Essays on Politics and War
9.11 / Political Statement / Susan Sontag
Politics is the today's topic. There was an anniversary of 9.11. And there was a Koizumi's visit to North Korea. It may be a time to discuss politics.
My review of this week picks up Gillian Welch and Tish Hinohosa. This is a kind of political statement of mine. George Bush likes country music. But I think country music is not only a joyous and mellow music, its sentimentalism is based on the feeling of loneliness, isolation, nostalgia for the things lost. I want to show that there is diversity also in country music. As there is diversity in each genre of music, each culture has diversity within. I think there is various opinions in America regarding 9.11 and things that happened and is happening after it. Pluralism should be the basic value of the society. You can't describe a thing in one or two simple words. The reality is always a complex mixture of the perceptions.
I read books and essays about 9.11 written by Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, and Susan Sontag etc I feel sympathetic with the opinion of Edward Said. His writing is very clear. Sometimes his writing became difficult in his book, but his political essays like "Propaganda and war", "Collective passion" etc are very easy to follow. I think you can read them somewhere in the web. ( Sorry, I don't know the address.)
However, what was most impressive is the essays written by Susan Sontag. Sontag's essay, first appeared on The New Yorker, 9.24,2001, was controversial because she wrote, "This is not the 'coward' attack toward the 
'Civilization' ,'Liberty','Human-Being' or 'Free World'. It is an attack toward the relations and activities which super power America has been taking. If you'd like to use the word,'coward', it is not for the people who are willing to die to kill others, but it is adequate for the people who attack the enemy from far-away or from high-above." ( Sorry, I translated this to English from Japanese translated book.) Many people condemned her because of this sentence. Yet, isn't she very correct in the usage of the word, "coward"? She is criticizing the non-sense usage of the word in a political context. Her main issue here is the words to describe the "war". This is the same stance she used to take to criticize the usage of the words as metaphor in describing diseases like cancer or AIDS, which is the theme of her book, "Illness as Metaphor" and "AIDS and its Metaphors".
I was rather moved by her ethical stance on this matter. She has her political view on this, but she doesn't talk about it. Because she is just knowing it from TV news (She was in Berlin on 9.11.), she just wrote about what she saw and heard from TV, and criticized the usage of the word. Don't discuss the things you really don't know, particularly if it is about the war and politics. There are various ways of seeing one thing by which side people are taking. This is the same stance as her essay "Waiting for Godot in Sarajevo" or her early essay "Trip to Hanoi". She did not discuss the political view while she was in Sarajevo and Hanoi during the war time. She discussed the cultural dilemma, and she only wrote her point of view which came from her own experience and thought.
This is the reason I feel she is ethical. The continuation of her will and stance is amazing.
(22/September/2002)
Susan Sontag / Against Interpretation
After writing the diary on 22/Sept, I started to re-read Susan Sontag's "Against 
Interpretation". This is her first collection of the essays written 1961-1967. When I first read this book, I had a feeling that she was a kind of new wave critics armed with semiotics a la French philosophy. In short, she seemed to be fashionable. This first impression differs from her recent "ethical" impression. When did she changed her attitude? Or has she ever been consistent?
My second impression of re-reading "Against Interpretation" is not very different from the first one. (I read it maybe more than 20 years ago.) She discussed about French literatures and French movies, and she wrote about the importance of style etc. It was amazing that I completely agree with her discussion, particularly I have the same opinion about Jean-Luc Godard's "Vivre Sa Vie"(1962). I might be influenced by her writing sectretely, though I forgot what I've read long time ago. And it might be her way of looking thins became very usual nowadays. Actually, some essays became a little bit old-fashioned; I cannot understand why she was writing a matter of course in a controversial way. I can't see against whom she was fighting. On the contrary, the some essays like "Against Interpretation", "On Style" and "Notes on 'Camp'" are still very fresh. In "Against Interpretation", she argued about the nonsense of interpreting the meaning of the art. She wrote, "Instead of Hermeneutics, we need Erotics of the art."
Here, we see the strange similarity among Susan Sontag and Yasuo Tanaka. They were fighting against interpretation! And Yasuo Tanaka is a kind of genius of sex. So, he may be practicing the Erotics of the art!!! (Ha,Ha) One more similarity is the sift from fashionable writer to ethical writer. After the Earthquake in Hanshin, Yasuo Tanka has became more ethical and political.
Why these two people became ethical? I think there was an ethical quality in their early writing when they were writing about the style. Seeing the world, "against interpretation", without searching for the deeper meaning, without metaphors which overcast the reality, can be personal ethics.
Erotics can be ethical.
(27/September/2002)
Coming Back from Bali
I came back from Bali the other day. Though it was more than a week ago, I couldn't write about it until now. Trying not to think about it, but still I am feeling uncomfortable to write anything about anything.
There seems to be no secure place in the world anymore. I knew it last September. And I have to reconfirm it again and again.
When the bomb exploded, I was sleeping in the room of the hotel. Because the people in the next room were noisy, I could not sleep well that night, half asleep, half awake. Suddenly, I felt a short vibration and noise. I thought this might be the earthquake or the explosion of the volcano in the distance. However, I didn't feel any more vibration, I slept again, thinking it might be the noise the people in the next room made or I might be dreaming. (I stayed in the hotel 20 km from Kuta. It was a big explosion.)
Next morning, nobody talked about this event. So, I forgot it. (I don't see TV or read Newspaper during vacation.) We spent an usual vacation day, swimming in the pool, watching the sunset, and having dinner at the restaurant etc. Two days after the explosion, I got the email from Japan asking about the security. I asked to the hotel person who delivered it to me; "What is the 'accident'?" "Small accident", he replied. I again asked to the room service person, and she said, "There was a bombing. Two killed, and One hundred injured." Wow! I called to Japan, they said, "Over 180 died." I was shocked, and I thought it was like a situation in "The Death in Venice". (People in Venice don't talk about the epidemics to the tourists.)
Business was as usual in Bali after the bombing. At least it seemed to the tourists. Main business in Bali is the tourism, so the show must go on. We spent rest of our vacation as scheduled. It was the same peaceful Bali. When we came to the airport, there were many soldiers with the guns, and the injured people in the wheelchairs. "Welcome to the Desert of the Real!" After coming back to Japan, many people asked about our security. We said, "We were safe, still alive, no problem."
I've never thought there was a terrorism in Bali. It is because the people in Bali are peaceful and friendly, and their everyday life is strongly related with the practice of Bali Hindu religion. However, it was just an illusion. There is no secure place in the world. If we try to look the world from the eyes of the terrorists in Indonesia, we sadly recognize that it was the place; there is little risk to kill Muslims, and it is a immoral place with a lot of foreigners, and it is the center of the industry (Sightseeing is the big industry) etc etc.
So, why Bali next to New York? There seems to be little rational answer to this question. I think the network of Al Qaeda is not centralized, the organizations around the world might be working separately with the financial and military help of Al Qaeda. (So, it is possible that Osama Bin Laden did not plan to attack the NYC and DC, and he just approved the plan of the branch and gave them the financial support...)
The terrorists who attacked NYC, DC, and Bali do not explain the reason of their behavior. We just interpret their intention and feel unsecured. They seem to reject the possibility of mutual understanding. So sad.
