Saturday, September 30, 2006


Obviously, Washington still has an interest in Asia, but America can best protect its citizens by acting as an offshore balancer, ready to jump across the Pacific if need be, but not entangled in controversies of little importance to the U.S. That means maintaining friendly relationships with and base access in important countries, but not endless security guarantees and permanent military deployments.

They may come to doubt the willingness of the U.S. government, any U.S. government, to risk Los Angeles or New York to protect Tokyo or Kyoto. And they should doubt America's willingness to do so, since Washington officials should not do so.,

Might a regional order no longer dominated by America result in some unpleasant surprises? Certainly, but the existing U.S. presence offers no guarantees either. It just ensures that any geopolitical mess will end up in Uncle Sam's lap.

There are many reasons for Washington and Tokyo to remain close friends, and many issues upon which the two nations can cooperate. However, the alliance needs to be updated for a new age. Doing so is in the interests of both nations. As the Cato Institute's Chris Preble argues, "A new strategic relationship should provide a more durable and credible foundation for addressing the most pressing security challenges facing both countries in East Asia and beyond."Doug Bandow

via Marmot.
The blogger says this is "ABSOLUTE MUST READ", but I don't see why.
It is one of traditional American deplomatic policies.
And for Japanese side,the topic was discussed most in 1990's.
I want to know what is new in his argument.

Friday, September 29, 2006


Millions of dollars and a piano may put Korean in UN's top job
By Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor, Richard Lloyd Parry, and James Bone

Aid campaign is crucial in race to succeed Kofi Annan

SOUTH KOREA has pledged millions of dollars in aid and offered other incentives to members of the United Nations Security Council to secure its candidate as the next UN secretary-general.

An investigation by The Times has disclosed that the South Koreans have been waging an aggressive campaign on behalf of Ban Ki Moon, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the front-runner to replace Kofi Annan as UN chief at the end of the year. The inducements range from tens of millions of pounds of extra funding for African countries to lucrative trade agreements in Europe — and even the gift of a grand piano to Peru.Times

Rivals have privately grumbled that South Korea, which has the world's 11th-largest economy, has wielded its economic might to generate support for his candidacy. They cited South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun's trade mission earlier this month to Greece, which holds the Security Council's presidency. The visit, the first by a South Korean leader to Greece since 1961, concluded with the signing of trade and tourism agreements.washingtonpos

So when will the truth come out?

Emperor of the United States."

He is cool.


I didn't notice I had comments until today. So I published them.
I apologize for my ignorance to those who commented. I am not used to running the blog.


Ideally, Washington would like to see Japan take a greater security role in Asia, albeit, at a measured pace. Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said in a visit to Tokyo this year that Japan needed to play a greater role in Asia, despite China’s growing influence in the region. “Japan is a valued partner and a better model for Southeast Asia and other countries than China,” he said.

Japan is now undergoing changes that have long-term implications for the U.S. and its allies in Asia. In a world where alliances are based on economic cooperation, energy security and ideological alliances, Japan finds itself at a crossroads. The country needs to secure its own Asia revival through cooperation with its neighbors, but also must support traditional, Western-based economic and security alliances.

Under Prime Minister Koizumi’s five-year tenure, Japan has demonstrated an increasing willingness to act independently on Asia-related maters. Although this new found independence is not evidence of a fissure in U.S.-Japan relations, it does show that Tokyo’s foreign policy is in a stage of maturation.

An accelerated intermingling of Japan’s national interests with those of China will almost certainly complicate U.S.-Japan bilateral relations, making it more difficult for the U.S. to convince Tokyo to follow its direction on Asia-related matters. At the same time, Tokyo will need to be extremely careful to ensure that its defense, economic and energy relations with Beijing do not compromise U.S. plans for a more robust security arrangement in the Pacific, especially in defense of Taiwan.

Are Japan and China destined to be regional adversaries, or will both countries decide to put aside their differences to facilitate a more beneficial relationship? And how will Washington react to improved relations between the two countries? Moving forward, the newly elected administration of conservative Shinzo Abe will need to fashion a balanced China policy that takes into consideration Japan’s long-term economic and security interests and its relations with traditional ally the United States. link

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Dalai Lama

Special role

The Dalai Lama was in Long Beach on Tuesday to address a conference of women presided over by California first lady Maria Shriver. He also met privately with Governor Arnold

I think Japan should play more role in helping Tibet.

Japan's aggressive history

13. Two Cents - September 26, 2006

The former colonial powers, now known as the developed nations, no longer desire to get rich through the long outdated method of acquring colonies. It can be done just as efficiently through trade and investment - a tactic which has the added advantage of not requiring the costly deployment of your own troops in the country of interest and no danger of local uprising. Thus, China does not have to worry about Japan invading it. Japan doen not want control of a country populated by 1.3 billion people with hostile inclination toward her and whose immense land areas are quickly turning into desert and rivers into sewers. Japan already has too much problems of its own; we definitely do not need another one. Japan has too much to lose by a war with China.

As for China’s interest in Japan, I would think the danger is extremely low but not non-existent. Try turning the world map around and see the view from China’s side. If it ever wants to be truly equal militarily with the US, I think she would require an open route into the Pacific, which she does not have at the present because of Taiwan and Japan which basically blocks it off from the Pacific. Thus, while US ships and subs can roam fairly freely near China, China must try to sneak through the breaks in the archipelago, mainly near Senkaku or Okinawa where the waters are deep, or go all the way around the south and take the fuel- and time-consuming route for her subs to roam anywhere near the US.

I do think that the leaders of China are smart enough to know that their best inteterst would be to play along with the US and refrain from attacking Taiwan or Japan. However, sometimes, I think they have brainwashed their populace to dangerously uncontrollable levels, and so it would be foolish of our leaders to not be prepared for the worst.
14. Haksaeng - September 26, 2006

I think Two Cents has done a great job of spelling out the strategic situation. Whether you argue for or against Japan purchasing more offensive-oriented weaponry, China’s place in the world won’t change. It is still surrounded by hostile nations–hostile in the sense of wanting to limit it actions, not belligerence.

Regardless of the Japanese military’s orientation, it has a critical weakness that will serve as a limitation on it; it can’t meet its recruiting goals. The Japanese military currently cannot get up to its authorized strength. There currently aren’t enough people interested in going into the military. Tokyo will have to take active measures to increase incentives and change people’s thinking about the military to get more people interested in putting on a uniform. It can happen, though, just as it did in the US after Reagan assumed office.

Abiola, I don’t really want to get in the middle of your flame war with MigukNamja, but I was wondering if you could expand a bit on your statement regarding Japanese adventurism.

In broad terms, I can think of three periods of foreign expansionism. First is the two Hideyoshi invasions in 1592 and 1597. I think you rightly lump them together.

The second period was 1609, when the Shimazu Clan invaded and seized Okinawa. The Ryukyu Kingdom was an independent kingdom that developed much the way Japan did. It was a group of fiefdoms with close ties to China that was eventually unified by force under the Chuzan in 1416.

The third period is a bit different, depending on how you want to try to define it. If you look at it in terms of the aspirations and goals of Japan, then you can link the period from 1890 to 1945 as a single period. The policies of expansion were a continuation of the Meiji Reforms. During that period, though, Tokyo fought four distinct wars for foreign expansion–the First Sino-Japanese War, the Russo-Japanese War, the Second Sino-Japanese War, and the expansion in all directions that came from the decision to attack the US and Pearl Harbor and draw itself into the larger war going on in Europe and Africa. Additionally, through guile and judicious use of its military, it annexed another nation.

So, depending on how you care to define periods of Japanese expansion, there were at least three and as many as seven. Certainly not an earth-shattering number, regardless of which number you use. A quick look at Europe during the same timeframe will show that the Europeans were far more outwardly aggressive–this is probably more a factor of shared borders, though.

