Tuesday, November 30, 2010
“Several joint drills have been already scheduled, and whether the timing will be this month or early next month will be decided after talks with the United States,” said one South Korean official.
In any event, in the article, Applebaum argued that the real secrets of the world were held by countries like China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran and she implored WikiLeaks to start looking for information on those regimes.
Applebaum represents everything wrong with the media today. She appears to be only interested in finding problems with other countries, and not her own. This “State Controlled Media” philosophy, which every country seems to have, enables those countries to do whatever they want. And they have. This philosophy perpetuates the myth that our government is good, other governments are bad, and provides the moral justification for all sorts of bad behavior. People like Applebaum are the reason why our government can keep killing Muslims endlessly.
At the end of 2010, it seemed like the governments might fess up, finally tell the world the truth, and accept responsibility for their actions. Obviously, they didn’t do that. And look what happened. After not telling the truth, the West instigated civil wars in Libya, Bahrain, and Syria. It overthrew the governments in Egypt and Tunisia and trashed their economies in the process. And some idiot decided it was a great idea to destroy much of Northeast Japan. And, amazingly, no one seems to have a problem with this. In my writings I have used some extreme language to characterize our media and our government officials. These people are proving everyday that they deserve the names I have called them. Actually, they deserve much worse.
Back when this discussion was taking place, I remember wondering why Japan would want to impose a tax on naphtha when the Japanese corporate lobby had claimed the tax would destroy the petrochemical industry in Japan. After I asked myself that question, someone, in an East Asian accent, “told” me that America wanted to remove the tax exemption to destroy the petrochemical industry in Japan. Immediately after I was told that, someone with an American accent, in my mind, said, “Hey!” Apparently, this was not information that America wanted disclosed.
But I just disclosed that information. On the web.
Monday, November 29, 2010
According to Brooks, diplomacy is really just a bunch of conversations. Apparently, we depend on these “human conversations for the limited order we enjoy every day.” These conversations are “built on relationships.” And due to that damned WikiLeaks, “this fragile international conversation is under threat” because “the quality of the conversation is damaged by exposure, just as our relationships with our neighbors would be damaged if every private assessment were brought to the light of day.”
Once again, a writer for the New York Times is arguing against government transparency. Isn’t our media grand?
It is ironic that Brooks would bemoan the leak of all these diplomatic cables but nevertheless have this really exceptional amount of trust in our government when in fact I believe that the West – probably either Britain or America or both – made Bradley Manning give these diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks in the first place. Brooks says that both U.S. government agencies and countries will be less likely to share information with each other after WikiLeaks. That is, in fact, one of the reasons why America and Britain decided to leak this information in the first place – to reduce the amount of intelligence sharing between agencies and between nations.
David Brooks claims the diplomatic conversation is “not devious and nefarious.” In fact, according to him, the conversation is similar to the one that occurs in public, except the conversation between the diplomats “maybe more admirable.”
As an example, Brooks cites the “conversation” between the Israeli and Arab diplomats. According to him, in the WikiLeaks diplomatic cables, those diplomats act sympathetically towards one another. That may be admirable, but given the relationship between those two and their true feelings, the fact that they are acting sympathetically towards each other implies that they are lying to each other.
After WikiLeaks, Brooks believes that Arab leaders might be less willing to cooperate with us on Iran because “Arab leaders feel exposed and boxed in.” I really doubt that. I don’t know why feeling exposed and boxed in would prevent them from acting against Iran. Those Arab leaders would act against Iran because that is what they want to do in the first place. The fact is the rest of the world – including the West – seems much less interested in acting against Iran than those Arab leaders.
Continuing with his screwball analogy, Brooks argues that the “level of trust” determines the “quality of the conversation” while the direction of the conversation “is influenced by persuasion and by feelings about friends and enemies.”
Trust and feelings about who are your friends and enemies are determined much less by the relationship between those diplomats and much more by the actions of their countries and the extent to which those countries are willing to help each other. The willingness of nations to work together is based on the belief that such action will be mutually beneficial. The trust between nations is based on their ability to carry out their mutually agreed responsibilities. Leaking those diplomatic cables does not change this situation.