(26/October/2002)
Joseph Nye/The Problem of Nationalism
I read "Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History" by Joseph Nye. This is written as a text book for under-graduate introduction course for international relations. This is not only the introduction text, but also a lecture notes with full of insights coming from his academic and political experience. I really envy the students who study international relations with such a great text book.
Nye's view on international relations is very realistic in a true sense of the word. Nye argues that the view of the "realist", who sees the world as an anarchic power struggle among the states as main players, is an ideal to see the world. On the other hand, the view of "liberalist", who emphasizes the mutual interdependency caused by the global economy, is another ideal. The true reality is the mixture of these ideals. Which view explains better depends on the countries and the situations. For example, the realist view explains better about the Middle East and the military issues, and the liberalist view explains better about the Europe and the economic issues. He explains this through applying theories to the history, and what factors played the important roles. His way of looking at the 20th century world history is exciting.
In this book, Nye discusses about the problem of nationalism. What is the nation anyway? What does it stand upon? There may be three basis of nationalism; ethnicity, language, and religion. But we can't explain the nation by one factor. For example, people of the U.S. have strong feeling of the nation, but it is based on the ethnic diversity. There are three languages in Switzerland. etc. The nation is the commonly imagined community. Nation is based on what people think what nation is. Thus the logic is cyclic.
So, why the nationalism has been this influential? Nye argues, when society faces the social crisis, the nationalism arises. The interesting thing is that it tends to be advocated by minority people in the society. The minority people who tend to be attacked by the social crisis need the ground to stand on. So, they invent the nationalism which give them the security. This may be the reason the definition of the nation depends on what nation is.
However, it seems that the problem of why nationalism has so strong influence is not solved completely. It is sometimes stronger than the ideology, sometimes stronger than the economy. Why is it so fascinating? Social identity problem, where people stand on, where people belong to, is so important for people? (Usually, people don't seem to care about it at all.)
I have no answer to the question. But it is very sad that the cosmopolitan cities like Sarajevo or Beirut were destroyed by the "nationalism".
(4/November/2002)
North Korea / Cuban Missile Crisis
In Islands in the Net (1988), Bruce Sterling showed the near future world where everyone was connected with computer 
network. At first, the world was peaceful without war. But suddenly the world was attacked by terrorism of unknown enemy. Somewhere in the desert place, maybe in Africa, it was revealed that the world peace was kept by nuclear deterrence, which was the word long forgotten for the people in the net age. (I read this novel maybe ten years ago. I am not sure about the story.) This vision might be close to the world where we live now. Network, Terrorism, and Nuclear Weapons.
Yes, I have almost forgotten the word, nuclear deterrence, until North Korea nuclear issue gets this dangerous. This week's Newsweek magazine focuses on the danger of North Korea, and is concerned about the possibility of nuclear armament of Japan against North Korea! I think most of Japanese people never think of that option because we have strong antipathy against nuclear weapons. Anyway, if we think things in a conventional military balance of power, we must have nuclear missile for the deterrence. Ahhh, things seem to go back to the Cold war's heyday.
There was news that Bush government is considering "Containment" of North Korea, and Sea "Blockade" to check the ships and stop exporting of the arms. These vocabularies also remind me of Cold war. And of Cuban missile crisis, when the world faced the fear of the third world war with nuclear missiles.
Cuban missile crisis happened in 1962. The last year was the 40 th anniversary of the event. There were some discussions of the event last year. As I check the WEB, I found a site which gathered the information of the event. (This seems to be very informative site, but it is too huge for non-natives to check the contents.) The funny things are the copies of the newspapers at that time. We can see Washington Post here. It said, "Kennedy orders blockade of Cuba as Reds build Nuclear Bases There"(23/Oct), "Reds agree to scrap the bases in Cuba"(29/Oct) and so on. AHHH! REDS!!!
So, I was interested in Cuban missile crisis, and I saw Thirteen Days (2000), the movie about Cuban missile crisis starring Kevin Costner, on the video. Well, this was the movie anyway. It seems to put too much emphasis on the role of John and Robert Kennedy. They tried to keep the world peace from the military people who should like to start the war. There was not enough explanation about the roles of "the best and brightest" people, Robert McNamara and McGeorge Bundy etc. (But it was interesting to see the legendary people in the movie...) The decision of the president to avoid the nuclear war was 
very crucial in the event, but, at the same time, there was many complex decision making process played by many actors. There is a classic book about this event, "Essence of decision: explaining the Cuban missile crisis" (1972) by Graham Allison. The explanation of Allison might be more exciting than the movie. (And I also have to read the memoir of R.F.Kennedy about this event.)
Despite all this simple, romantic approach to the event, this movie includes some exciting moments. The most impressive one for me was the McGeorge Bundy's words, "The president is not only doing the blockade, but the president is making conversations with Khruchev through it. Every action is the words that the president speaks, and we have to do it carefully so that the Soviet will not mistake the message." (I don't remember his words exactly. ) In the era of the cold war, there was no words between two nations, words cannot be believed at the face value, so the two nations tried to interpret each other's every action with a deep doubt. This type of mutual disbelief led the world to the edge of the nuclear war.
40 years later, we came back to the era of "interpretation of the action". People in civilization should use languages for communication, not the action. Of course, not nuclear threat.
(10/January/2003)
The Lessons from History
Facing Cuban Missile Crisis, many people in the Kennedy Administration considered that the Soviet would be bolder in the future, when the posture of concession was shown by the U.S.. This came from the historical lessons of World War II that the appeasement policy at the Munich meeting encouraged Hitler's more offensive policy. So, they insisted air strikes of a missile base and invasion of Cuba.
On the other hand, J.F.Kennedy had got lessons from World War I. The Austria Crown Prince assassination triggered the uncontrollable process, and many countries which did not desire war were involved in the large war which devastated whole Europe. From such a viewpoint, Kennedy was greatly anxious about a risk of the Cuban Missile Crisis developing into a whole nuclear war. So, he tried to control the even trivial military action, so that the situation might not develop in an uncontrollable way.
Thus, even if faced with the same situation, what people get from history differ greatly. And once, "historical lessons" is established as analogy, it begins to work as propaganda, equipment to "forget history" not to "learn from history."
Let's think about the two wars in which the United States participated lately.
Before the Gulf War was started, there was argument that this war would be "Vietnam-ization". 
But, actually, the war ended its purpose of "releasing Kuwait from Iraq" comparatively in a short time. Here, "beating Saddam Hussein and making democratic Iraq" was not the primary war purpose. The U.S. government shared the lessons from the Vietnam War in which the war purpose became ambiguous in the process of "flexible response." So, in the Gulf War, the war purpose was limited clearly, and after attaining it, the U.S. government did not pursue too far.
How about the war in Afghanistan? There was also an argument which was anxious about becoming "the same errors of Soviet" or "Vietnam-ization" at the beginning However, also in here, it was able to attain one of the two purposes of the war, "overthrow of the Taliban government"and "capture of Osama Bin Laden" (The second purpose was known to be difficult to achieve by the usual war.) Again, the U.S.government was conscious of the lessons from the latest history of the failure in the Vietnam War and the Soviet failure in Afghanistan, and it made a clear 
limitation for the purpose of war.