One problem that I see–and I would be interested in your opinion–is how do you account for the other acts of aggression between the two countries? While they aren’t periods of Japanese expansionism, they do factor in with regards to the way Koreans view Japan. There was a lot of back and forth fighting between elements of the two peoples going back at least to the Three Kingdoms period. For example, the Waegu terrorized the Korean coastline from the 13th to 14th centuries.

The biggest problem, in my opinion, with the back and forth between Korea and Japan over who did what to whom is that very little focus is paid to Korea’s part in feeding regional aggression. Kaya’s origin remains debatable, but what isn’t is the large role Japan played in Kayan society. Silla subsumed Kaya, and that probably didn’t happen peacefully. The Mongols forced Koreans to participate in two attempted invasions of Japan. Choson’s policies of maintaining a weak military and relying on China for its defense invited hostilities. In some cases, Korea was an unwilling actor, but it was an actor nonetheless. In most cases, it was Korea’s weaknesses that caused the turmoil–history hates a power vacuum.

Anyway, this has become far longer than I intended. However, the historical debate, to me, is far more interesting than flame wars. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks.
15. Abiola Lapite - September 26, 2006


My own view of the matter is that it doesn’t make much sense to separate 1592 from 1597 or to regard the various wars between 1894 and 1945 as isolated incidents: while this is an effective way of ratcheting up the aggression count, the reality is that we’re still only talking about two relatively short-lived political orders in a state with a very long history.

The second period was 1609, when the Shimazu Clan invaded and seized Okinawa. The Ryukyu Kingdom was an independent kingdom that developed much the way Japan did. It was a group of fiefdoms with close ties to China that was eventually unified by force under the Chuzan in 1416.

Subsuming independent action by an outlying fief of a newly founded Tokugawa shogunate still struggling to consolidate its rule under the label of “Japanese” adventurism makes no sense to me. The Shimizu clan certainly didn’t see itself as acting on behalf of “Japan”.

One problem that I see–and I would be interested in your opinion–is how do you account for the other acts of aggression between the two countries? While they aren’t periods of Japanese expansionism, they do factor in with regards to the way Koreans view Japan. There was a lot of back and forth fighting between elements of the two peoples going back at least to the Three Kingdoms period. For example, the Waegu terrorized the Korean coastline from the 13th to 14th centuries.

The Baekje-Silla-Koguryo era is a period in which to talk of a “Japan” or a “Korea” is an anachronism, as the peoples of the time certainly didn’t see themselves that way: “Korean” states like Baekje and Silla were allied at various times with Yamato, and what little archeological/linguistic evidence which survives supports the notion that the language of “Korean” Koguryo was actually much closer to Japanese than to the Silla-descended Korean. Meaningful talk of a coherent “Japan” and “Korea” can only begin after ~700 AD, as far as I’m concerned.

As for your statements with regards to Korea’s own role in conflict between the two countries, I have to agree - the Choson elite’s own negligence created the vaccuum which China, Japan and Russia were sucked into at the close of the 19th century, with Japan just happening to be the winner of that particular struggle, rather than the most “aggressive” (Russia’s relentless centuries-long expansion from Europe’s steppes to the Pacific coast puts Japanese efforts to shame, and explains why Britain readily allied itself with Japan before America forced the alliance to lapse in the 1920s).Asian pages

In times of a prolonged, bloody war like the Pacific War, rational thought is often the first casualty. In this context, I think citing American public poll numbers that demonstrate the American racial animus toward the Japanese during World War II can be misleading.

Here's a another poll number that may supply some perspective: The same poll was asked on the same date asking what Americans felt about the Germans (omitting the genocide option), and 34 percent of all respondents favored the total destruction of Germany as a political entity as well. (My source is John Dower's War Without Mercy, p. 54).

This is not contradict, however, Dower's thesis that the Pacific War was essentially a "race war," and that the Americans behaved more ignobly toward the Japanese than the Germans, precisely because of greater racial animus. In fact, the war propaganda, as Dower and others have pointed out, essentially treated the Japanese as subhuman, in particular either of the simian or insect-variety. In contrast, this kind of racist propaganda obviously did not extend to the anti-German war propaganda.

Posted by: Won Joon Choe | September 27, 2006 at 09:08 PM

Won Joon,

I don't mean to argue that Americans under normal circumstances routinely think (or thought) in the manner you describe, only that they are no more immune to government-driven blanket hatred of "enemies" than anyone else. My point is simply that the difference between Nazi Germany and countries like Britain and the USA owed more to the good fortune of having won the last war and possessing "first past the post" election systems than to some supposed ethical superiority intrinsic to English-speakers - just look at the "nuke 'em all" contingent on LGF and you'll see that it doesn't take much to get lots of "decent" people to happily support genocide.

As for Dower's "race war" thesis, unfortunately I haven't read his book, so I can't say much about it, other than that without the racialized worldview which saw Japan as a "Yellow Peril" whose every effort on the international had to be frustrated - e.g. demanding Japan surrender most of her gains from the war with Russia, blocking Japanese efforts to get the League of Nations to pass a "racial equality" clause, imposing immigration restrictions on Japanese settlers, excluding Japanese goods from US and British Imperial markets, demanding Japan surrender all territorial gains made in China while doing nothing about, say, Italy's Ethiopian conquest, etc. - it is extremely unlikely that the ambitions of Japan and the United States would eventually have gone to war. That Western racism played a central role in the genesis as well as the conduct of the Pacific War is without a doubt*, although I'm not willing to accept the often made argument that it was what made the difference between nuking Hiroshima and, say, Berlin - had the bomb been ready, Germany would definitely have been nuked.

*Of course, racism notwithstanding, in the end it was Japan's own arrogant and foolish military leaders who took it upon themselves to start an unwinnable war against a power so many more times powerful than their own nation.

Posted by: Abiola Lapite | September 27, 2006 at 10:18 PMfoereing dispatches

I love the intellectual discussion.

Japan made many, many crucial errors pre- and during war.
It should have:
1) shared interests in Manchuria with the US after the Japan-Russo War instead of refusing to let US entrepreneurs from investing
(although the stupid public opinion would not allow it - the average Japanese believed that they had been deprived of the rightful prizes of the Japan-Sino and Japan-Russo Wars through collaborated efforts of western countries),
2) should have nullified the alliance with the Nazis the moment Germany tied a nonagression treaty with the Soviets instead of tying an unreliable nonagression treaty with the Soviets, since the purpose of the alliance was to form a front against the Soviets from both sides (Many politiicans and the emperor were against the alliance with the Nazis since it would put Japan irreversibly against the Allies),
3) exploited SE Asia’s wish to become independent of their colonial masters and hold the Great East Asia Conference early on in the war, not when it had become certain Japan was going to lose,
and 4) tried to negotiate conditions for surrender through a more reliable country than the Soviet Union.

I don’t think Japan can put the blame of Hiroshima and Nagasaki entirely on the US. However, I think it is extremely hippocrate of the Allies to claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or the bombing of Japanese cities) were actions not equivalent to war crimes when they had executed Gen. Matsui for failing to take satisfactory measures to prevent crimes against civilians in the Chinese front.two cents at occidentalism

*The Tokyo Summit 1943 —— the Great East Asia Conference
Some of you may wonder why there are Philippines, Burma and India that countries became independent after the World War II because it is generally said in history textbooks. Nevertheless, Philippines, Burma and India actually existed as of 1943. The reason is simply legitimacy of these countries were denied after the war by the former colonial rulers of these countries, namely, the Allied Powers.