Brooks claims that our noble diplomats maintain the world order by having these wonderful trusting relationships with each other. On the contrary, most diplomacy is a failure and a waste of time. Those diplomats have been unable to reach a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians for over a half a century. Those diplomats have been unable to unify the Korean peninsula for about as long a time. Those diplomats, though they have been able to chop Sudan in half (which is hardly anything to brag about), still have not solved neither the border issues nor the oil revenue issues. Nor have they been able to prevent the slaughter of over two million people in DR Congo. Nor have they prevented three decades of civil war in Afghanistan. Nor have they prevented the death of nearly a million Africans in Rwanda. Nor have the prevented Somalia from becoming a failed state. Nor have they prevented a decade of war between Iran and Iraq followed by a war between the West and Iraq followed by a decade of sanctions imposed on Iraq followed by another decade of war in Iraq. Good job guys. It’s great to see that human relationship thing work so well.
Brooks claims that the American diplomats in the cables are “generally savvy and honest.” To me, they appear naïve or dishonest or both. Perhaps that is a reason why they have failed so often.
Brooks doesn’t want the public to know “in a wholesale manner the nuts and bolts of the diplomatic enterprise.” Obviously, the reason why Brooks wants to prevent the public from learning the truth is because he favors the status quo.
“The fact that we live our lives amid order and not chaos is the great achievement of civilization,” said Brooks. “This order should not be taken for granted.”
Brooks seems to be implying that, by filtering the information, the media and the government prevents mass chaos and unrest. It kind of makes you wonder what they are hiding.
WikiLeaks has failed to inform the public of what their governments have been doing. So they keep doing the same things. Since the WikiLeaks revelations began, we started civil wars in Libya, Syria, and Bahrain. David Brooks may be happy, but I am not.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
“Genuine peace will be possible only when we confront any threats and provocations with sturdy courage,” said President Lee. “Any provocations by the North from now on will without fail be met with strong responses.”
Once again, the main target of the leak seemed to be Muslim countries.
“It is sad and shocking — pitiful, even, in many cases — how Arab leaders are portrayed in the U.S. State Department cables released by WikiLeaks earlier this week,” said Rami G. Khouri, the editor of The Daily Star.
In one diplomatic cable, the Emir of Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, told John Kerry that Israel had the right to mistrust Arabs. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz wrote an article about this cable. I am sure Haaretz was happy to see that the Emir of Qatar had some kind words to say about Israel. I doubt the Emir of Qatar was as happy when he saw the headline for that article “WikiLeaks cables: You can’t blame Israel for mistrusting Arabs, says Qatari ruler.”
Saturday, November 27, 2010
“We never thought they would attack civilians,” said one South Korean. “North Korean soldiers have full stomachs from our support, and now they repay us by firing at us. Next time, we should repay them by shooting them back.”
While giving money to corporations, the DPJ wanted to take money away from individuals. For example, the DPJ wanted to increase the capital gains and dividend tax rate from 10% to 20%. Normally, I would have no qualms about raising the capital gains and dividend tax rates. However, to use that money to fund a corporate tax cut, to me, was an absurd idea. The corporate sector in Japan was already flush with cash. The problem with the Japanese economy, I reasoned, was a lack of demand. Japan would get better results if they did the opposite of what the DPJ wanted. They should have taken money away from the corporate sector and given that money to individuals.
In INDB, I wrote the following in the notes for this article.1
AAARRRGGGHHH!!! NOT EVEN KEIDANREN LIKES THIS IDIOTIC PROPOSAL!!! I DON'T KNOW WHO THE FUCK LIKES THIS PROPOSAL!!! MAYBE THE ***pejorative for westerners*** LIKE IT!!! YAPPARI!!! KAN IS A ***pejorative for someone who does the bidding of the Europeans***!!! KAN MUST GO!!! SHOO!!! SHOO!!!As the comment suggests, presumably, the DPJ made these tax reform proposals because America wanted them to. Presumably, America wanted to suppress domestic demand in Japan. Presumably, America thought the corporate sector in Japan would loan their newfound money to the U.S. government so we could go on another spending spree.