So, the people criticizing the war and people executing the war were thinking in the same analogy.
Probably, the lessons obtained through the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and 20 years or more of war in Afghanistan would be; "The act of aggression to a foreign country may be able to be stopped, or the help to beat the government which lost legitimacy for the people may be effective. But war cannot establish the government convenient for a certain country." Even though these lessons could not abolish war, they were able to make war limited at least. (Of course, they don't justify the tragedy of the war at all.)
When thinking about the Iraq policy of the latest Bush Administration, I start to doubt that they might separate from the lessons of the Vietnam War, and the lessons might be repainted by the recent success experience of "victory in two wars by decisive action". How is it really possible to make "democratic" government in a foreign country? The analogy considered by the Bush Administration is "the occupation policy of postwar period Japan" !
Next, North Korea problem. At the beginning, it seemed that the Bush Administration inherited the analogy of the Cuban Missile Crisis in respect of the vocabulary, showing a strong posture. However, today, the Bush Administration showed the proposal to give economic support when the North Korea abandons nuclear development. This policy may come from rational cost-benefit analysis to achieve East Asia security. After all, there is nothing to get from the war with North 
Korea anyway. It is rather glad that the Bush Administration, which tends to be dogmatic, deals with the North Korea problem with rational and flexible attitude. By the way, where is the historical origin of the policy considered to be such an "appeasement"? I think it might come from the lessons about "the expansion policy of prewar-days Japan". At first, the U.S. thought, "War against the United States that Japan definitely loses should not be carried out. Japan should concede, if a strong posture is carried out." However, Japan started the impossible war against the U.S. in 1941. So, the lesson is "If the people from Asia are driven to the edge, nobody knows what they will do next."
The attitude, in which J.F.Kennedy learned from history, separating from recent memory of the war, is moving. On the other hand, Bush Administration is forgetting the lessons from the last wars, and picking up analogy from history at random.
So, what lessons Japanese people get from history?
(Illustrations by Khotan. Thank you!)
(15/January/2003)
More Lessons
The Newsweek of this week argues, "it is not a military action but the result of diplomatic efforts that Qadhafi, the typical terrorist of the 80s, became gentle. Whether this lesson can apply to Hussein or Bin Laden is unknown, but diplomatic efforts should be continued so that a situation may not be worsened from the present condition." The lessons which this essay studied from history are rather harmless, and I do not object to this argument. However, there is little explanation of what particular diplomatic actions had an effect on Qadhafi, and the essay seems to be unconvincing. Here again, history is asked for analogy, and I doubt history is not seriously learned.
What is "historical lesson" anyway? Let's see some more historical examples of the "lessons from history" and perception about the enemy's strategy which caused the serious results.
A. There was an argument before World War I, "In the world where economical interdependence progressed, the cost of war came to exceed profits. Therefore, war probably was not taken as a means of conflict solution from now on." But, the long and destructive war started some years later.
B. Because France-Prussian War ended for a short period of time, each country before World War I thought that a future war became a short-term decisive battle. For example, in order to avoid two front war with France and Russia, Germany was absorbed in creation of the plan to end the war with France early and turn military power to Russia etc.
C. The U.K. and France, which fully tasted the tragedy of World War I, thought everyone else wants to avoid war fundamentally. So, they thought that a little concession to Germany is needed to avoid war. Thus, the appeasement policy was taken before World War II.
D. While the international encircling net was spread on Japan because of China-Japanese War, Japan connected the triple alliance in order to increase a national security with thinking in the balance-of-power way. However, the United States has recognized this to be "Fighting to democracy", and the security of Japan became lower.
E. The United States corresponded to an extension policy of Japan with the strong posture, based on the judgment "war which Japan cannot win should not be made". However, Japan thought, "even if Japan cannot win the United States, in order to carry into a draw somehow, now is the only chance to start war."
F. Based on the "lessons" that the appeasement policy before World War II promoted an aggressive policy of Germany, the United States thought in a cold war period, "If it yields here, the Soviet Union will require further. When one country was communized, neighborhood countries was also communized in 'domino effect'".
G. In the Cuba Missile Crisis, J.F. Kennedy performed flexible correspondence according to the situation, and overcame the crisis. In Vietnam, while repeating "flexible response" according to the situation, the purpose of war became ambiguous and stalled.
H. In the Gulf War and the Afghanistan war, in order to avoid the error of Vietnam, limiting the war purpose and attaining the purpose, the United States did not pursue too far. As a result, Hussein and Osama Bin Laden survived .
I. In the war against the Iran and the Soviet, the United States raised the enemy of next by supporting to Iraq and Islam extremists of Afghanistan.
What can we study from the history? For example, isn't the argument like A before World War I surprising? There is very close resemblance between this and what was expected with the conclusion of a cold war and was betrayed. Or, wasn't people's perception very restricted by memory of the last war? Furthermore, the "realist" like Robert Gil pin may say that the rule of balance -of-power-politics does not change in essence since ancient Greek war. Should I sadly murmur about human beings' foolishness and the fault of the history repeated?
However, can't it be said that the contents repeated have variety considerably as a matter of fact? Doesn't history seem to repeat because human beings are only performing wars through history? There are many situations which are alike are found out easily. In short, simple lessons from history cannot be obtained from historical learning.
I think that to learn from history is to learn historical diversity, and to imagine plurality of the reality and the possible future.
(23/January/2003)
(Il)Logic of the War
During Cuban Missile Crisis, Adlai Stevenson made a powerful discussion at United Nation Security Council with showing the photos of missiles:
"The time has come for this Council to decide whether to make a serious attempt to bring peace to the world-or to let the United Nations stand idly by while the vast plan of piecemeal aggression unfolds, conducted in the hope that no single issue will seem consequential enough to mobilize the resistance of the free peoples."
As Colin Powell provided the "evidence" of Iraq's cheating, the historical memory came back again; "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." I don't argue how decisive the explanation of Powell was because these things need the professional analysis. (For example, when J.F.Kennedy first saw the photo of the missiles in Cuba, he did not recognize what was in the photo; it looked like a football field or something.) But, at least, I can say it was not convincing to me, and to most of ordinary people. It seems that time has not come yet for this Council to decide.
I personally believe that what Powell showed was true and that Iraq had hidden the weapons. And I do agree that Iraq's WMD should be destroyed. And I do agree that Saddam should be overthrown. But I still don't believe that the war is the answer.
As I read the Japanese collection of the "Foreign Affairs" articles about Iraq problem, I found that these "realist" people were sure about the needs of military action against Iraq. The problem is not about to do or not to do, but the problem is when and how. Some argue that we should attack Iraq before it's too late, before Iraq gets nuclear weapon. Other argue now is not the time for the war because the war against terrorists like Al Kaeda is more important etc. Because "Foreign Affairs" is policy oriented, it is based on "realist" views on international relations, and tends to see the world in terms of the balance-of-power. .
I feel it is not morally correct to discuss the war only with this balance-of-power point of view. But I feel that the reason for the war is not convincing even if I think in terms of "real politics".