Republic of the Philippines
(Former colonial ruler: United States)

The United States promised to support the Philippine independence to make the Philippine people on the American side against Spain. Emilio Aguinaldo[10] established a revolutionary government (First Philippine Republic)[11] in 1897. The Spanish-American War[12] began in 1898 and reached the Philippines. Agunaldo declared the independence of the Philippines but he was captured by American troops in 1901 and the Republic collapsed. The status was turned into that of a commonwhealth[13] in 1935 with Manuel Luis Quezon[14] as the president to prevent further independence movement and the Japanese influence to reach Philippines. Although it was called a commonwealth (autonomous region), it was practically under the U.S. military administration. Philippines became independent in 1943 when the Second Republic was established supported by Japan with José Paciano Laurel as the president. Current Republic of the Philippines is the Third Republic established in 1946.

Republic of Burma (curt. Myanmar)
(Former colonial ruler: United Kingdom)

Burma was a colony of Britain until 1942. Japan established a governmental special agency, the Minami Kikan [South Agency] under the direct control of headquarters to support Burma's independence movement[15] and thereby to block the supply route from the Allied Powers to the Kuomintang China. Colonel SUZUKI Keiji (鈴木敬司) was appointed to the head of the Agency. In 1942, the Minami Kikan appointed Ba Maw, the leader of the Burmese since the British time, to the Head of the Central Administration (Prime Minister). In 1943, the Japanese declared the Republic of Burma to be an independent nation with Ba Maw as the Head of State. After the war, Burma was turned back to being a British colony again. The Burmese Independence Army[16] led by General Aung San[17] regained the complete Burmese independence as the Union of Burma in 1948. Incidentally, the parade of the current Burmese Army starts with Warship March (軍艦行進曲) composed by SETOGUCHI Tôkichi (瀬戸口藤吉) that used to be a military song of the Japanese Navy.

Provisional Government of Free India
(Former colonial ruler: United Kingdom)

The Provisional Government of Free India[18] was the government in exile of India which practical territory was the Andaman and Nicobar Islands in the Indian Ocean. The leader of the government, Subhas Chandra Bose (Head of Government and National Army Commander) was a member of the Indian National Congress[19] with Mahatma Gandhi (father of the Indian independence)[20] and Jawaharial Nehru (the first Prime Minister of India).[21] Bose served for the Congress as the chairman twice in 1937 and 1939. When Nehru and other Indian leaders were arrested by the British authorities, Bose himself led the government in exile and participated in the Great Asia Conference as the representative of the Provisional Government of Free India.

To see the historical fact regarding to the Great Asia Conference, the following points must be clearly understood.
These participating countries are not puppet governments of Japan that is evidenced by some of these representatives who were actual leaders of independence movements of these countries.
The ideals of the Joint Statement of the Great East Asia that was declared in the conference must be reevaluated properly without any prejudice.

Following is the full text of the Statement.大東亜共同宣言全文









Joint Statement of the Great East Asia
November 6, 1943, Tokyo
The Great East Asia Conference

The fundamental principle to establish world peace is that all countries obtain what they deserve, depend on one another and help each other to attain mutual prosperity.

Britain and the United States, however, oppress other countries and other nations for their own prosperity, exploit and enslave the Great East Asia in particular, and thereby destroy the security in the region. Here are the reasons for the Great East Asian War.

Countries in the Great East Asia should cooperate to win the war, free themselves from the shackles by the Britain and the United States to obtain their self-administrations and self-protections, construct the Great East Asia based on the principles mentioned above, and thereby establish world peace.

Every country in the Great East Asia should cooperate to establish the stability in the region, and build the system of mutual coexistence, based on moral principles.

Every country in the Great East Asia respect other independencies and sovereignties, achieve mutual aid/friendliness and establish peace in the Great East Asia.

Every country in the Great East Asia respect other traditional cultures, and encourage to develop creativities of every nation to uplift the culture of the whole Great East Asia.

Every country in the Great East Asia should cooperate closely in the principles of reciprocity and mutual benefit to strive for economic development and the prosperity of the Great East Asia.

Every country in the Great East Asia extend its companionship to the rest of the world, abolish racial discriminations, share cultures with others, open one's resources, and thereby contribute to the progress of the world.

Monday, September 25, 2006

Most S.E. Asians warm on Japan ties

The Yomiuri Shimbun

A survey conducted in seven Asian countries found that more than 90 percent of people in Southeast Asian countries felt their countries had a good relationship with Japan and between 70 percent and 90 percent said Japan was a trustworthy nation.

In particular, 96 percent of respondents in Indonesia and Thailand said their countries had "very good" or "rather good" relations with Japan, followed by Vietnam with 92 percent and Malaysia with 91 percent.

People in Southeast Asian countries also held a favorable view of China, whose economy is growing rapidly, indicating they feel their ties with China are warming, according to the survey.

The interview survey was conducted by The Yomiuri Shimbun, Hankook Ilbo, a South Korean daily, and Gallup Group between late June and mid-July in Japan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam. This was the third such survey after ones conducted in 1995 and 1996.

More than 90 percent of respondents in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam in the 1995 survey said their countries enjoyed good relationships with Japan.

Eighty-nine percent of Indian pollees, who were asked the question for the first time, said their country and Japan got along "very well" or "rather well."

Ninety-two percent of Thai pollees, the largest number, said they could trust Japan "quite a lot" or "more or less." Vietnam had the lowest rate of such people among the Southeast Asian countries at 75 percent, the survey said.

Ninety-one percent of Indonesians said Japan had a positive impact on the world, while more than 80 percent of pollees in Southeast Asian countries and India said so.

The Southeast Asian countries and India held high expectations Japan would play a key role in the international community.

Regarding the dispatch of Self-Defense Forces personnel to foreign countries to provide humanitarian assistance, 83 percent of pollees from Indonesia, to which SDF members were dispatched to provide relief to victims of the 2004 tsunami, supported such SDF missions.

With the exception of South Korea, more respondents backed overseas SDF dispatches than opposed them.
(Sep. 4, 2006)

Despite some criticism that Japan has paid little regard to Asia during the tenure of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, people in Southeast Asian nations and India showed exceptionally favorable views regarding Japan in a recent survey by The Yomiuri Shimbun.

However, the survey found that people in the region had mixed feelings about Koizumi's visit to Tokyo's war-related Yasukuni Shrine.

The survey interviewed people in India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam.

People who had a "good impression" about Japan amounted to 96 percent in India and 94 percent in Indonesia. The figure also was above or close to 90 percent in Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. In each of these countries, more than 90 percent said their countries' current relationship with Japan was "good."

In South Korea, however, 82 percent of people said they had a "bad impression" of Japan, and 87 percent said their country's relationship with Japan was "bad," reflecting deterioration of the bilateral relationship as a result of the visits by Koizumi to Yasukuni Shrine.

Nevertheless, figures did not change much since the last time the same questions were asked in 1995, and it appears that history-related issues, including the Yasukuni issue, have had a negligible effect in the Asian nations, with South Korea being an exception.

The reason behind the good will in Asian nations is presumably due to good economic relationships with Japan.

The survey asked pollees to pick three countries or regions they think hold highest stakes for their country's economy. Japan ranked top in four Southeast Asian countries. More than 80 percent of Indonesians picked Japan, while in India it came in second behind the United States.

Views were divided on the Yasukuni issue in Southeast Asia, just as they were in Japan.

In Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, those who said it was "acceptable" for Japan's prime minister to visit the shrine exceeded those who said it was "unacceptable." In Indonesia, 41 percent said it was "unacceptable," surpassing 37 percent who said "acceptable."

In all four Southeast Asian countries, about 20 percent refused to respond to the question. In Japan, 60 percent said it was "acceptable."

On the fact that class-A war criminals are enshrined at Yasukuni Shrine along with war dead, more than 50 percent of Thais and Malaysians said it was "acceptable."