Trash till the end.
1 Needless to say, I edited the content of this rant. I didn’t want to give Google an excuse which would allow them to delete this post.
Friday, November 26, 2010
“If the U.S. brings its carrier to the West Sea of Korea at last, no one can predict the ensuing consequences,” said the Korean Central News Agency.
“The situation on the Korean peninsula is inching closer to the brink of war,” proclaimed the news agency. “Gone are the days when verbal warnings are served only.”
According to the KCNA, the people of North Korea were “now greatly enraged” and would soon be prepared “to give a shower of dreadful fire.”
“He who is fond of playing with fire is bound to perish,” said the KCNA.
On the other side of the peninsula, Lee Myung-bak ordered his military to be prepared for anything.
“There is a possibility North Korea may take provocative actions during the (joint) exercise, so make complete preparations based on cooperation between South Korean and U.S. forces to counter any provocation,” said Lee Myung-bak.
For their part, the South Korean military promised to deliver a “thousand-fold” retaliation for the attack on Yeonpyeong.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Of course, Britain delayed the Hitachi contract for a reason. They wanted to punish Japan. They completely disagreed with Japan’s strategy on how to deal with North Korea. Remember, the strategy was to release classified information in an attempt to pressure China into reining in North Korea. Of course, in reality, what Japan really wanted was an excuse to release classified information, and Britain knew it. And it made Britain furious.
Boo hoo. Sniffle. Sniffle.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
In response to the North’s attack, Lee Myung-bak ordered his military to punish North Korea “through actions,” not words.
“I think enormous retaliation is going to be necessary to make North Korea incapable of provoking us again,” said Lee.
South Korea responded to the attack by firing about 80 artillery shells at the North.
The media’s reaction to the attack was mixed. The western media seemed to cower in fear.
In an op-ed published by the Financial Times, Aidan Foster-Carter, a research fellow at Leeds University, pleaded with America and China to calm both sides and bring everyone back to negotiations.
The New York Times urged South Korea to restrain herself. The Times also urged the Obama administration to pressure China into reining in the North.
In East Asia, the media response was much more animated.
“What happened is nothing but an act of war,” said the Mainichi Shimbun.
The Korea Times called the attack a “crime against humanity” and said the North “should not go unpunished.”
“As the North has gone beyond the tipping point in committing aggression, the South has no choice but to correct this misdeed through a powerful counterattack,” said the Dong-A Ilbo.
In both versions of the interview, Maehara noted that in terms of trade and investment, Japan and China were becoming more dependent on one another. He said that the relationship between Japan and China was crucial for the world.
“I firmly believe that Japan- China cooperation could bring unprecedented peace and prosperity to Asia in the 21st century,” said Maehara.
The Global Times asked Maehara if he considered himself a “hawkish” politician. In response, Maehara talked about his education. He was once a student of a famous professor of international politics, Kousaka Masataka. According to Maehara, Masataka taught him realism.
“Both China and Japan conduct their diplomatic activities proceeding from their national interests,” said Maehara. “So I don’t think I’m a ‘hawkish’ politician, but a realist advocating idealism.”
In other words, his hawkish appearance was merely a façade. Maehara practically admits he was engaging in seikei bunri in this interview. He basically admitted that his “hawkishness” was just for show (that is the politics part of seikei bunri). And on the other hand, he praised the close economic relationship between Japan and China (that is the economics part of seikei bunri). And he even admitted that he was a “realist” who advocated idealism.
Ooh that sneaky, treacherous Maehara. He really takes the cake.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
“The coming months will see a new world, where global history is redefined,” said WikiLeaks.
A week later, WikiLeaks would start releasing U.S. diplomatic cables…very, very slowly. If there is a movement to redefine history, it appears that WikiLeaks is not very interested in taking the lead.
I guess that leaves it to me.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
“Many have written NATO’s obituary,” said Kerry.1
He referred to the upcoming Lisbon meeting as “one of the most crucial” summits in the history of NATO. At the meeting, the members of NATO would approve a new strategic doctrine. This doctrine would form the basis of how NATO would deal with “unconventional threats.” Kerry did not describe the contents of this doctrine.