A. Nuclear Weapons and other WMD
Some people argue that Arabian countries might be officially showing disagreement, but they personally agree with the military action, and that they can't show their agreement because they have to take care about the domestic anti-American sentiment and so on! The Gulf countries experienced the invasion of Iraq and they are afraid about the possibility that Saddam has nuclear weapons. If Saddam has nuclear weapons, he might use them. Even if he does not use it, he will use it as a nuclear deterrence to stop other countries to interfere to his invasion. Of course, this is not only the problem for the Gulf countries. If Saddam invades the countries in the Gulf, he will control the international oil market.
This argument seems to presuppose that the others should think in the same "logic"of real-politics. I am not sure Arabic countries really think this way. But I, too, try to think in a "realistic" way.
First of all, it is not likely that Saddam already has a nuclear weapons or will develop it by his own. (Though he might get small one from "market". ) In order to develop nuclear weapons, he needs to have a big plant and many scientists etc. It should be a very big project not to be able to conceal. Considering the effort of inspection, the reports from refugee scientist and the economic condition of Iraq, I think there is little possibility that Iraq has a capability to have nuclear weapons. And Powell only showed the evidence of cheating, but he did not show the evidence of the existence of nuclear weapons.
As for WMD like chemical and biological weapons, I think Saddam should have them, and he has a will to use them as he often used them. And I think it is very hard to find these weapons through inspection. But this is not enough reason for the war. Even though Saddam has been having them for a long time, we have been able to keep Saddam inside of Iraq border after the Gulf War. So, the problem of Saddam with chemical and biological weapons is not new, and it to be solved by "containment" policy, not by the war.
B. Relations with Terrorists
The members of Al Kaeda and Iraq contacted, the U.S. argues. Yes, I think it is possible that Iraq is providing some weapons to Al Kaeda.
But this is a weak argument for the war. Iraq is not only country but there should be other countries providing weapons to terrorists. And relations with Al Kaeda might not be very strong. One realistic advocate of the war argues that relations with terrorist is not major reason for the war; if Saddam has mass destruction weapon, he tends to monopolize it rather than to share it with terrorists.
As for the terrorists problem, the war will increase the danger of terrorist attack because it reinforces the anti-America sentiments in the Islam countries and because it weakens the international cooperation against the terrorism.
C. Totalitarian Society
Saddam is known as a cruel leader, and force the totalitarian rule to the people, and execute mass murder in his country.
This is the moral reason for the war, not a "realistic" reason. When thinking about the people in Iraq or North Korea, we should recognize that the peace means also the peace for the present regime. But we should think that the war cannot build the democratic government automatically. In case of Afghanistan, there was a counter force against Taliban, so it was workable to help them. But, in Iraq and North Korea, the power of anti-government activity is so weak. After the Gulf War, the Saddam was expected to be overthrown automatically in the domestic conflict, but he survived. Considering this, as "realist" might say, the overthrow of Saddam might cause the vacuum of the power, and might decrease the international security.
Colin Powell once said that there should be clear reason for the war because the people cannot fight and die for no reason. But, I don't understand the reason of the war even if I think in "realistic" way. Even if the reason for the war is oil, the war is not effective means. The logic of war is illogical. So, I have to agree with the sensational opinion like "Bush just wants victory before the presidential election" or "Bush wants personal revenge to Saddam" etc...
(8/February/2003)
Between Perpetual Peace and Real Politics
Origin of Perpetual Peace
In 1795, Immanuel Kant, considering that the "peace treaty" after the French Revolution was just the pause of war, not true "peace" at all, wrote "Perpetual Peace". Kant proposed abolition of armaments, the democratic principle, and foundation of the United Nations etc. Although it was thought to be a philosopher's dream when balance-of-power politics was prevailing in Europe, this small book has had deep impact on the thinking of human-being. And this thought has changed the world slowly but steadily.
In 1919, after World War I, the Kant-ideal was given the first chance. Since Europe experienced the mass-destruction beyond imagination, conventional thinking of "balance-of-power" came to be recognized as an immoral thing. Therefore, the idealistic peace design by President Wilson was accepted, and the paradigm of international security changed from balance-of-power to a collective security by Leagues of Nations. (It was not ratified in the U.S. which proposed the idea, though.) Further, in 1928, the Kellogg-Briand Pact was made among major powers, and a war of aggression was positioned as illegal for the first time in international law.
However, the imperialists who came late like Germany or Japan had a cynical view about the framework of such international peace; they regarded it as a framework for protecting vested interests of imperialists who preceded. And they continued principle of extensive power politics. In 1933, when the report of the Lytton investigating commission about the Manchurian Incident was adopted unanimously, Japan left the League of Nations. In this regard, even though other countries criticized the behavior of Japan or Germany, as long as their rights and interests were preserved, they did not take more action, but were tolerated as a result. After all, they were thinking in terms of power politics, and the appeasement policy was thought to be necessary to avoid the tragedy of the war. Thus, a collective security did not function.
Making of Peace Constitution of Japan
In 1946, MacArthur of the United States which occupied Japan ordered his staffs to make the draft of the new Constitution of Japan in a week. According to his view, the constitutional amendment proposal shown by the Japanese scholars was too conservative, and it was clear that the proposal would hardly satisfy an Allies side. Japan needed to be put under control of the United States, before the process of the international military tribunal would start and the request of other Allies would increase. In order to make a U.S. occupation policy successful, two things were indispensable. First, using the Emperor politically to rule Japan with relatively small troops. For this reason, the campaign for the new Emperor's image symbolizing peace and democracy was advocated. Second, the democratic new constitution should be enacted immediately in order to make democratic and non-military Japan a fait accompli before the tribunal.
The staffs of small number who created the Constitution of Japan in a week had the enormous influence to one country, which does not have a similar example in history. The anonymous writers of the Constitution, based on the proposition of making Japan not become the concern on a security over the future, produced new systems of Japan from the blank paper with very idealism-passion. For example, a Japanese American woman staff succeeded in putting the article about the right of the woman, which was her personal belief, in the constitution. She made it through obtaining reliance in the process of negotiation with the Japan side. Thus, MacArthur is said to have accepted most of the constitution draft which was filled with the idealistic thoughts of his staffs. Thus, in the Far Eastern locked-up room, the Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan was drafted as a strange combination of the Kant-idealism and real politics.
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. (The Constitution of Japan, Article 9)
The interpretation of the article 9 about renunciation of war was ambiguous from the beginning. It was not clear whether the article abandoned the military force for self-defense or not. It seems to be natural to understand that all the military force including the right of self-defense is denied, when reading the English translation of constitution, which is probably close to original U.S. draft proposal. Since "as ..." repeats twice, it is difficult to interpret that "as means of settling international dispute" has restricted both "war" and "force". However, reading English draft proposal for the first time, one Japanese bureaucrat who was a international law specialist thought this did not mean the denial of the self-defense, based on the tradition of international law, such as the Kellogg-Briand Pact. When this article became Japanese, it became more ambiguous about the meaning of the abandonment of the war.
When this Constitution was enacted, Japanese people received this as an ideal of denying all the military force. In an answer of the question in Congress, there was explanation that this article means abandoning all the military force. This constitution gave the pride as the starting point of a new identity to the Japanese people who lost all by war. Japan with the most advanced peace Constitution in the world! It was expected that, based on a miserable experience of war, Japan had the idea of perpetual peace and contributed to establishment of world peace! Thus, Kant's ideal suddenly realized in the Far Eastern defeated nation 150 years after. Shigeru Yoshida later recalled, "During the U.S. occupation, it was most important to terminate occupation as soon as possible. And I thought when occupation finished, we could revise the Constitution. However, it turned out that it was impossible after the system was actually made." The idealism-Constitution was widely accepted among the Japanese people who keenly realized the misery of war.