A majority of Indonesians, at 57 percent however, said it was "unacceptable." In Vietnam as well, disapproval outweighed acceptance. The figure in Japan was 46 percent for "acceptable," and 44 percent for "unacceptable."

The survey also asked pollees if Japan's actions in their countries during World War II were still an obstacle to relations. "No" surpassed "yes" in all nations except South Korea, where 75 percent said "yes." Those who said "no" was 73 percent in Vietnam, 66 percent in Malaysia, 62 percent in Indonesia and 49 percent in Thailand.

Those who support Japan's dispatch of Self-Defense Forces troops abroad for humanitarian and reconstruction aid outnumbered those who do not in all four Southeast Asian nations and India. But in South Korea, 56 percent were against such action, while 42 percent were supportive. Fifty percent of Japanese supported it.


China's influence growing

The emergence of China in Asian minds was made apparent in the survey.

More than 80 percent of people in Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia had a "good impression" about China. In Indonesia, in particular, the figure shot up from 31 percent, 11 years ago, to 81 percent.

Such figures suggest many people in those countries believe China's economic growth will have positive effects on their economies.

The survey asked pollees to pick up to three countries that would be major economic powers in the future. In 1996, most people in all countries, except for Japan, picked Japan, but this time, people were divided between Japan and China.

China outshone Japan in Malaysia and Vietnam, as well as in Japan and South Korea.

China was also the No. 1 choice for "the country which will become most influential in the Asian region from here on," in Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam.

Meanwhile, many people expressed concerns on the prospect of Japan-China relations, as China enhanced its presence in Asia.

People who agreed with the notion that the deteriorating Japan-China relationship due to the Yasukuni issue would negatively impact on the entire Asian region outnumbered those who disagreed in all surveyed countries except for Thailand. Sixty percent of Malaysians and 53 percent of Indonesians agreed with the notion.
(Sep. 5, 2006)

North Korea

Mon Sep 25, 3:09 AM ET

North Koreahas renewed its strong attack against Japan for announcing new sanctions against the communist state, describing it as a "bat-blind", boot-licking "political charlatan".

"Japan would be well advised to behave with discretion, pondering over the serious consequences to be entailed by its harebrained act against the DPRK (North Korea)," said Rodong Sinmun, newspaper of the ruling communist party.

Japan last week blacklisted 15 companies and an individual with alleged links to weapons programs in North Korea in compliance with a UN resolution condemning Pyongyang's missile tests in July.

The United States has urged its allies to tighten the financial noose around North Korea, which is also in a standoff with the international community over its nuclear ambitions.

In a trenchant commentary, Rodong Sinmun described the sanctions as "poor, third-rate diplomacy of bat-blind philistines."

It added: "Japan is whipping itself into senseless frenzy to please the whim of its American master...It does not warrant surprise, considering that Japan has made it its physical quality to lick the boots of the American master and tail behind the US."

The commentary, carried by the official Korean Central News Agency, described the sanctions as "disgusting behavior of a slovenly political charlatan bent on refurbishing his public image by ingratiating himself with his American master and feathering his own nest by following the US."

The "clumsy and wicked act" trampled on the spirit and requirements of the Pyongyang Declaration, it added.

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and the North's leader Kim Jong-Il issued the declaration on establishing better relations after a 2002 summit in Pyongyang.

But relations have soured since then, partly over the fate of Japanese nationals kidnapped by North Korea in the 1970s and 1980s.

Pyongyang has returned five of the kidnap victims but Japan insists that more are alive and being kept under wraps.

"It is justifiable and natural for the DPRK to put up a tough rebuff to Japan's desperate political provocation. The situation is very serious and the consequences are unpredictable," Rodong Sinmun added.

South Korea described japan as truly evil.
North Korea described it wicked.
Maybe Japan is evil and wicked.

Sunday, September 24, 2006


Chinese riot following teacher's death

By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN, Associated Press Writer Mon Sep 11, 1:44 PM ET

SHANGHAI, China - Crowds angered by alleged police mishandling of a school teacher's death attacked government offices in a southern Chinese city last week, sparking arrests and beatings by riot troops, newspapers and a local hospital said Monday.

Students and local residents of Rui'an's Tangxia township claimed police falsified a report and colluded with the husband of high school English teacher Dai Haijing, 30, to have her death classified as a suicide, according to Hong Kong newspapers Ta Kung Pao and The South China Morning Post.

The demonstrators also staged a protest at the husband's factory where they damaged cars and other property.

The protests reflect widespread perceptions that China's weak and largely opaque legal system is tainted by communist officials' abuse of power and susceptible to influence by the country's newly moneyed






Saturday, September 23, 2006


The Japanese fishery area is invaded by Korean illegal fishermen.


lso important, however, is the U.S. reassessment of its alliance with Korea. It’s not just a question of “losing” South Korea, as Plate asks in his headline. The United States is now questioning the value and utility of its existing commitments to Seoul, especially in the post-Cold War and post-9.11 world. Even if Seoul reenters the fold with a GNP electoral victory, the United States may not take the Koreans back.marmot


Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Treaty with China

Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan

Signed at Taipei, 28 April 1952
Entered into force, 5 August 1952, by the exchange of the instruments of ratification at Taipei

The Republic of China and Japan,

Considering their mutual desire for good neighbourliness in view of their historical and cultural ties and geographical proximity; Realising the importance of their close cooperation to the promotion of their common welfare and to the maintenance of international peace and security; Recognising the need for a settlement of problems that have arisen as a result of the existence of a state of war between them; Have resolved to conclude a Treaty of Peace and have accordingly appointed as their Plenipotentiaries,

His Excellency the President of the Republic of China: Mr. YEH KUNG-CHAO;
The Government of Japan: Mr. ISAO KAWADA

Who, having communicated to each other their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed upon the following Articles:—

Article 1

The state of war between the Republic of China and Japan is terminated as from the date on which the present Treaty enters into force.

Article 2

It is recognised that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace which Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on 8 September 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratley Islands and the Paracel Islands.

Article 3

The disposition of property of Japan and its nationals in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores), and their claims, including debts, against the authorities of the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and the residents thereof, and the disposition in Japan of property of such authorities and residents and their claims, including debts, against Japan and its nationals, shall be the subject of special arrangements between the Government of the Republic of China and the Government of Japan. The terms nationals and residents include juridical persons.

Article 4

It is recognised that all treaties, conventions, and agreements concluded before 9 December 1941 between Japan and China have become null and void as a consequence of the war.

Article 5

It is recognised that under the provisions of Article 10 of the San Francisco Treaty, Japan has renounced all special rights and its interests in China, including all benefits and privileges resulting from the provisions of the final Protocol signed at Peking on 7 September 1901, and all annexes, notes, and documents supplementary thereto, and has agreed to the abrogation in respect to Japan of the said protocol, annexes, notes, and documents.

Article 6

(a) The Republic of China and Japan will be guided by the principles of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations in their mutual relations.
(b) The Republic of China and Japan will cooperate in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and, in particular, will promote their common welfare through friendly cooperation in the economic field.

Article 7

The Republic of China and Japan will endeavour to conclude, as soon as possible, a treaty or agreement to place their trading, maritime, and other commercial relations, on a stable and friendly basis.

Article 8

The Republic of China and Japan will endeavour to conclude, as soon as possible, an agreement relating to civil air transport.

Article 9

The Republic of China and Japan will endeavour to conclude, as soon as possible, an agreement providing for the regulation or limitation of fishing and the conservation and development of fisheries on the high seas.

Article 10

For the purposes of the present Treaty, nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and their descendents who are of the Chinese nationality in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores); and juridical persons of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all those registered under the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores).