In addition to approving this new doctrine, at the summit, NATO would also agree to spend $280 million to develop a missile defense system. According to Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former prime minister of Denmark, this move would placate the Europeans. Presumably, the Europeans were happy to see us do something that would piss of the Russians. Apparently, the Europeans were not too happy when we hit the reset button with Russia. Ah, with allies like these, who needs enemies?
My government now “tells” me that, at this summit, America and Europe planned the upcoming Jasmine Revolution. And we all know how that went. Now that it’s a year later, I wonder if Kerry is prepared to write that obituary.
1 This comment provides further proof for my theory that we have been fighting with the Europeans in Afghanistan.
Elsewhere in Japan, Toyota announced it would build a $700 million research and development facility near Shanghai.
“It will be Toyota’s first full-fledged research and development company in China," said one Toyota spokeswoman.
The facility will employ a thousand workers.
Seikei bunri strikes again. There is no defense for seikei bunri.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
I don’t think so. I think Europe simply wanted America to do her bidding, even if that meant Europe would take America down with them (amazingly, because of the stupidity of our leaders, they agreed to this idiotic proposal). Presumably, Brzezinski wanted America and Europe to work together on preventing the rise of East Asia. But, instead of preventing the rise of East Asia, they would, through their own evil intentions, do more to accelerate the rise of East Asia than anyone could have possibly imagined at this time (well, anyone outside of Japan anyways).
Bow down, western elite. Bow down.
In any event, Brzezinski had a list of demands that Obama should meet in order to bolster the alliance between America and Europe. He demanded that Obama express his determination to win in Afghanistan. Without that, according to Brzezinski, Europe would start to withdraw from the country. He demanded that America continue to station 80,000 U.S. troops in Europe. He demanded that Obama present a “clear path” which would allow Georgia and Ukraine to join the EU. He said Obama should agree to these demands at the upcoming NATO summit in Lisbon.
“The Lisbon meetings present an urgent and complex set of challenges,” said Brzezinski. “How they are managed will define President Obama’s leadership in the trans-Atlantic community as well as NATO’s relevance in the 21st century.”
I wrote a response to this article in INDB. Here it is, though slightly edited to avoid giving Google an excuse to delete my blog.
Could someone tell me how much the Europeans are paying us to station our troops in Europe? If they’re paying enough we could probably keep them there. As for Ukraine and Georgia...if the Europeans want them the Europeans will need to take them. It’s not in America’s interests. In fact I think it’s probably more in our interests to do the reverse - argue for Georgia and Ukraine siding with Russia. Come to think of it I think America needs to think of Europe and Russia in a new way - similar to Afpak. From now on the two of you fools will be known as Russope.In retrospect, the Europeans may have actually liked the last sentence, as it could be interpreted as an offer to hand over Russia to Europe.
"What happened in 1989 was a straight line to 9/11, and from 9/11 to where we are today," said Holbrooke. "It is the most extraordinary story of unintended consequences I think in American foreign policy history."
Someone from our government really needs to explain his quote. In the meantime, I'll give it a shot.
In 1989, the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan. Instead of negotiating a coalition government, we had the Mujahideen and the existing government continue their war against each other. Somehow, that led to 9/11. I'm not exactly sure how. But after 9/11, we seemed to go on a binge of threatening to disclose classified information in order to get other countries to do our bidding. So much information, in fact, that an attentive observer might be able to figure out what's going on by themselves.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
2011 WILL DEFINITELY NOT BE THE YEAR YOU HOPE IT WILL BE UNLESS BOTH SIDES START BEING HONEST. AND THAT HONESTY MUST EXTEND TO THE PUBLIC SPHERE.Of course, I was right. And unfortunately, Japan and America, once again, refused to take my advice.
Cowards. Trash. Idiots.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
“I’m happier than if I won the lottery,” said one woman. “But this is just the beginning, not the end. The political prisoners are still in jail. Everyone needs to be released!”
