 22 kiloton nuclear device in the Xinjiang region of western China. China thus became the fifth member of the nuclear club after the U.S., Soviet Union, Britain and France. The year saw China launch what might be called a foreign-relations offensive by establishing ties with a host of countries around the world. Premier Zhou Enlai travelled to Burma, Pakistan, Ceylon and several countries in Africa. The jewel in this particular crown was the normalization of ties and recognition of the PRC by France, the first western power to do so.
In the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater for the Presidency. In 1964, the United States faced three big issues: the Civil Rights Movement, the Space Race and The Cold War. On July 2, 1964 the Civil Rights Act was passed abolishing segregation. (In might be noted in passing that this was roughly 100 years after President Abraham Lincoln had issued the Emancipation proclamation freeing the slaves.) On November 28, 1964 the US launched Mariner 4, one of the first in a long series of Mars probes that continues even until today. The Space Race was an unofficial completion with the Soviet Union, which they led off by launching a basketball-sized satellite in 1958, and which would culminate with an American Moon landing in 1969. The Cold War with the Soviet Union took a new face in 1964 when Nikita Khrushchev was ousted and a collective leadership was put in place under Leonid Brezhnev. The following years came to be known as the Brezhnev Era, which was noted for its economic stagnation but significant military strengthening. On August 7, 1964 the US congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution giving the president war powers to deal with North Vietnam after an attack on a US naval vessel. The US also sent an additional 5,000 advisors to South Vietnam, bringing the number of Americans on the ground to 21,000.
Finally, in 1964, French writer John Paul Sartre won the Nobel Prize for Literature, and Martin Luther King won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Of Space Research and Budgets
Indian Satellite Launch Vehicle (Photo: ISRO)
Why should we spend money to explore space? This is a common question around the world. The usual answer is that there are many benefits right here on Earth that come from space programs. Governments, however, are held accountable for the monies that they spend, and ordinary people want some return on investment. Japan has a reported budget of about $3.5 billion. Reports say a reorganization of Japan’s program is going to be expected to show some practical returns at the expense of pure science. India has a budget of around $1.3 billion. While exploration is still a priority, a more-down to earth focus has been to develop the rocket power to put heavy satellites into orbit, thus freeing Indian from dependence of foreign launch capabilities, and putting her into the launch business. China’s space budget is also said to be about $1.3 billion, matching India’s. And China has a whole host of missions in the works for 2016, 2017 and culminating in a 2020 Mars mission. China’s return on investment seems to be technological advancement and national pride. And NASA? $17.8 billion dollars looks like a lot…but 2012 saw cuts and more cuts. America’s leading role in space exploration and research may be a thing of the past as a result of budget cutting and lack of vision. Budgets, the final frontier. Log in and let us know your thoughts.
Life On Mars? Not So Far Off.
Mars Curiosity Rover (Photo:NASA)
by David Parmer/Tokyo
In the latter part of this century, the most common life form on Mars will probably be humans from Asia-Pacific. These would be Chinese, Indians or Americans.
India now has a Mars Orbiter Mission (MOM), Mangalyaan, headed for Mars and scheduled to enter Mars orbit September 24, 2014. The Indian MOM is to be preceded by a NASA vehicle, Maven, that will enter orbit September 21, 2014. Mangalyaan was launched by the Indian Space Research Organisation in November 2013 on a shoestring budget of $75,000,000, attesting to Indian ingenuity and ability to “make do.”
Media reports see India’s space programs as space race with China similar to the U.S. vs. Russia space race of the 1960s. Evidence suggests that China is not interested in “racing” into space, but is taking a slow and steady approach, with the emphasis on “steady.” In an National Public Radio (NPR) broadcast in 2013, the director of the Chinese National Space Science Center, Wu Ji said that China, when it sends its Mars mission, will not duplicate the science that the U.S. and India do, but will rather set new scientific goals. The Chinese, buoyed by the success of the Chang’e 3 spacecraft and its rover Yutu on their lunar mission are now looking toward a 2020 Mars mission with a 2030 planetary samples mission. China’s first Mars mission, the Yinghuo -1 launched on November 9,2011 was a failure. However, failed Mars missions abound as the challenges are immense. So the failure of China’s first attempt was not unusual. What seems clear, however, is China’s long-terms national commitment to space exploration.
NASA has been in the vanguard of Mars exploration with a history of fly-by, orbiter and lander and robot programs. The Curiosity rover, which landed in 2012 has been a stunning success performing flawlessly and doing good scientific research, including finding what appears to be evidence of ancient streams. Evidence of water points to ancient life. All very exciting. NASA, like China, has its sights set on 2020 for its next rover mission. The 2020 mission, already well into the planning stages) will look for potential life on Mars, gather knowledge about the planet and demonstrate techniques for further exploration.
Israel VS Palestine: Will There Ever Be Peace?