Peace Constitution Drifting in Real Politics
However, the national passion to "perpetual peace" of Japan began to be adrift immediately in real politics in the world. The initial U.S. occupation policy was to remove a military threat of Japan eternally. However, the United States changed the position on Japan as a fort of the capitalism in the Far East area, facing the intensified Cold War and outbreak of the Korean War in 1950. The army for self-defense was established. Even after U.S. occupation ended in 1952, Japan-US Security Treaty was contracted and the U.S.Forces will continue stationing to Japan.
The argument that the Self-Defense Forces and Japan-US Security Treaty were against the spirit of the Constitution occurred among the Japanese people. Since the new identity of Japan, "perpetual peace", could not be maintained, it was a natural discontent. Although the trial which asked the constitutionality of the Self-Defense Forces was made, the judgment to declare the violation of the Constitution did not come out. The text of the Constitution was written to enable double interpretations from the first interpretation. (Even the idealist like Kant approved the self-defense army as a process until perpetual peace is realized!) Thinking realistically again, I feel there was no possibility that Japan could choose the way of unarmed neutrality. Because, under the condition that the Soviet Union and China possessed nuclear weapons, in order to obtain the national security without holding the military strength, Japan should become a communist country, or must be Finland-ized, having limited freedom in the economic side, depending on China and the Soviet Union in political, diplomatic, and military sides. And the possibility could not exist for the United States which gained the Pacific War with loss of many human lives.
Thus, the passion over "perpetual peace" of Japan cooled down gradually. Japanese people stopped thinking about national security, the state's biggest subject, and decided to pursue only economical profits with some cynical point of view about the betrayed peace ideal. Of course, there were people faithful to the ideal of the Constitution. However, even if they asserted abolition of the military forces, there was no impact on international discussion because Japan was depending on the United States armament. Also domestically, by reciting "absolute pacifism", they only helped people to stop considering an international security problem in a concrete and realistic way. Anyway, the security of postwar Japan has been completely dependent on the military forces and a "nuclear umbrella" of the U.S., and a foreign policy of Japan was just to confirm the U.S. policies. Japan was a diplomatic tributary; This was a policy which was very "realistic" like Finland under the cold war.
Now, North Korea deploys the missile by which it can cover Japan on range, and probably possesses Nuclear Weapons. The country which meanwhile does not have the military forces does not have many diplomatic choices. Recently, Japan stated the exceptionally powerful support on the U.S. in Iraq issue. It can be also understood as a "realistic" policy. However, should there be more efforts to search alternative possibility, as the country which has Kant's ideal in the Constitution, though it was a kind of historical accident? Like people of the large majority in the world, most of Japanese people strongly wish peaceful solution of the Iraq problem, and think it should be solved in the framework of the collective security of the United Nations. Also, they fear that U.S. unilateral action spoils the security of the world. Whatever "realistic" policy Japan will take, it must give the clear explanation to the people. Moreover, Japan must have an accountability to the whole international society as a nation that has the peace Constitution.
Kant and Weber on Morality
Although it was learned not by reason, but by mass destruction of war, the ideal which Kant showed has been approaching gradually in history. For example, the war between France and Germany is unthinkable anymore, and war in the europe, which used to be the main stage of balance-of-power war in the history, is also unthinkable. However, as the experience of Japan Peace Constitution shows, the world is in the state where the military force still has a big meaning in real politics, and an ideal can't solve concrete international disputes immediately. As a process to perpetual peace, Kant considered prohibition of a war of aggression, maintenance of a self-defense army, and establishment of United Nations as a measure. And he thought the morals coming from reason should never be broken. However, considering the appearance of nuclear weapons and long-range missile, and the complicated race problem, it is more complicated to think about the moral question of war and peace.
Max Weber once said,"Politics is power, and is violence; it is not morals. Politician has to work hard to make possible thing actual, even if it may be against the conventional sense of morals. However, or therefore, politicians must have higher sense of morals." It would be too demanding for political leaders to be expected to have Kant morals, but they should have a sense of the Weber morality to makes a possible peace actual between perpetual peace and real politics.
(25/February/2003)
My Political Position?
Recently, everything in the world is covered up by politics. Iraq, North Korea, Al Kaeda, Palestine etc. Not to mention about newspapers, even magazines, mailing lists, web sites of music are full of political topics. My site is not exception. The reason is simple. That is the most important thing today, and it occupies the thinking of people. But I began to feel some strange feeling about it. Is that a right place to discuss politics? Of course, this question comes directly to my recent "political" writing in my site. So, I had better write some excuse.
When I first started this site, I did not have a plan to write about politics. It seemed to be very difficult for me to write such topics in English. (Since then, my English writing might have improved somehow. ) And it was too delicate to write in a site which is mainly about music. Some people might have the same taste of music like me, but they might not agree with my political opinion. And different political opinion tend to annoy people. So, I did not write about politics for a while.
But I was searching for my own way to write something about 9.11 because it was the biggest problem today, and occupied my mind. So, I decided to write about "writing about 9.11", not about 9.11 directly. I did not feel that I had an enough right to write about it. I did not want to write in an outsider way. So, writing about what I've read is the only possible way to write.
And there was a terrorist bombing in Bali. I happened to be in Bali at that time. After that experience, I changed my stance a little bid, and I started to write about politics more often. (It is very funny that I feel that I have some right to write about politics after that event. Do we have to experience something in order to write about something? )
But I think I am not taking a particular political position yet. There are some reasons for this. First of all, this is the site mainly about music. I have already explained this. Second, it is very difficult to take a position in a complex reality. I always wonder what is right or not, and I am not sure what we should do. Third, Max Weber said, "Politics is politics. It is a power, and is violence. It is not morals." Even if we think in an idealistic pacifist way, it may also contain a political violence. For example, I am against Iraq war. But this stance may help the present regime of Saddam Hussein as a result.
So, I am trying to write about politics from other sides, for example, from longer historical point of view etc. (I am not sure how this is successful. ) I think plural thinking is the better way than good-or-evil thinking, though it may be powerless to real world. In "Austin Powers" series, "Number Two" tries to make more cash flows from business activity like investing to Starbucks, while "Dr. Evil", coming from the cold war age, tries to control the world in an old-fashioned evil manner. Good-and-Evil thinking is only a parody even in the movie now.
(1/March/2003)
Rationality and Legitimacy of the War
George Bush is going straightly to the war whatever other people say about it. There are already a lot of arguments about it. Even though there may be little to add, I'd like to think it over from the points of rationality and legitimacy.
Rationality of the War
Carl von Clausewitz insisted, "War is a continuation of politics." This famous statement has been controversial. The Time magazine of March 3 analyzed "Americans never go off to war blithely, eagerly, without thinking about it long and hard. They like to believe they fight not out if choice but out of necessity." According to such "American" thinking, the cruel rationalism of Clausewitz may be hard to accept morally. However, though the thought of Clausewitz justifies the war as one of the means for attaining the diplomatic purpose, it also severely criticizes self-purposed war. It is useful to apply this Clausewitz's notion to check the rationality of the war.