We threatened to tell the truth about 9/11 on November 13, when Fox News aired a segment on the collapse of 7 World Trade Center. Geraldo Rivera noted that a group called the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth had collected the signatures of over 1,000 architectural and engineering professionals who questioned the government’s version of why Building 7 collapsed. Rivera interviewed a mechanical engineer during the segment who argued that someone must have used controlled demolition to bring down the building.
Friday, November 12, 2010
You and I got something
But it's all and then it's nothing to me, yeah
And I got my defenses
When it comes through your intentions for me, yeah
And we wake up in the breakdown
With the things we never thought we could be, yeah
I'm not the one who broke you
I'm not the one you should fear
We got to move you darling
I thought I lost you somewhere
But you were never really ever there at all
And I want to get free
Talk to me
I can feel you falling
And I wanted to be
All you need
Somehow here is gone
I am no solution
To the sound of this pollution in me, yeah
And I was not the answer
So forget you ever thought it was me, yeah
And I don’t need the fallout
Of all the past that's in between us
And I'm not holding on
And all your lies weren't enough to keep me here
“After a period of drift, the US-Japan alliance is ripe for renewal,” they said. According to them, the upcoming summit between Kan and Obama would mark “inflection point between a period of drift and alliance renewal.”
I bet they feel pretty stupid for writing that. They thought that Kan’s victory over Ozawa had solidified his power within the DPJ. I bet they feel pretty stupid for writing that too.
They expressed their admiration for Seiji Maehara. They said Japan and America were “ready to move from rhetoric to action.” How many things can you get wrong in one op-ed?
The authors hoped Japan would work together with America to boost their defense against China. After all, that recent boat collision incident was really scary. The authors also wanted America and Japan to work together to boost their economies.
One of these days, I ought to go to the CNAS website and take a look at the photos of Cronin and Kliman. I wonder if they’re smiling.
In the interview, Blair argued that DNI should oversee CIA covert operations.
"Anybody who's an action agency has to be committed to that action," said Blair. "You need another level there that is thinking a little bit more broadly to oversea it, to ask the tough questions, to raise the flags when things are not going so well rather than the agency."
Blair believed, based on what the CIA, had been doing, the organization did need more oversight.
“Covert action has done wonderful things for the country,” said Blair. “It has also gotten us in trouble in the past in some areas.”
I believe he is referring to, among other things, what the CIA has been doing to me.
By the way, this is another thing that I believe someone has edited after its initial publication. I seem to recall Blair being more emphatic about how the CIA needed more oversight. I seem to remember him saying something like, “The CIA has gotten us into a lot of trouble.”
Thursday, November 11, 2010
AAARRRGGGHHH!!! KAN CAN'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT!!! KAN MUST GO!!! SHOO!!! SHOO!!!
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
By the way, this was not the only time a volcano impacted one of his trips overseas. And furthermore, volcanic eruptions also impacted Hillary’s overseas adventures too.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
In INDB, in the notes for this article, I wrote the following.
AAARRRGGGHHH!!! WHAT ELSE CAN KAN FUCK UP?!?!?!?! KAN MUST GO!!! SHOO!!! SHOO!!!
Back when this article was published, my government “made” me believe that Brenner wanted me to shut up on Wednesday for a specific reason. If I remember correctly, it had something to do with the Netanyahu trip to America. Brenner – and my government – didn’t want me to write anything that Netanyahu would disapprove of, at least not on Wednesday, which was a day before his visit with Hillary on Thursday. Apparently, they didn’t want to upset him before that meeting.
However, when Wednesday rolled around, my government had me write something that Netanyahu didn’t like. Perhaps they wanted to give Netanyahu an excuse so he could act like the trash he is. If so, they probably had Brenner write this article so they could have an excuse which would allow them to pretend that they didn’t want me to write the thing that Netanyahu disapproved of.
In any event, in INDB, I wrote the following in the notes for this article.
BAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I’ll give you my response on Wednesday.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
In addition, they would often try to scare me into submission. Occasionally, when I had a sore throat, as I did on this day, my government would inject the word “throat cancer” into my mind.
“Goodbye loopy mama grizzlies,” said Collins. “Thanks for the memories. You often were a headache, but you never were a bore. We’re left with a passel of normal conservatives of both sexes along with a cadre of male and female wackos, some of whom we have yet to really meet.”
