Japan’s Political Woes

By Anneloes van Iwaarden

Election board in Japan

Japan’s economy, hardly recovered from its crisis in the 1990s, has also not been immune to the world economic crisis and is now officially in recession.

And the future looks bleak for the country who is also struggling with an aging population and a fickle health care system.

But still being the world’s second largest economy at the moment, can Japan re-invent itself as political leader in Asia?

Not if the Prime Minister Aso has anything to do with it.

The Times reported today on the current Japanese Prime Minister, who has gained notoriety on account of his many political faux pas.

Even his own party, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) is criticising the Prime Minister for statements he made such as calling Japanese elderly “hobbling malingerers”.

Unstable government
Ever since the charismatic Junichiro Koizumi (LDP), who served three terms as Prime Minister for Japan (2000-2006), there has not been a Prime Minister who could hold office for more than one year.

Shinzo Abe and Yasuo Fukuoda just barely stayed in office for a year, and Prime Minister Aso’s reputation doesn’t bode well for his political future.

Scandals over lost pensions, government officials making embarrassing statements, unpopular health care reforms and a poor economy, have caused much discomfort for the ruling LDP party.

Consequently, the party, which has ruled Japan since its establishment in 1955, has seen a recent sharp decline in popularity.

The second largest economy of the world has always sought ways to translate its economic power into political power.

But to little avail.

And, so long as the Japanese government cannot gain respect from its own people, how can it gain any respect from the rest of the world?

Choosing Guns Over Butter

By Anneloes van Iwaarden

Instead of there being a run on the banks in hard economic times, the United States is currently experiencing a run on guns.

According to a report on the BBC Radio4 Today program, many Americans are stocking up on guns in fear of stricter rules on firearms once President-elect Obama comes into office.

“In the first week of November 2008, the National Instant Criminal Background Checks show that 374,510 people bought a handgun or long gun, compared with 251,804 in the same week in 2007,” states Jodi Andes of the website Dispatch Politics.

It is a well-known fact that every time a Democratic President is elected to office it sparks a tremendous surge in demand for firearms.

Americans are buying rifles, handguns and semi-automatics because they are afraid that now a Democratic President is back in the White House, ‘gun control’ will once more be an issue on the agenda.

However, gun control has at best been a side-issue in the 2008 election campaign, so the President-elect’s exact views on firearms remain unclear.

Obama on Firearms
Washington Post columnist Robert D. Novak calls it ‘Obama’s Second Amendment Dance’, pointing towards inconsistency in President-elect Obama’s policy toward firearms.

Meanwhile the National Rifle Association (NRA) is convinced that the President-elect has a few things up his sleeve (certainly not guns) when it comes to gun control, warning gun owners of new restrictive policy.

But it is not all bad news.

“Barack Obama said he would improve the economy. Turns out he already has, at least in one retail niche: gun sales,” says The Guardian.

It’s the EU…Again

By Anneloes van Iwaarden

Courtesy of European Commission

Every now and again, an all too familiar grumbling is heard from many a British politician and from even more British journalists on the ‘big bad’ European Union (EU).

Sure enough, today’s Daily Mail prints two articles on the financial costs of the EU, citing a critical report by the Eurosceptic think tank ‘Bruges Group’ and the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

In one of the articles by political reporter Ian Drury, the UKIP Member of European Parliament (MEP), Gerard Batten, said: “To get Britain out of recession, we must get Britain out of the EU.”

Although such statements should really warrant no response, they do point to a broad feeling of ‘Euroscepticism’ that has plagued Britain ever since it became a member.

Back in the day, Britain must have seen something positive to becoming a member of (what was then called) the European Economic Community (EEC) as both Conservative and Labour governments in 1961 and 1967 applied for membership.

Under former Prime Minster for the Conservatives Edward Heath, Britain eventually did join the EEC in 1973.

Costs of EU Membership
Short-sightedness is no excuse for being blind to the benefits Britain has enjoyed in terms of job creation and business since becoming a member.