The fundamental problem about Iraq is summarized like this: "As seen in the Kuwait invasion, Saddam Hussein is a risk taking person based on extensive ambition. If he has nuclear weapons, he will be occupying Persian Gulf countries with deterring other countries to intervene." I don't argue how right this perception is at this time in order to make discussion simple. When this perception about Iraq issue is correct, the most important purpose in dealing with Iraq issue should be the maintenance of the international security in the the Gulf countries and Middle East.
In order to attain this purpose, there are two possible means. A. Overthrow of Saddam Hussein Administration and making of democratic Iraq, B. Destruction of Iraq's WMD. As I argued about this a little before, the policy A has a risk to produce the vacuum of power and to unstabilize the international security, and require the high cost for a long-term commitment to make democratic Iraq. So, rationally thinking, it is not a desirable policy. Moreover, thinking in terms of international law, overthrowing the government of foreign country by war is forbidden as a "War of Aggression". Therefore, the means which should be taken realistically is the policy B, "Destruction of WMD".
Next, as the means for destroying WMD, there are three policies. 1. Continuation of inspection and containment policy, 2. Increase of military pressure, 3. War. Considering rationally in a cost minimum way, policy 3, War, should be the last measure after the possibility of 1 and 2 is exhausted. However, if war conflicts with the greater purpose, "international security of Middle-East", war is not effective. If there is no situation like Iraq will possess nuclear weapons soon, war is not a rational means to achieve the purpose at the present.
Probably "old Europe" opposes to the war to Iraq based on "realistic" judgment of such an "old" Clausewitz style, not on the pacifism. Now, what George Bush will consider about this? Probably, Bush understands all of such a thing. Nevertheless, Bush pushes on to war because the war purpose is not "destruction of WMD" but "overthrow of Saddam" for him. This policy can be explained only when we assume that Bush is thinking making democratic Iraq does not cost a lot, or that Bush makes war itself the purpose, or that Bush has the secret political purpose other than "Middle Eastern security". I will not keep guessing the Bush's mind. But it seems to me that war is not the rational answer to the Iraq issue as a means to attain the international security.
Legitimacy of the War
At this moment, the greater problem about the war is its legitimacy because George Bush declares that he will attack Iraq without the resolution of the U.N.. "War of Aggression" is forbidden on international law , and I already argued that the war aiming at overthrow of Saddam is violation of international law. Therefore, the war purpose is explained as "destruction of WMD" which Iraq does not tend to carry out to the last. However, since the greatest purpose should be "international security of Middle-East", Iraq problem should be solved in the framework of the collective security of the United Nations. The resolution in the U.N. Committee on National Security is indispensable to military power use. It is also the "War of Aggression" to use military power unilaterally without the resolution of the U.N.
The Bush Administration rationalizes use of military power by mentioning the threat to the security of the U.S. But Iraq is not attacking the U.S. at all now. So, the pre-emptive strike for self-defense is also against international law. Moreover, Bush administration insists that there is an example in the past that military power is used without the resolution of the U.N.. It is the Kosovo air strikes of NATO. However, this example is a serious mistake. Kosovo air strikes were done as a "humanitarian intervention" to stop the mass-murder. Although the concept of "humanitarian intervention" is still controversial, it is hard to deny "good will" of the Kosovo air strikes. Bush can argue that Iraqi people are also suffering from inhuman Saddam government, but Bush has not been insisting it very seriously until now. And there is no general agreement among the countries that "humanitarian intervention" is unavoidable to the Iraqi people at this moment. It is true that Kosovo air strikes were done without the resolution of the U.N. But it was because of a political opposition of China. The agreement was made at least by NATO countries. It was not carried out unilaterally with ignoring the opposition of major powers, such as France, Germany, and Russia.
The logic in which the Bush Administration justifies the Iraq attack by "the Kosovo air strikes" as a precedent shakes the foundation of the present international law that prohibits "War of Aggression". This Kantian international law regime of today is the result of painful learning through history. If George Bush starts the Iraq war without the U.N. resolution, it will also give the precedent to the "outlaw government" and "an axis of evil."
As far as I see, Bush's war is irrational and illegitimate. If he really goes to the war unilaterally, none can oppose to the assertion of Noam Chomsky that "the United States is the greatest terrorist state". (I am sorry to write this just after writing that I will not take a particular political position.)
(11/March/2003)
Before and After the War
On 14 March, Joseph Nye's essay, "Before War", appeared on the Washington Post. In the essay, Nye argues:
Now, as Bush has argued, with the new threat of transnational terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, the cost of waiting may be too high. The test of "imminence" must be broadened. But the price of moving from preemption to prevention should be some form of collective legitimization, preferably under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which is concerned with threats to the peace as well as acts of aggression. Multilateral preventive war may be justified when unilateral preventive war is not. Otherwise the awful lessons of the first half of the 20th century would be lost, and any state could set itself up as judge, jury and executioner. That precedent would come back to haunt us.
As a reader of his "Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History", I am glad that we basically share the same opinion. (However, I am still not sure about Nye's opinion that the preventive war can be justified in order to cope with the "privatization of war" by the terrorist. And I rather disagree with his argument connecting the Iraq war with the war against terrorist. The Iraq war is just an old war with new weapons, not a new war against the terrorism.)
On 18 March, today, there was an appeal made by 40 Japanese scholars of international law. They insist that the war without the U.N. resolution is against the international law. Even if the U.N. has not had a strong power in international conflicts, it is the only way to attain the peace.
Surely, I am not the only one.
But it becomes all too late. President Bush decided the Iraq war without the U.N. resolution. On the other hand, Saddam Hussein denies the existence of WMD, and will fight against an unjust U.S. war to the last. Thus, the exile of Saddam has little possibility, and the Iraq war seems to be no longer avoidable.
When Japan received the ultimatum, so called "Hull Note", from the U.S. in 1941, it judged "a certain draw may be possible by winning a certain amount of success in battle. It is better than losing without doing anything", and it started the war. However, the U.S., which was seeking for justice and democracy, did not have the concept of a draw. There was no other condition of ending war except unconditional surrender of Japan. With this historical learning, Saddam can understand the crusade-like passion and thoroughness of the U.S. in such "good and evil" fighting, and he should know there is no draw.
Once the war starts, the U.S. will probably defeat Iraq by the overwhelming military power, such as "conventional" weapons with the destructive power as nuclear weapons (!) and high-tech weapons which enable pinpoint attacks from far beyond.
In 1453, the last Byzantine emperor, Constantine XI, himself fighting with a sword, disappeared in the overwhelming numbers of Osman soldiers who rushed in an impregnable rampart. Nobody found what was the last for him. Saddam may be just desiring the end such as this emperor. Or he mgiht be wishing "honorable death" like King Theoden in "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers". So, both the U.S. and Iraq look as if they were playing the "good and evil" war in a fantasy.