Article 11

Unless otherwise provided for in the present Treaty and the documents supplementary thereto, any problem arising between the Republic of China and Japan as a result of the existence of a state of war shall be settled in accordance with the relevant provisions of the San Francisco Treaty.

Article 12

Any dispute that may arise out of the interpretation or application of the present Treaty shall be settled by negotiation or other pacific means.

Article 13

The present Treaty shall be ratified and the instruments of ratification shall be exchanged at Taipei as soon as possible. The present Treaty shall enter into force as from the date on which such instruments of ratification are exchanged.

Article 14

The present Treaty shall be in the Chinese, Japanese, and English languages. In case of any divergence of interpretation, the English text shall prevail.
In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Treaty and have affixed thereto their seals.
Done in duplicate at Taipei, this Twenty Eighth day of the Fourth month of the Forty First year of the REPUBLIC OF CHINA, corresponding to the Twenty Eighth day of the Fourth month of the Twenty Seventh year of SHOWA of Japan and to the Twenty Eighth day of April in the year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Two.

Minister of Foreign Affairs and
Plenipotentiary of the Republic of China

Minister of Foreign Affairs and
Plenipotentiary of Japan

[場所] 台北
[年月日] 1952年4月28日

Joint Communique of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China

September 29, 1972

Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka of Japan visited the People's Republic of China at the invitation of Premier of the State Council Chou En-lai of the People's Republic of China from September 25 to September 30, 1972. Accompanying Prime Minister Tanaka were Minister for Foreign Affairs Masayoshi Ohira, Chief Cabinet Secretary Susumu Nikaido and other government officials.

Chairman Mao Tse-tung met Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka on September 27. They had an earnest and friendly conversation.

Prime Minister Tanaka and Minister for Foreign Affairs Ohira had an earnest and frank exchange of views with Premier Chou En-lai and Minister for Foreign Affairs Chi Peng-fei in a friendly atmosphere throughout on the question of the normalization of relations between Japan and China and other problems between the two countries as well as on other matters of interest to both sides, and agreed to issue the following Joint Communique of the two Governments:

Japan and China are neighbouring countries, separated only by a strip of water with a long history of traditional friendship. The peoples of the two countries earnestly desire to put an end to the abnormal state of affairs that has hitherto existed between the two countries. The realization of the aspiration of the two peoples for the termination of the state of war and the normalization of relations between Japan and China will add a new page to the annals of relations between the two countries.

The Japanese side is keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war, and deeply reproaches itself. Further, the Japanese side reaffirms its position that it intends to realize the normalization of relations between the two countries from the stand of fully understanding "the three principles for the restoration of relations" put forward by the Government of the People's Republic of China. The Chinese side expresses its welcome for this.

In spite of the differences in their social systems existing between the two countries, the two countries should, and can, establish relations of peace and friendship. The normalization of relations and development of good-neighborly and friendly relations between the two countries are in the interests of the two peoples and will contribute to the relaxation of tension in Asia and peace in the world.

1. The abnormal state of affairs that has hitherto existed between Japan and the People's Republic of China is terminated on the date on which this Joint Communique is issued.

2. The Government of Japan recognizes that Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China.

3. The Government of the People's Republic of China reiterates that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China. The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Postsdam Proclamation.

4. The Government of Japan and the Government of People's Republic of China have decided to establish diplomatic relations as from September 29, 1972. The two Governments have decided to take all necessary measures for the establishment and the performance of the functions of each other's embassy in their respective capitals in accordance with international law and practice, and to exchange ambassadors as speedily as possible.

5. The Government of the People's Republic of China declares that in the interest of the friendship between the Chinese and the Japanese peoples, it renounces its demand for war reparation from Japan.

6. The Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China agree to establish relations of perpetual peace and friendship between the two countries on the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit and peaceful co-existence.

The two Governments confirm that, in conformity with the foregoing principles and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, Japan and China shall in their mutual relations settle all disputes by peaceful means and shall refrain from the use or threat of force.

7. The normalization of relations between Japan and China is not directed against any third country. Neither of the two countries should seek hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region and each is opposed to efforts by any other country or group of countries to establish such hegemony.

8. The Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China have agreed that, with a view to solidifying and developing the relations of peace and friendship between the two countries, the two Governments will enter into negotiations for the purpose of concluding a treaty of peace and friendship.

9. The Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China have agreed that, with a view to further promoting relations between the two countries and to expanding interchanges of people, the two Governments will, as necessary and taking account of the existing non-governmental arrangements, enter into negotiations for the purpose of concluding agreements concerning such matters as trade, shipping, aviation, and fisheries.

Done at Peking, September 29, 1972

Prime Minister of Japan

Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan

Premier of the State Council of the People's Republic of China

Minister for Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of Chinamofa






Kanfoo in China.
According to the blogger, you often see the street fighs in this above.
link via 写真で読む中国 ~ 人民とその社会/Reading China by photos~~~its people and the society

The Strategic Importance of South Korea

Policy Forum Online 06-19A: March 9th, 2006
"Strategic Flexibility of U.S. Forces in Korea"

Essay by Lee Chul-kee

I don't agree to his conclusion, but his analysis of strategic position of South Korea is suggestive.
Especially, the main reason for Washington's pursuit of the "strategic flexibility of the USFK" is to prepare for a military action against China. In other words, the primary target of the "strategic flexibility of the USFK" is China. It's very certain that the USFK will be mobilized in case military conflicts occur in the Taiwan Strait between China and Taiwan.

It is a well-known fact that the global strategic goal of the United States is to check and blockade China that can potentially challenge the U.S. global hegemony in the 21st century. Therefore, the principal role of the U.S. forces in Asia including the USFK is changing to that of checking China. The current move to strengthen the naval and air power of the USFK and enlarge their naval and air bases is also intended for China.

even if Korean forces will not directly participate in the U.S. military action against China, Korea will be plunged into a military confrontation with China, if only the USFK are put into military operation against China or the USFK bases in Korea are used for anti-China military operations. Korea will be used as "an advance operation base" of the U.S. and the USFK will act as "foremost troops" to blockade China.

The strategic importance of the USFK bases and South Korea for the U.S is growing further as the U.S. containment strategies against China become more concrete. As President Roh said in Los Angeles, "Korean peninsula is not a place which the U.S. can give up easily even if is not happy with South Korea, because of the peninsula's strategic position"

The greatest danger of "the strategic flexibility of the USFK is that Korea will be firmly incorporated into the global hegemonic strategy of the U.S. The global strategy and Northeast Asian policy of the United States are to check and blockade China through the US-Japan alliance as the main axis and Korea-US alliance as the subsidiary axis.

My opinion is that it is not just against China, but also against North Korea that USA has in mind, and USA is mobilizing UFSK away from the border of the North Korea, because USA considers the conflict as real.See 池上彰
And Roh and the author seem to think that the base in Korea is very essential to USA, that might be the reason of Roh's attitude. But I disagree. After all, the author himself admits that it is subsidiary.

I found another source that confim my point.
▶ Realignment of USFK Under Military Transformation

According to America's military strategy, the role of USFK is changing from a defensive posture against North Korea (for the last 50 years) towards a more flexible, rapidly deployable force for the wider Asia-Pacific region. Specifically, USFK will become more mobile and readily available throughout the Asia-Pacific. South Korea and the U.S. refer to this as "strategic flexibility" for the USFK.

One goal of USFK transformation, and its broader focus as a rapid deployment force in the Asia-Pacific theater, is to constrain China. The United States has tightened its control over the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia; it has strengthened its ability to respond to this outstretched "arc of instability". By enveloping China, the U.S. attempts to deter the challenge and potential threat posed by a rising power. Moreover, the United States is prepared to intervene militarily if a conflict between China and Taiwan arises.