I believe Collins was referring to me when she mentioned “a cadre of male and female wackos, some of whom we have yet to really meet.”
That’s not nice. I protest.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
On July 27, 2008, at 7:00 AM, Katz received a call from the South Korean embassy. Apparently, a U.S. government website, which had a list of the various islands of the world and who owns them, changed the ownership of the Liancourt Rocks from South Korea to “undesignated sovereignty.” Apparently, the website had changed the designation to bring it in line with the longstanding U.S. policy towards the islands. But the change made South Korea very, very mad. South Korea demanded to know why the website would change the designation of the islands at such a sensitive time in the relationship between Japan and Korea. In response to the change, their media wrote that America had a “pro-Japan bias” (Japan is the other country that claims the Liancourt Rocks). Because of the incident, Lee Tae-sik, the South Korean ambassador, might be fired for failing to prevent the change on the website.
In an effort to persuade the U.S. government of the righteousness of their claim, the South Korean government provided the U.S. government with several glossy brochures which proclaimed that the Liancourt Rocks were “our sovereign territory.” Japan, apparently, begged to differ and so they provided the U.S. government with another set of glossy brochures which said something quite different.
All this occurred just days before President Bush was scheduled to visit South Korea. To keep the trip from becoming a disaster, on July 30, President Bush decided to change the website back to its original state. So in the end, this incident changed nothing and solved nothing, but it did, apparently, leave a lasting impression.
“Becoming enmeshed in such disputes can be highly frustrating, as they have the tendency to bring work on more ‘current’ issues to a screeching halt,” said Katz.
And that’s why East Asia likes to do stuff like this. Rather than working on things that America would like to work on, East Asia would rather waste everyone’s time on an issue that won’t be resolved and won’t move forward. But in the meantime, the business ties between Japan, China, and South Korea keep growing stronger and stronger. Seikei bunri strikes again.
Of course, Katz wrote this article during the uproar over the Senkaku boat collision, another waste of time on a territorial dispute that solved nothing. Presumably, this article was also part of the “New Diplomacy.” Apparently, America wanted to make it appear as though these disputes occur without its consent. That is highly debatable. America has always wanted to keep Japan, Korea, and China separated from each other. These territorial disputes increase the mutual animosity between the people in those three countries.
Al Jazeera interviewed Craig Deare, a former U.S. Special Forces commander. According to him, many of the original members of the Zetas were elite Mexican troops who were trained at Fort Bragg, in North Carolina.
This is further evidence that America is using Fort Bragg to radicalize foreigners. Remember, in addition to the Zetas, Ali Mohamed studied at Fort Bragg. And Khalid Sheikh Mohammed went to college in North Carolina (presumably, whomever radicalized him worked at Fort Bragg).
Actually, the military group that spawned the Zetas has a very interesting history. The soldiers who created the Zetas originally came from the Airmobile Special Forces Group (GAFE). That group was created in 1994 to fight the Zapatistas. Remember, the Zapatistas were a terrorists group who opposed NAFTA. After fighting the Zapatistas, the Airmobile Special Forces Group went after the drug lords and the U.S. began supporting the organization.
There are several possibilities here. Perhaps Europe created the Zapatistas because they didn’t like NAFTA and they wanted to create a terrorist group to convince Mexico to abandon the agreement.1 Perhaps, in response to the Zapatistas, America got Mexico to create the Airmobile Special Forces Group to fight against the European-backed terrorist group.
Or, perhaps Europe and America were working together. Perhaps Europe created the Zapatistas so that America could convince Mexico to create the Airmobile Special Forces Group. And then America convinced Mexico to send its soldiers to Fort Bragg to be trained. That way the American military could infiltrate the Mexican military. Later on, America had its newly trained soldiers leave the Mexican military and form their own cartel, the Zetas.
1 Remember, trade agreements hurt every country that does not participate in the agreement. The countries participating in the agreement get the benefit of reduced tariffs. The countries outside the agreement have to pay a higher tariff when shipping goods to a country that participated in the agreement. So after NAFTA went into effect, American companies could export their products to Mexico at a lower tariff than Europeans countries could. I’m sure Europe was not happy about that.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
In the second part of the article, the part entitled “Extreme views on the Internet,”
Hosoya argued that the world had undergone some “structural changes,” changes that the DPJ did not understand.