Several months after the fall of Constantinople, the news was delivered to Europe by the ship. Although it was expected to happen some time in the future, this news gave a deep impact to the people. Probably, the fall of Baghdad will be delivered to the whole world in a minute, and it will be understood as a matter of natural conclusion. However, several months after the war, it can happen that people will be surprised with the cost of the peace-keeping in Iraq. Or people may be facing the insecure world that the precedent of the pre-emptive strike without the U.N. resolution brings.
At the end of "The Two Towers", Gandalf says, "The battle of Helm's Deep is over. The battle for Middle Earth is about to begin."
(18/March/2003)
Le Dernier Qui A Parlé...
In 1991, Amina won the Eurovision Contest, singing Le Dernier Qui A Parlé. Amina was born in Tunisia, and raised in France. 
She was the first North African who represented France. In the year of the "first" Gulf War, she represented Arabic people in France! It was a cultural and political incident.
This song is truly absorbing and fascinating. It is a seamless mixture of North African, Arabic and French music. It starts from the point not very far from French chanson, then it gradually breaks into the Arabic chant. Her vocal is very expressive under the perfect voice control. It really thrills me. (I have to write the review about Amina some day...)
As for the lyrics, I've been thinking it is a kind of love song or lost love song, just guessing from the title. Recently, I got the French lyrics of the song, and I realized that it had a political message. (Please use this for online-translation service.)
"C'est le dernier qui a parlé qui a raison dans ta maison / C'est celle qui m'a donné un nom qui a raison de toute façon / Fille ou garçon, tout ces dictons sont des leçons, ne dis pas non / Le monde n'est ni mauvais ni bon, tu ne tournes pas rond, c'est sans raison "
The last one to speak has a reason in your house... I am not sure about my French. But this seems to be a very accurate description of the present situation!
The last one might has his reason to do something. His reason might be understood in his house, but his reason may be without REASON.
(20/March/2003)
Like An Ancient War In China
Colin Powell made it the fundamental strategy of the war to limit the war purpose clearly, and to use overwhelming military power in order to attain the purpose certainly and quickly. This so-called Powell doctrine was the lesson learned from the stagnated Vietnam War, and had its origin in the rationalism of Clausewitz. The war is to attain a political purpose which is possible to attain rationally by the war.
However, it seems that the Powell doctrine is losing its power in the Bush Jr. Administration. When Gen. Franks proposed the first plan to deploy 500,000 soldiers to the Iraq war, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld criticized that the plan lacked the imagination. About 300,000 military power was deployed in the Gulf War to liberalize Kuwait. Even though the Iraqi military power has been much weakened and the high-tech weapons of the U.S. has improved since the Gulf war, Iraq is 25 times larger than Kuwait. The first plan might lack the imagination, but it was a natural conclusion of ordinary people. So, to make it possible to win the war with 250,000 soldiers, the strategy of "shock and awe" was employed. This "imaginative" and exotic strategy is told to be coming from the military tactics of Sun-tzu of ancient China. It is designed to make the enemy's will lose before fighting by showing the overwhelming military strength, and to win the war without fighting seriously.
At this moment, "shock and awe" strategy does not seem to have great effect. The Iraq soldiers have not surrendered as many as expected. Moreover, there is no anti-Saddam movement in Iraq, and there is no welcome for the U.S. Forces as a liberation army. Because the Iraqi people has experienced the battle against Saddam after the Gulf war and had been oppressed severely, it may be too fast to conclude the strategy was a failure. Nevertheless, at least, I can say that the U.S. does not have any kind of legitimacy of the war yet. There seems to be the mismatching of the strategy of "shock and awe" and "liberation army". As discussed before, this Iraq war is a "war of aggression" which is a violation of international law. In order to justify this illegitimate war, it should be regarded as "humanitarian intervention". Therefore, the U.S. Forces need to be welcomed by the Iraqi people. But, by making "shock and awe" with extensive bombing of Baghdad, the U.S.raised the hostility of the Iraqi people. They regard the U.S. as an outlaw invader, and they are fighting to protect their homeland, not to protect Saddam regime.This war is recognized as a "war of aggression" by the Iraqi people as well as international law specialists.
Sun-tzu was the thorough rationalist like Clausewitz. He emphasized that the enemy's force should be calculated correctly in advance, and that pre-war strategy should be taken in order to win naturally. And in the actual battle field, conventional plan and cunning plan should be mixed, but usually conventional plan should be taken. Rumsfeld may study only cunning plan from Sun-tzu to win without battle, and may not have learned the rationalism.
The U.S. Forces advanced rapidly inside of Iraq, but the supply route extended too long to maintain. And the battle has stopped because of the sandstorm. I wrote; "The Iraq war is just an old war with new weapons, not a new war against the terrorism". Now, the war almost looks like an ancient war in China. There are many examples like this situation in "Romance of the Three Kingdoms". Chasing the "weak" enemy too far, the troops were surrounded by the main force of the enemy in a strange landscape etc. Now, Rumsfeld may be changing his strategy. He slows down the speed of the battle, and tries to surround Baghdad for a long time. Saddam is using his people as a human fortress. Thus, the Chinese ancient war continues...
The Iraq war shows many aspects of an ancient war in its naked violence nature before modern international law and its tactics in battlefields. In a short term tactical side, Saddam may be winning. And he may be winning strategically in psychological side and propaganda. I still doubt if Saddam is truly alive. The image of television may be the video taken in advance. Or it may be the Saddam's double. It reminds me of Shingen Takeda (1521-73). After the death of Shingen, the double played his role so that the enemy would not realize the death of the leader. Incidentally Shingen is regarded as the greatest strategist of Sun-tzu's school in Japan.
(29/March/2003)
Political Calculation of Human Lives
The images of people in Baghdad parading with joy of liberation. The images of falling statue of Saddam Hussein. Some are even shouting, "USA!!!", and welcoming the U.S. Forces. (There are also images of anarchic chaos in Baghdad. People start to steal things from the shops and the "ex"-government.) They insist that the Hussein regime is finished. Considerably, Saddam himself might be finished, too.
We still remember that thousands of Iraqi soldiers were killed in the battle over Baghdad. It was reported as "hell on the earth". It was several days ago. (I can't watch TV news. It makes me sick. I only read news on papers and web.) The winner of "war of aggression" starts to justify his behavior with these images of liberation? Do we have to reject these images as a political propaganda? Or finally Iraqi people are liberated from the evil domination of Saddam? Like many people who opposed to the war, I have to see these images with complex feelings, bitterness and joy. Is this a good conclusion for Iraqi people in the end? If the end is good, can the means be justified? If so, how many deaths can be justified? Here come the political and moral questions:
How many deaths can we tolerate in the future terrorist attack like 9.11?
How many Iraqi people's deaths by Hussein regime can we tolerate?
How many American soldiers' deaths can we tolerate to liberate Iraq from the evil Hussein regime?
How many Iraqi soldiers' deaths can we tolerate for the same purpose?
How many "collateral" deaths of citizens can we tolerate for the bombing of the military target of Iraq? Or bombing on Saddam himself?
These questions should be the questions that Bush government must have thought over and over, and they must have their own answers to the questions. These political calculations of human lives are very unpleasant, and against morals. "NO WAR, NO DEATH" is the only possible moral answer to the questions. But, if Saddam had started to kill thousands of people, can we tolerate it? How about ten thousands? How about millions? Can we still say that war is not the answer ? Thus, even when searching for the moral pacifism, we have to face the political calculation of human lives. Idealistically, as John Lennon sang, "War is over if you want it." But if there is a person who doesn't want it, the war is not over. And in reality, there were and are people like Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein.