Furthermore, the relocation to Pyeongtaek will put U.S. troops outside of North Korean missile range. This will give the United States time to respond to a North Korean attack, which the U.S. will be able to destroy within minutes. With air force (K-55) and naval forces in Pyeongtaek, the U.S. will be able to achieve their military goals by committing USFK troops throughout the Asia-Pacific region, including China and North Korea.

▶ Relocation of USFK Second Division to Pyeongtaek

The U.S. will relocate USFK as part of its 'Global Posture Review' (GPR) plan. The U.S. will relocate Yongsan Garrison and the USFK Second Division to Pyeongtaek around 2008. Relocation plans will center around two major hubs in Pyeongtaek and Pusan/Daegu.

The purpose of the Pyeongtaek relocation is to increase the capability of USFK into a rapid deployment force for the Asia-Pacific region. The U.S. will reduce its present level 37,000 troop force to 25,000 troops by the end of 2008. In 2005, 5,000 troops were already relocated. This move is related to military transformation, which is designed to maximize advanced technological capabilities.

According to U.S. military plans, the expansion of USFK's role relegates Korean military policy to a much more subordinate position. Meanwhile, the plan integrates the Korean military more tightly into the triangular ROK-U.S.-Japan military alliance. Lastly, the ROK becomes a forward base and staging ground for an invasion of China, and a logistic hub for wars fought overseas.

The expansion of USFK's role in the Asia-Pacific implies U.S. troops will be stationed in Korea indefinitely. However, because ROK military capabilities are superior to North Korean capabilities, the U.S. has no reason to remain on the Korean Peninsula. Moreover, it forces the Korean military to increase its national defense budget and influences the formulation of military policy. Thus the expansion of USFK's role prevents peaceful unification of the Korean peninsula. It also prevents peaceful economic and security cooperation in Northeast Asia.kcpt

I guess the anlysis is more or less correct, but the conculsion is wrong.

Causes of war

See also strategy
geopolitical analysis of the world
Causes of war

The causes of war are many and varied. Some of the more common or notable situations which prompt war are:
When there are no other perceived options for resolving differences or grievances.
In the face of a perceived immediate threat from an aggressor.
When one party desires something another has.
In the case of an immediate need to secure essential resources for survival, such as food, water or shelter.
When areas of a country (such as provinces, states, and colonies) desire independence from that country.
As the result of a long standing hatred between nations that has built up over a number of years (rivalry or other antagonisms).
When belief in one nation's or race's superiority over others prompts that group to cast aside people it sees as inferior.
As a result of antagonism caused by different interpretations of some religion among different parties.
As a result of Ideological differences between different parties. For example, Nazism's hatred of Communism contributed to the outbreak of war between Germany and the Soviet Union during the Second World War. The Sino-Soviet Split nearly became an armed conflict between the Soviet Union and China over the goals of Communism.
When some party wishes to pursue global domination.


Historical theories

Historians tend to be reluctant to look for sweeping explanations for all wars. A.J.P. Taylor famously described wars as being like traffic accidents. There are some conditions and situations that make them more likely but there can be no system for predicting where and when each one will occur. Social scientists criticize this approach arguing that at the beginning of every war some leader makes a conscious decision and that they cannot be seen as purely accidental. Still, one argument to this might be that there are few, if any, "pure" accidents. One may be able to find patterns which hold at least some degree of reliability, but because war is a collective of human intentions, some potentially quite fickle, it is very difficult to create a concise prediction system.

Psychological theories

Psychologists such as E.F.M. Durban and John Bowlby have argued that human beings, especially men, are inherently violent. While this violence is repressed in normal society it needs the occasional outlet provided by war. This combines with other notions, such as displacement where a person transfers their grievances into bias and hatred against other ethnic groups, nations, or ideologies. While these theories may have some explanatory value about why wars occur, they do not explain when or how they occur. In addition, they raise the question why there are sometimes long periods of peace and other eras of unending war. If the innate psychology of the human mind is unchanging, these variations are inconsistent. A solution adapted to this problem by militarists such as Franz Alexander is that peace does not really exist. Periods that are seen as peaceful are actually periods of preparation for a later war or when war is suppressed by a state of great power, such as the Pax Britannica.

If war is innate to human nature, as is presupposed by many psychological theories, then there is little hope of ever escaping it. One alternative is to argue that war is only, or almost only, a male activity and if human leadership was in female hands wars would not occur. This theory has played an important role in modern feminism. Critics, of course, point to various examples of female political leaders who had no qualms about using military force, such as Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi or Golda Meir.

Other psychologists have argued that while human temperament allows wars to occur, they only do so when mentally unbalanced people are in control of a nation. This extreme school of thought argues leaders that seek war such as Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin were mentally abnormal.

A distinct branch of the psychological theories of war are the arguments based on evolutionary psychology. This school tends to see war as an extension of animal behaviour, such as territoriality and competition. However, while war has a natural cause, the development of technology has accelerated human destructiveness to a level that is irrational and damaging to the species. We have the same instincts of a chimpanzee but overwhelmingly more power. The earliest advocate of this theory was Konrad Lorenz. These theories have been criticized by scholars such as John G. Kennedy, who argue that the organized, sustained war of humans differs more than just technologically from the territorial fights between animals.

In his fictional book Nineteen-Eighty-Four, George Orwell talks about a state of constant war being used as one of many ways to distract people. War inspires fear and hate among the people of a nation, and gives them a 'legitimate' enemy upon whom they can focus this fear and hate. Thus the people are prevented from seeing that their true enemy is in fact their own repressive government. By this theory, war is another 'opiate of the masses' by which a state controls its people and prevents revolution.

Anthropological theories

Several anthropologists take a very different view of war. They see it as fundamentally cultural, learned by nurture rather than nature. Thus if human societies could be reformed, war would disappear. To this school the acceptance of war is inculcated into each of us by the religious, ideological, and nationalistic surroundings in which we live.

Many anthropologists also see no links between various forms of violence. They see the fighting of animals, the skirmishes of hunter-gatherer tribes, and the organized warfare of modern societies as distinct phenomena each with their own causes. Theorists such as Ashley Montagu emphasize the top down nature of war, that almost all wars are begun not by popular pressure but by the whims of leaders and that these leaders also work to maintain a system of ideological justifications for war.

Sociological theories

Sociology has long been very concerned with the origins of war, and many thousands of theories have been advanced, many of them contradictory. Sociology has thus divided into a number of schools. One, the Primat der Innenpolitik (Primacy of Domestic Politics) school based on the works of Eckart Kehr and Hans-Ulrich Wehler sees war as the product of domestic conditions, with only the target of aggression being determined by international realities. Thus World War I was not a product of international disputes, secret treaties, or the balance of power but a product of the economic, social, and political situation within each of the states involved.

This differs from the traditional Primat der Aussenpolitik (Primacy of Foreign Politics) approach of Carl von Clausewitz and Leopold von Ranke that argue it is the decisions of statesmen and the geopolitical situation that leads to war.

Malthusian theories

Pope Urban II in 1095, on the eve of the First Crusade, wrote, "For this land which you now inhabit, shut in on all sides by the sea and the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; it scarcely furnishes food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder and devour one another, that you wage wars, and that many among you perish in civil strife. Let hatred, therefore, depart from among you; let your quarrels end. Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulcher; wrest that land from a wicked race, and subject it to yourselves."

This is one of the earliest expressions of what has come to be called the Malthusian theory of war, in which wars are caused by expanding populations and limited resources. Thomas Malthus (1766 - 1834) wrote that populations always increase until they are limited by war, disease, or famine.

This theory is thought by Malthusians to account for the relative decrease in wars during the past fifty years, especially in the developed world, where advances in agriculture have made it possible to support a much larger population than was formerly the case, and where birth control has dramatically slowed the increase in population.