Yes, we know the EU costs a lot of money and this has always been an easy target to condemn, on the face of things.

Just some of the costs:

• MEPs who are all too willing to claim expenses (though not too willing to attend actual meetings)
• Moving costs involved in holding Plenary Sessions of European Parliament alternately in Strasbourg and Brussels
• The costs involved in translating EU legislation into the 23 official EU languages
• The EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

But we also know (at least some of us do) that the EU consists of 27 Member States each with a political will of their own, not to mention a stubborn sense of pride.

And Britain is no exception.

I wonder how willing the British would be to give up their right to speak and conduct politics in their own language.

Given their hesitance to give up the Pound Sterling in favour of adopting the Euro, I think this not very likely.

For Britain the EU has always been a case of ‘can’t live with it, can’t live without it’. As for me, Britain’s hypocritical stance on the EU is becoming rather old news.

Does Innovation Ruin Sport?

By Anneloes van Iwaarden

Performance enhancing drugs are banned from sports but what about performance enhancing sports wear?

Debate on the wearing of body-suit swimwear continues as, according to Craig Lord of the Sunday Times, the US is calling for a ban on the ‘shoulder-to-ankle skin-tight costume’ worn by 90% of medal winners in the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

It seems rules on performance increasing swimwear are yet to catch up with the realities of technological innovation.

In his article, ‘Making Waves’, Lord points that the launch of a pain-removing, body-interacting swimsuit could be closer than we think and Fina (the international governing body) can do little about it.

The debate on using technology in sport is not new and is not confined to the world of the swimming pool.

Before the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano Japan, there was equal discussion on the use of the innovative speed-skate with a built-in hinge mechanism, the so-called ‘Klap skate’.

Speed-skating innovation
Just like in the case of the Nasa-designed Speedo bodysuit in Beijing, long-track speed-skating world records were broken, times were slashed and a new era of speed-skating arose.

Use of so-called ‘speedstrips’ on speed-skaters body suits alleged to reduce air-resistance were also seen as controversial and many skaters complained of the unfair advantage it gave those using them.

In 2002, just before the start of the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, the International Skating Union (ISU) prohibited the wearing of the ‘double Klap skate’ because of its built-in electronic mechanism.

So when does technological advancement stop being called innovation and start being classified in the same category as performance-enhancing drugs?

And, even if it were possible, is the answer an all-out ban on all technological innovation in the world of sports?

In any case, it is naïve to think that a level playing ground in sports can exist because it defeats the purpose of competing in the first place.

However, a fair playing ground with equal access to technology is surely a noble goal that the sport-gods should strive for.

Meanwhile, it is about time we start thinking about a sport ideology where terms like talent and willpower override (access to) technological advances in determining winners and losers.

The Pirates of Somalia

By Anneloes van Iwaarden

Pirates off the coast of Somalia are forcing Dutch shipping companies use the route via the Cape of Good Hope to get to the ports of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Dutch broadcaster NOS reports.

This week saw yet another tanker hijacked on the dangerous Somali waters, this time a Saudi-vessel carrying over 300 million litres of crude oil.

On Friday the International Maritime Bureau (IMB) issued a Piracy Alert, warning all ships sailing in the region of southern Somalia and Kenya.

It might be an ‘out of control problem’ according to the IMB but what is the story behind this surge in piracy over the past few months?

As pointed out in BBC Radio 4’s Today program, pirates are seen by many as ‘lovable rogues’ when they actually are ‘violent and greedy criminals’.

This romanticised view of pirates is encouraged by Hollywood images of Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow and the illusion of carefree scoundrels fighting the establishment.

Indeed, in an interview by The Guardian one pirate says: “We consider ourselves heroes running away from poverty.”

Whether you believe the Somali pirates are modern day Robin Hoods or not, they are costing governments and businesses around the world millions in terms of lost revenue and ransom fees.

But the true tragedy of the Somali pirates is the reason that lies behind these acts of piracy. We read in this week’s Economist a catastrophic story of a collapsing Somalia and a lawless east Africa.