“Unlike in the days of ‘old diplomacy’ when professional diplomats wheeled and dealt without the public’s knowledge, we are now in an age of ‘democratic diplomacy’ that is open to the public and takes public opinion into consideration,” said Hosoya.
The Internet, according to Hosoya, “is clearly transforming the nature of diplomacy.”
Of course, what Hosoya was referring to as “democratic diplomacy” is what I have been referring to as the New Diplomacy. Like our State Department, Hosoya felt the spread of “democratic diplomacy” would be inevitable. Unlike the State Department, Hosoya longed for the good old days of diplomacy, when the public was not involved. To him, democracy and diplomacy were not compatible. Were the public allowed to participate in diplomacy, Hosoya believed they would act in an ignorant and emotional manner. He argued that the public would not make good decisions in foreign policy because, as Walter Lippmann noted, the public does not really understand what is going on in other countries. On the other hand, Hosoya noted that during Lippmann’s time, the public didn’t have access to the Internet. They only “understood” whatever their media told them.
“Only professional diplomats and members of the mainstream media had first-hand knowledge of diplomacy in progress to be able to comment on it,” said Hosoya. “But this is not the case at all today.”
According to Hosoya, today, newspapers “have lost their influence and the Internet has taken over.” Today, the public engages in an online discussion. But according to Hosoya, this online discussion is “aggressive and stridently nationalistic” and, unfortunately, has affected “how politicians conduct diplomacy.” According to him, the politicians have to listen to these voices and that makes diplomacy hard to conduct.
For Hosoya, the Senkaku boat collision incident was the clearest example of this “democratic diplomacy.” Hosoya called the incident a “wakeup call” for Japan.
“Many people have realized that the economy does go south if the government stumbles in diplomacy,” he said.
“I believe Japan has learned this lesson at no small a price.”
Hosoya never mentions the diplomatic errors Japan made during the incident.
Hosoya is wrong to imply that a country can separate its domestic policies from its foreign policies. Consider again, the government spending issue. If the Japanese government spends more money then the American government will have to spend less money and vice versa. In fact, of all the significant economic issues that I can think of, making a change in policy to any of them would affect other countries, whether it is government spending, or tariffs, or regulation, all those issues are also foreign policy issues.
Hosoya is also wrong to imply that politicians are bending to the voice of the people. In fact, it’s just the reverse. The politicians are making the people say what they want them to say and they are using our voices as an excuse to do what they want to do. This isn’t anything new. For example, in the past, whenever Japan wanted to refuse to lower its tariffs on food products, a group of its farmers would start a protest and then the politicians would say they had noooo choice but to leave the tariffs where they are. A similar thing is happening today, only this time, instead of a protest, you’re seeing an angry online discussion.
“To respond appropriately to our current difficult economic situation, and to ensure economic recovery, the earliest possible enactment of this supplementary budget is necessary,” said Noda.
In response, Sadakazu Tanigaki said the LDP would cooperate on the stimulus bill if Kan agreed to pass their fiscal discipline and tax reform bill. The opposition also wanted Ichiro Ozawa to testify before the Diet. They wanted Ozawa to explain his role in the Rikuzankai scandal.
Over the next two months, the LDP would not cooperate with the DPJ. Presumably, America asked the LDP to impose fiscal discipline on Japan and the LDP caved. America wanted to spend Japan’s money, which meant that America would have to prevent the DPJ from passing their original stimulus bill. And for whatever reason, Japan would acquiesce to the demands made by America. So instead of quickly passing the stimulus bill, Japan wasted time on the Rikuzankai scandal.
In INDB, in the notes for this article, I wrote the following.
I rarely agree with the current administration but…HURRY UP AND PASS THE GOD DAMN STIMULUS PACKAGE!!! IT IS CLEAR THAT MY GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO DRUG ME UNTIL AT LEAST YOU IDIOTS PASS THE BILL. HURRY!!! HURRY!!!