Evolutionary psychology theories

Close to Malthusians is the application of Evolutionary psychology to analyze why humans have wars. Wars are seen as the result of evolved psychological traits that are turned on by either being attacked or by a population perception of a bleak future. The theory accounts for the IRA going out of business, but leads to a dire view of current wars.[1]

Information theories

A popular new approach is to look at the role of information in the outbreak of wars. This theory, advanced by scholars of international relations such as Geoffrey Blainey, argues that all wars are based on a lack of information. If both sides at the outset knew the result neither would fight, the loser would merely surrender and avoid the cost in lives and infrastructure that a war would cause.

This is based on the notion that wars are reciprocal, that all wars require both a decision to attack and also a decision to resist attack. This notion is generally agreed to by almost all scholars of war since Clausewitz. This notion is made harder to accept because it is far more common to study the cause of wars rather than events that failed to cause wars, and wars are far more memorable. However, throughout history there are as many invasions and annexations that did not lead to a war, such as the U.S.-led invasion of Haiti in 1994, the Nazi invasions of Austria and Czechoslovakia preceding the Second World War, and the annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union in 1940. On the other hand, Finland's decision to resist a similar Soviet aggression in 1939 led to the Winter War.

The leaders of these nations chose not to resist as they saw the potential benefits being not worth the loss of life and destruction such resistance would cause. Lack of information may not only be to who wins in the immediate future. The Norwegian decision to resist the Nazi invasion was taken with the certain knowledge that Norway would fall. The Norwegians did not know whether the German domination would be permanent and also felt that noble resistance would win them favour with the Allies and a position at the peace settlement in the event of an Allied victory. If in 1940 it had been known with certainty the Germans would dominate central Europe for many decades, it is unlikely the Norwegians would have resisted. If it had been known for certainty that the Third Reich would collapse after only a few years of war, the Nazis would not have launched the invasion at all.

This theory is predicated on the notion that the outcome of wars is not randomly determined, but fully determined on factors such as doctrine, economies, and power. While purely random events, such as storms or the right person dying at the right time, might have had some effect on history, these only influence a single battle or slightly alter the outcome of a war, but would not mean the difference between victory and defeat.

There are two main objectives in the gathering of intelligence. The first is to find out the ability of an enemy, the second their intent. In theory to have enough information to prevent all wars both need to be fully known. The Argentinean dictatorship knew that the United Kingdom had the ability to defeat them, but their intelligence failed them on the question of whether the British would use their power to resist the annexation of the Falkland Islands. The American decision to enter the Vietnam War was made with the full knowledge that the communist forces would resist them, but did not believe that the guerrillas had the capability to long oppose American forces.

One major difficulty is that in a conflict of interests, some deception or at least not telling everything is a standard tactical component on both sides. If you think that you can convince the opponent that you will fight, the opponent might desist. For example, Sweden made efforts to deceive Nazi Germany that it would resist an attack fiercely partly by playing on the myth of Aryan superiority, and by making sure that Hermann Göring only saw elite troops in action, often dressed up as regular soldiers, when he came to visit.

Economic theories

Another school of thought argues that war can be seen as an outgrowth of economic competition in a chaotic and competitive international system. In this view, wars begin as a pursuit of new markets, of natural resources, and of wealth. Unquestionably a cause of some wars, from the empire building of Britain to the 1941 Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in pursuit of oil, this theory has been applied to many other conflicts. It is most often advocated by those to the left of the political spectrum, who argue that such wars serve the interests of the wealthy, but are fought by the poor, however it is combated by the capatalist message of poverty is relative and one poor in one country can be the wealthiest in another ideology. Some social activists argue that materialism is the supreme cause of war.

Marxist theories

The Marxist theory of war argues that all war grows out of the class war. It sees wars as imperial ventures to enhance the power of the ruling class and divide the proletariat of the world by pitting them against each other for contrived ideals such as nationalism or religion. Wars are a natural outgrowth of the free market and class system, and will not disappear until a world revolution occurs.

Political science theories

The statistical analysis of war was pioneered by Lewis Fry Richardson following World War I. More recent databases of wars and armed conflict have been assembled by the Correlates of War Project, Peter Brecke and the Uppsala Department of Peace and Conflict Research.

There are several different international relations theory schools. Supporters of realism in international relations argue that the motivation of states is the quest for (mostly) military and economic power or security. War is one tool in achieving this goal.

One position, sometimes argued to contradict the realist view, is that there is much empirical evidence to support the claim that states that are democracies do not go to war with each other, an idea known as the democratic peace theory.

See also"Eliminating the Causes of War"

Underlying Causes of Intractable Conflict


(1) 「天皇悪玉説」

(2) 「天皇制問題説」

(3) 「大日本帝国政府は軍部に主導権を握られた帝国主義の政府であったため説」

(4) 「軍隊を持つと必然的に戦争を始める説」

(5) 「白人と有色人種が戦うのは歴史の必然であった説」

(6) 「アジア諸国を欧米の植民地状態から解放するために戦った説」

(7) 「日本はアメリカの陰謀により、ハルノートなる無理難題を押しつけられて開戦するしか無かった説」

(8) 「日独伊三国軍事同盟を結んでいたため欧州の戦争に巻き込まれる形で戦争をした説」

(9) 「軍部陰謀説」

(10) 「統帥権問題説」











2. ディスインフレ型の戦争


3. リフレ型の戦争






5. リフレ型戦争の特徴





共同研究 「イラク戦争を考える」



●百年戦争 ひゃくねんせんそう

ヨーロッパ フランス共和国 AD1339 フランス王国
 1339~1453 中世末期のイギリス-フランス間の戦争で,戦闘と休戦を繰り返しつつ1世紀以上に及んだのでその名がある。両国の政治・経済・社会に重大な影響をもたらし,中世的性格をもちながらも近代的要素の発芽がみられる戦争であった。


これに対して藩王は、独立を望みました。しかし、それは達成できず、結局はインドへの帰属について同意することに決めました。これは 、藩王が要求する1)インド軍の援助、2)住民投票の実施、について、インド政府が認めたからとされています。

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

North Korea/sanction

Australia and Japan put penalties on North Korea
By Choe Sang-Hun International Herald Tribune

Published: September 19, 2006

SEOUL Australia and Japan imposed new financial sanctions on North Korea on Tuesday, as the United States dismissed appeals from China and South Korea for a softer approach and rallied more international pressure on the Communist North to return to nuclear disarmament talks or face a slow wilting of its finances.

The initial impact of the actions announced Tuesday will be limited because Australia and Japan have little trade with North Korea, experts said. But the sanctions were another clear sign that Washington and its allies are intent on tightening a financial noose around the North Korean regime, whose conduits of hard currency from abroad the Bush administration is determined to squeeze. International Herald Tribune

uesday September 19, 5:16 PMChina opposes Japan's additional sanctions against N. Korea
(Kyodo) _ China on Tuesday expressed opposition toward Japan's financial sanctions imposed on North Korea the same day, saying that the North Korean nuclear and missile standoff should be solved through dialogue.

North Korea says it will not return to the talks until the United States lifts sanctions it imposed on a Macao-based bank suspected of laundering money and counterfeiting for North Korea.

Washington has refused to comply with North Korea's demand, saying the sanctions are a law enforcement issue that should not be linked to the nuclear negotiations.kyodo

S. Korea, US at Odds Over NK Issues

By Ryu Jin
Staff Reporter

South Korea and the United States still remain at odds over their approaches toward North Korea despite an agreement on a ``common and broad approach’’ for the restart of the six-party talks made at a Seoul-Washington summit last Thursday, according to South Korean and U.S. officials Tuesday.