Amidst calls from shipping companies and nation-states to the EU and the UN to combat the piracy problem, perhaps it is also time to call upon these institutions to finally address the underlying problems fuelling piracy in the first place.

Waning American Power?

By Anneloes van Iwaarden

 

 

The outlook for US dominance in world affairs in the 21^st century looks very bleak, a leading American intelligence agency has concluded.

 

According to the National Intelligence Council (NIC) report, “the whole international system—as constructed following WWII—will be revolutionized. Not only will new players—Brazil, Russia, India and China— have a seat at the international high table, they will bring new stakes and rules of the game.”

 

This is a very different picture to the one Lord Patten paints in his new book ‘What next? Surviving the Twenty-First Century’.

 

Speaking to over 400 students from the London School of Economics (LSE) on Wednesday, the Lord referred to today as being ‘the new world’ with America as its prime architect.

 

Despite the growth of Asian powers and America’s loss of moral authority during the Iraq war, Lord Pattens believes that the United States will remain the only super-power in the world.

 

“Open up any newspaper in any country. America is still the only country in the world that matters everywhere,” said Lord Patten.

 

End of leadership?

To my question of whether he gave any merit to views of the end of American leader-status in the world, the Lord brusquely answered “no, not very much.”

 

Lord Patten downplayed the power of India and China as shapers of the 21^st century, stating: “We must be aware of the problems facing India and China and we shouldn’t assume that this exponential economic growth will last forever, just look at the Japanese example in the 1980s.”

 

I suppose it is all a matter of identity.

 

If the world still believes the United States to be the most important player in world affairs despite evidence to the contrary, the United States will remain the most important player in world affairs.

 

But in the unlikely event of powerful players deciding not to look to the United States for leadership, we might see a very different 21^st century.

‘Dutch Don’t Want Hands On Guantanamo’

By Anneloes van Iwaarden

Always eager to play a part in ‘world history’, The Netherlands is looking closely at how president-elect Obama will ‘make good’ on his election promise to close the controversial detention camp at Guantanamo Bay.

In the CBS news show, ‘60 minutes’, the President-elect confirmed his election promise to close down the detention camp in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba in his first interview after his historic election as the next American President.

And amidst calls from human rights organisations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International for European countries to take action and re-settle Guantanamo detainees, debate has sparked on the issue in The Netherlands about the role it can play.

The American detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, (known to insiders as GITMO) has been a thorn in relations between Europe and the United States since 2002 when detainees from the war on Afghanistan and the September 11 attacks were first taken to the camp.

President-elect Obama’s promise to close Guantanamo Bay has now sparked fierce debate over ‘the how’, ‘the when’ and ‘the what are the effects’ in The Netherlands.

Speaking at a budget meeting last week, Dutch Foreign Minister Verhagen announced his intentions to ‘look into the role The Netherlands can play’ in helping bring this dark chapter in European and American relations to a satisfactory close.

International Criminal Court
Minister Verhagen pointed towards the potential role the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague could play in bringing the detainees to trial.

But this statement has been met by a wave of criticism by the legal profession in The Netherlands. 

“They have created the problem themselves, they can solve it themselves. And this is what they should do,” says International Criminal lawyer Mr. M. Wladimiroff in the political TV program ‘Buitenhof’.

“The Criminal Court only has the power to try war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. In judicial terms, terrorism doesn’t clearly fall under any of these categories,” he went on to say.

The problem behind the closure of Guantanamo Bay is that detainees have no status either as defendants or as prisoners of war (POWs).

Having no status in legal terms essentially means that detainees have no rights or obligations.

So in order to be tried and allowing them access to a country’s judicial system, detainees first have to be given a status.

American Citizens
The reason why countries are less than willing to do this (including the US), is that potentially, detainees could then file for citizenship in that country.

The idea of having terrorist suspects run loose on American soil and become true American citizens, is probably a bridge too far for most.