TV images again show Israel’s tanks moving toward the West Bank and Israel’s bombs falling on Palestinian targets. The same TV programs show Hammas missiles headed into Israel. People are dying on both sides of the border. And? Cease fires take place and are broken and more people die. Hammas has missiles, just as the Taliban had Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). Both use(d) a low-tech weapon to combat an heavily armed and technological superior opponent. For the Palestinians the missile is their IED, and their equalizer. But weapons systems are not the real question here. The question is how can Israel and Palestine co-exist peacefully? The answer to that question may well not come until the end of this century or beyond when factors outside the problem change the context of the stalemate. What those factors will be is anybody’s guess. Peace in the Middle East? How about peace between Israel and Palestine? What do you think? Log in and give us your answer.
China-Japan Tourism Rebounds in 2014
(Photo: China Daily)
For the first half of 2014, the numbers tell a simple story: Chinese tourists are back. Back in Japan that is. Despite political squabbling over the Diayou/Senkaku islands and Chinese and Japanese defense buildups and posturing, Japan is again a hot destination for Chinese travelers.
Tensions aside, the Wall Street Journal reports at a recent survey indicates that 29% of Chinese rank Japan as their #1 destination. A China Daily report mentions that the number of tourists visiting Japan might return to the pre -2012 territorial-dispute level. Reasons given are eased visa restrictions and favorable exchange rates.
Going the other way, visitors from Japan to China in 2014 show a consistent, double-digit drop except for February and May, when the Chinese New Year and Japanese Golden Week are celebrated.
http://www.tourism.jp/en/statistics/
http://blogs.wsj.com/scene/2014/01/15/where-rich-chinese-tourists-are-traveling-in-2014/
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2014-03/03/content_17318237.htm
Flying Over A War Zone – Who is Responsible?
Our modern world is made up of complex systems overseen by humans. And we all have to believe that somewhere, someone is making rational and sound decisions on things that affect our safety. So when we board an aircraft, we must assume that people have done their best to assure that the aircraft will arrive at its destination. We assume that the people who make the decisions about or lives know what they are doing, and know a lot more about their business than we will ever know. Regarding the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 this past week, perhaps the people who were making the decisions didn’t know what they were doing. Internet reports say that commercial flights fly over war zones all the time. And we must assume this is true, for our planet is not without its patchwork of conflict zones. Reports about WHY the Malaysian plane was flying over a hot war zone where two aircraft had been shot down contain some shifting of blame. Malaysia says it had been assured by IATA and the UN organization that the route was safe, but both organizations say they do not guarantee safety. It is also worth noting that Air France, British Air and Cathay Pacific have been flying a more southerly route that avoids eastern Ukraine. And media reports indicate that Malaysian crew had reservations about overflying a war zone. Mr. Tony Tyler, Director General of IATA says:
At this time, it is important we are very clear: safety is the top priority. No airline will risk the safety of their passengers, crew and aircraft for the sake of fuel savings. Airlines depend on governments and air traffic control authorities to advise which air space is available for flight, and they plan within those limits.
So the airlines would not try to save money on fuel by flying over a war zone. Right. And it is the government’s responsibility to advise airlines about their airspace. In short: we are not responsible, the airlines would not do such a thing. And yet a commercial plane flew over a known war zone and was shot down. A war zone where two aircraft had been downed by missiles. A war zone that was avoided by British Air, Air France and Cathay Pacific.
Let us say nobody is to blame–but somebody is surely responsible. Please log in and post your thoughts
Mr. Tyler’s statement: http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/statement-MH17-2014-07-18.aspx
Asian Low Cost Carriers (LCC) Are Industry Game Changers
LCC Scoot Air Boeing 777-212 ER (Wikimedia)
by David Parmer / Tokyo
The Asian airline industry’s big story for 2014 will surely be the continued expansion of the Low Cost Carrier (LCC) segment of its business. CAPA Center for Aviation estimates the LCC fleet to be 1,000 aircraft at present with a staggering 1500 orders in place. Airbus and Boeing are bullish on the market estimating the need for 7,000 wide body aircraft and 20,000 narrow body aircraft in the next 20 years. Now there are 47 LCCs in the region, with another 10 expected to be launched in 2014. Orders for new aircraft are huge. Aviation Week reports that Lion Air has outstanding orders for 500 Airbus 320s and Boeing 737-800s. Air Asia has orders for 337 aircraft and Viet Jet has orders for 90 A320s. In general, LCCs buy the same type of plane to keep costs down. And fleets tend to be younger due to the presence of newer aircraft.
The expansion of LCC in the region is impressive. Airbus estimates that LCCs sell 25% of total seats across Southeast Asia. CNNs estimate is close to double that. LCCs share of seats in North Asia is estimated to be just 9%. Japan Airlines reportedly has no plans to acquire a stake in an LCC until there is what it sees as an inevitable shakeout in the market. Rumors of an open skies policy within ASEAN to be discussed in 2015 fuel visions of a one billion plus future passenger market.
But events on the ground point to the old truism that not ALL clouds have silver linings. Already there seems to be an adjustment in the volatile LCC market. And the dreaded “O” word is being spoken: oversupply. Reports are surfacing of aircraft orders being deferred and consolidation of carriers taking place. In the short term this may be the case, but as for the future, it looks like the shape of the airline industry will be dominated by the LCCs. Cheap and fast will most likely be the wave of the future for this part of the world.