Seoul wants the United States to put more weight on diplomacy than sanctions for reviving the talks on Pyongyang’s nuclear programs but Washington seems determined to go ahead with its efforts to put pressure on the Stalinist North, they said.

The top South Korean diplomat in the United States said Seoul has called on Washington to refrain from additional sanctions that could pour cold water on efforts to bring North Korea back to the negotiation table, reports said.Korea times

USA Australia Japan vs China Korea
Hmmmm, as expected.

Monday, September 18, 2006

South Korea/USA

However, the two sides were not able to narrow down their differences.

This was because the U.S. was reluctant to accept South Korea’s suggestion to take a softened approach toward North Korea to entice the country to participate in the six-party talks. Korea proposed supporting energy or easing financial sanctions against North Korea.

Also, at a G7 meeting in Singapore, Henry Paulson, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, called for international cooperation to stop North Korea from conducting illegal financial activities such as money laundering. This means that the U.S. has made it clear that it will take a firm stance, which will not be affected by the comprehensive approach agreed by South Korea, against North Korea. donga

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Korea/tension between the South and the North

Reuters Photo: Soldiers from North Korea (R) and the U.S. stand guard at the truce village of.
DPRK accuses South Korea of preparing for war

An official group of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on Friday accused South Korea of preparing a war against its country, the official Korean Central News Agency reported.

The Committee for Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland, an official DPRK group, criticized South Korea for developing "ultra-modern weapons of various types" and setting up a new "command for guided shells."

South Korea, who followed the United States, was pursuing a hostile policy against the DPRK, said the statement.

"This dangerous arms build-up indicates that the south Korean military bellicose forces are putting spurs to the preparations for a war against the north," it said.

"We will never remain a passive on-looker to their frantic preparations for a war against the north, but strongly react to them," it added.people's daily September 16

Fri Sep 15, 8:02 AM ET

SEOUL (Reuters) -
North Koreawarned the South on Friday against joining international moves to apply sanctions against Pyongyang and said ties would suffer and a war could break out if Seoul cooperated with the United States against

China/Boiologica weapon

Thu Sep 14, 4:14 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States fears China may be violating international bans on chemical and biological weapons and is not doing enough to curb the spread of missile technology to states like
North Koreaand
Iran, U.S. officials said on Thursday.

In testimony to the congressionally created U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a senior official said the Bush administration believed China was violating the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention by keeping a secret supply of biological weapons.

"We also continue to believe that China maintains some elements of an offensive BW capability in violation of its commitments," said Paula DeSutter, an assistant secretary of state responsible for verifying compliance with arms control commitments.

Korean Japanese goddess.

Amaterasu,Japanese supreme sun goddess was Korean women, claimed the author. This fiction is a possible hypothesis, based on the historical facts and the author's imagination.


 天照大神は生前の日本の開国始祖である卑弥呼(149~248) 女王であった。死んでから太陽神となった。 邪馬台国の女王で189年に約30国を統合し、日本皇室の母胎を作った女性である。 邪馬台国は約7万の壕で出来た大国だった。当時の他の国は1000~4000の壕の規模だった。(中略)






Hmmmm, I don't understand why the Korean author care about Japanese goddess in the first place.


A member of the Korean working group who accompanied President Roh to Washington reportedly conveyed the idea to the U.S. counterpart “to deal with the sanctions against North Korea carefully in order to keep the peaceful mood created by the Korea-U.S. summit meeting.” Notwithstanding, Washington responded, “We fully understand Korea’s opinion, but sanctions are available any time if necessary.”

In addition, Roh reportedly started discussing the financial sanctions on North Korea’s bank account in a Macao-based bank, the Banco Delta Asia (BDA), at a meeting with U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on September 13, and added he hoped that U.S. financial sanctions will not dampen the international efforts for the six-pare talks. In response, Paulson answered that “it is a (U.S.) lawful measure, and law enforcement and sanctions are two different things.” donga

Korea/independence fighter

When she spoke, she showed deep sorrow and anger. She is the eldest granddaughter of Heo Wi, known as Wangsan (1854-1908), who was a leader of a citizens’ army that fought against colonialist Japan. She is Heo Ro-ja, 80, a second-generation Korean living in Uzbekistan, and the oldest survivor of the Heo clan.
Heo visited the Korean embassy in Uzbekistan in the middle of last year and demanded the compensation the Korean government gives to the families of former pro-independence activists, but her demand was "ignored." After visiting the embassy twice, she has not visited it again and has ceased contact with it, said niece Choi Nathalia, 49, her voice trembling. hankyore

I someitmes hear Korean people talking proudly about independence fighter, I was not sure what they meant, now I understand they were talking about the fighter before 1910.
From what I heard, there are no Korean hero during the colonization, because the leaders of 3.1 movement more or less turned to be pro-Japanese. Is that true?

Friday, September 15, 2006


The Strategic Studies Institute
U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Policy and Strategy
Strategic Asia
]The continued primacy of geography - A Debate on Geopolitics
Schuldのブックマーク / geopolitics

the Pentagon's New Map
Strategic Planning Framework

Japan’s Geostrategic Situation in the 21st Century
The Grand Chessboard

March 8, 1992
U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals Develop
A One-Superpower World

Pentagon’s Document Outlines Ways to Thwart Challenges to Primacy of America

The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy.

Rejecting Collective Approach

To perpetuate this role, the United States “must sufficiently account for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order,” the document states.

With its focus on this concept of benevolent domination by one power, the Pentagon document articulates the clearest rejection to date of collective internationalism, the strategy that emerged from World War II when the five victorious powers sought to form a United Nations that could mediate disputes and police outbreaks of violence.

Implicitly, the document foresees building a world security arrangement that pre-empts Germany or Japan from pursuing a course of substantial rearmament, especially nuclear armament, in the future.

In its opening paragraph, the policy document heralds the “less visible” victory at the end of the cold war, which it defines as the “integration of Germany and Japan into a U.S.-led system of collective security and the creation of a democratic ‘zone of peace.’”

The continuation of this strategic goal explains the strong emphasis elsewhere in the document and in other Pentagon planning on using military force, if necessary, to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in such countries as North Korea, Iraq, some of the successor republics to the Soviet Union and in Europe.

Nuclear proliferation, if unchecked by superpower action, could tempt Germany, Japan and other industrial powers to acquire nuclear weapons to deter attack from regional foes. This could start them down the road to global competition with the United States and, in a crisis over national interests, military rivalry

The draft notes that coalitions “hold considerable promise for promoting collective action” as in the Persian Gulf war, but that “we should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted, and in many cases carrying only general agreement over the objectives to be accomplished.”

What is most important, it says, is “the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S.” and “the United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated” or in a crisis that demands quick response.

The draft guidance warns that “both Cuba and North Korea seem to be entering intense periods of crisis – primarily economic, but also political – which may lead the governments involved to take actions that would otherwise seem irrational.” It adds, “the same potential exists in China.”

For the first time since the Defense Planning Guidance process was initiated to shape national security policy, the new draft states that the fragmentation of the former Soviet military establishment has eliminated the capacity for any successor power to wage global conventional war.

In East Asia, the report says, the United States can draw down its forces further, but “we must maintain our status as a military power of the first magnitude in the area.”

“This will enable the United States to continue to contribute to regional security and stability by acting as a balancing force and prevent the emergence of a vacuum or a regional hegemon.” In addition, the draft warns that any precipitous withdrawal of United States military forces could provoke an unwanted response from Japan, and the document states, “we must also sensitive to the potentially destabilizing effects that enhanced roles on the part of our allies, particularly Japan but also possibly Korea, might produce.”

In the event that peace negotiations between the two Koreas succeed, the draft recommends that the United States “should seek to maintain an alliance relationship with a unified democratic Korea.”


Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.