Reading Between the Lines on Kerry’s Trip to China
“Let me emphasize to you today the United States does not seek to contain China. We welcome the emergence of a peaceful, stable, prosperous China that contributes to the stability and the development of the region…”(Sec. John Kerry)
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks with Chinese President Xi Jinping to discuss the conclusion of the 5th Annual U.S.-China People-to-People Exchange and Sixth Strategic and Economic Dialogue between the two nations on July 10, 2014. (Photo: Wikimedia)
by David Parmer
Secretary of State John Kerry went to China last week with a high level delegation to attend a series of meetings with Chinese counterparts. Some reports suggested modest success in the meetings. The two countries discussed climate change, nuclear non-proliferation and North Korea and Iran’s nuclear programs as well as cooperation on fighting terrorism. Areas of difference remain centered on alleged cyber attacks on U.S. officials and ongoing territorial issues. Kerry went out of his way to stress that the U.S. does not seek to contain China, but rather welcomes China’s emergence, and the continuation of good relations that began with a handshake 35 years ago.
In his remarks at the opening of the Sixth Round of the U.S.- China Strategic and Economic dialogue, Secretary also said:
I am particularly pleased to be here with my co-chair, the Secretary of the Treasury, Jack Lew; with Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen; with our Secretary of Commerce, Penny Pritzker; with the Secretary of Energy, Ernie Moniz; with our Trade Representative, Mike Froman. As I look down the line with many other members of government, the top advisors (inaudible) my deputy, (inaudible) Deputy Secretary of State William Burns — in fact, as I looked at the (inaudible) of people from the American delegation here, it is obvious to me that not a lot is getting done back in Washington today. It is being done here.
By the time Kerry and his delegation left, meetings had been held, topics discussed, and agreements made. Reports mentioned no big breakthroughs. But what was Kerry’s message? What did the composition of the Kerry delegation ( containing some of the administration’s top appointees) say to the Chinese without words? It said we value you, we respect you, we are sending some of our highest officials to the Middle Kingdom. Our relationship is not just important, it is vital. The U.S. and the Obama administration showed respect to China. They were not speaking Mandarin, but they were speaking the language of the Chinese.
Comments? Log in and let us know what you think.
North Korea’s Military – Laughable or Lethal?
(Photo: Army Recognition.com)
by David Parmer / Tokyo
Media reports on the DPRK military are often like the story of the blind men and the elephant. In the story each man grasps a different part of the beast and gives a different and wildly-divergent impression. The 2013 report by the U.S. Defense Department to Congress on North Korea gives an overall view that puts piecemeal reports by the press in a more understandable context.
The North Korean threat to the region is real, and it is an instrument of national policy. The raison d’être for DPRK forces are seen to be twofold; to keep the regime in power and to prevent any significant attack from the ROK, U.S. Japan or an expeditionary force made up of these three countries. At the same time, this capability enables the country to pursue a bellicose, contrarian and concession-extracting foreign policy.
North Korea fields a large, forward-deployed military that retains the capability to inflict serious damage on the ROK, despite significant resource shortfalls and aging hardware. (U.S. Dept. of Defense)
North Korean technology in conventional arms is far behind current world standards but effective. Aircraft date from the 1990s or earlier. While the DPRK has one of the world’s biggest submarine fleets, it along with the Navy (mostly a costal force) are seen as outdated technologically. Vintage Russian and Chinese designs are a big part of the defense mix. The DPRK has the 4th largest military in the world, with 70 submarines,13,000 artillery pieces and substantial armored and infantry units as well as its vintage air force. On paper this looks impressive, but the Pentagon cites serious shortcomings in the military machine of Kim Jong-un. Specifically:
- Logistic shortages
- Aging equipment
- Lack of training
Despite these shortcomings, the threat from the north is credible. It starts with its artillery and rocket forces. Estimates suggest an artillery inventory of 13,000 pieces, many in hardened sites and targeting the territory south of the DMZ and Seoul itself. A second element in the threat is North Korean special forces (SOF). Other sources suggest that as many as 200,000 SOF personnel are on duty. These troops are seen as well equipped, highly motivated professionals capable of being inserted by land sea or air into the ROK to cause havoc and strike high-value targets such as air fields or command centers. Next comes the DPRK’s cyber warfare capability. In a cash-strapped national economy, cyber warfare can deliver a big return on investment. The Pentagon’s report suggests cyber attacks have already been launched on the south, with incidents of Denial of Service (DOS) attacks being attributed to the DPRK. And finally, the tip of Kim Jong-un’s spear is his rocket forces: short and long range missiles, less than sophisticated by world standards, but capable of getting the job done-i.e. threatening both his regional neighbors in China, ROK and Japan, but also the west coast of the United States. It seems that is only a matter of time before North Korea can perfect the launch and re-entry of an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying a high yield nuclear warhead.
Seen from the Pentagon’s report, the military machine of the DPRK is a well-planned and well thought out instrument of national policy using strategy and limited resources to confront better equipped, better supplied and better trained potential adversaries. And so far this strategy seems to be working just fine.
U.S. Department of Defense Report on North Korea 2013
http://www.defense.gov/pubs/North_Korea_Military_Power_Report_2013-2014.pdf