In 1977, Japanese government released imprisoned terrorists, based on the demands of terrorist hijackers. The prime minister Takeo Fukuda said, "one human live is heavier than the earth." This sounds morally right. But, considering that the released terrorists would kill many people, it is a very questionable decision.
Bob Dylan used to sing (It may be too common quotation, but it doesn't matter a lot to be stylish now) ;
Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
(Blowin' in the Wind 1963)
When Dylan sang Blowin' in the Wind, he was questioning when "he" knows that too many people have died. This means that Dylan assumed that "we" already "knew" it. I still believe that the Iraq war is illegitimate, irrational, immoral, and unnecessary, and I know too many have died in the war. But I still don't have the answers to the moral dilemma of the calculation. "The answer is blowin' in the wind."
(9/April/2003)
Iraq Mystery
No WMD found in Iraq. Again, the discussion about the legitimacy of the war starts. However, whether there is WMD found or not, the Iraq War was illegitimate. This was my opinion, and still it is. It is an illegitimate war of aggression because there is no UN resolution. And it made the precedent of preemptive attack. Thus, the lessons we learned from the two world wars were lost.
The most crucial question might not be if the WMD existed or not in Iraq. It is rather, Based on what kind of information, did Bush administration believe its existence? I am not sure what kind of decision making and bureaucratic process was proceeded, but I feel there is a strong preoccupation about Iraq. According to "Bush at War" (2002) by Bob Woodward, just after 9.11, people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld started discussing there must be a connection with Iraq in terrorist attack on New York and D.C., and Rumsfeld argued strongly the war against Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Anway, if there was a process of making-up, Bush will be falling from the power. I hope Woodward or someone will write the inside process of the Iraq war soon.
The decision making process of the Bush government will be written sooner or later by someone. But it is likely that the decision making process of Iraq will be left unknown. There are many mysteries in Iraq decision making process on the war.
A. Was there really WMD in Iraq or not. If it did not exist, when and why they destroyed? Or UN inspection destroyed it all?
B. If there was no WMD, why Iraq did not accept full inspection? Or why didn't they try to prove seriously that there is no such thing?
C. After Iraq war started, why didn't they destroy the bridges or main roads to Baghdad? It would surely delay the process of the US troops deployment.
D. There was a big chance for Iraq when the supply route of the U.S. troops extended too long. Why didn't they attack seriously the supply route? In order to do that, some of the main forces of Iraq should be there instead of protecting Baghdad. Why didn't they do that?
E. Why main forces around Baghdad didn't fight seriously against the U.S.?
F. Why didn't they use WMD if they ever had it?
My imaginary answers to these questions are:
The UN inspection destroyed most of WMD. Some of WMD was kept secret, but it lost its effectiveness through years. And Iraq could not reproduce them. But Saddam felt the need for deterrence against the US and Iran etc. So, he had to keep them believing that WMD existed. And he misunderstood the willingness of the US when seeing the discussion in the UN. When the situation got so severe and the war seemed inevitable, he had no choice of escaping from it. He felt he couldn't control his people if he showed his weakness. When the war started, he already lost his control on his troops, and he couldn't fight effectively and systemically. And some of his important military people betrayed him by bribery.
But why didn't he flee before the war? We will never know. The decision making process of such a leader is very mysterious. And the decision making under misunderstanding and misperception brings such a destructive result. As I wrote before, we need a clear language to communicate, not weapons to communicate tacitly.
(14/June/2003)
The Deserts in the Net
Two sons of Saddam dead. But, no WMD or Saddam found yet. They were lost somewhere in the desert of Iraq. Or we start wondering if they ever existed. (I mean Saddam might have been dead for some years. )
It is a great wonder that the US cannot find the people like Saddam, Osama Bin Ladin , Ayman al-Zawahiri, even though they are desperately searching for them after their winning war. There must be still a place where the power and technology of the U.S. cannot reach in the world. It may be somewhere in the desert, the caves or tribal village where the modern communication is disconnected. Or it can be in the heart of the big cities, even in the Western world.
This reminds me again of Bruce Sterling's Islands in the Net. Like Sterling showed in the novel, there are places where modern network system doesn't cover. They are out of network, and they are also connected with net in their own ways.
They are connected with the modern network because they are using these system efficiently. They are using internet communication, they are using financial system, or market trade system, or media, of course air communication system. They are using them in a negative way, and they are still out of system. And we can say , including these deserts in the net, this is our world system today... This vision is not what the Bush administration doesn't want to admit.
(14/August/2003)
Building Democracy in The Desert
Postwar Iraq faces many difficulties. The casualties of the U.S. soldier in the postwar period are more than the Iraq war. Establishing peace and democracy to Iraq is far difficult missions rather than winning the Iraq war. It was very predictable in advance. I have pointed out the difficulty of the postwar, and the senselessness of applying a success of postwar experience in Japan to Iraq. But, I haven't discussed very much about the reason. It was because the reason was obvious, at least for me. However, it may not be meaningless to add a certain comment because the U.S. started the war with regarding the postwar problem was not this great, and now they are facing with difficulty in reality.
Like many Middle Eastern and African countries, Iraq is the country artificially formed in the imperialism time. It is on the basis of dangerous balance of religious, racial and tribal varieties. Moreover, it is in the geographically important position, close with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel. Of course, it is also very important country in the deposits of petroleum resources. With such features, Iraq is very important on an Middle Eastern security, and this international strain relation makes it often difficult to maintain internal stability of the state. Although the inhumane dictatorial political power of Saddam was not justifiable, it could be better than the vacuum state of power. It held down difficult balance according to power politically. Hope for democracy or freedom was not enough for Iraqi people to bring them a peace they need. The United States might open Pandora's box. The Vietnam-stalemate is being suggested. But it will be rather a barren desert of Iraq. When the U.S. was fighting with the Vietnam nationalism which called itself a socialist revolution in Vietnam, the U.S. is fighting with the anarchism which calls itself nationalism in Iraq.
Democracy is a system which plural senses of values live together and produces solution out of talks. I think that democracy is a universal value because there is no better substitution thinkable. However, solving in talks of people of a different sense of values is a system which requires very long-term national study. Democracy may require the existence of homogeneous people who share a sense of values to some extent, in the first stage at least. For example, democracy cannot determine which is right between the Bible and the Koran. Although democracy makes majority a final determination principle, the religion and personal belief are placed out of its determination principle. This is so-called "separation of religion and politics" or "the freedom of faith", one of the democratic principles. But it is contradictory to the principle of majority. Religion, asking for making politics, life of an individual, and faith into the same thing, is not restricted to Islamic fundamentalism, but it is being able to find out very often. In order to make democracy workable, members have to share the almost same religious principle, or it must carry out whether religion is clearly separated from politics as a problem of an individual belief. Considering this feature of democracy, it is very difficult missions to establish the democracy in religiously and culturally plural Iraq. Maybe some kind of national identity that make people gather into one is required to make democracy work in Iraq.
I think that the difficulty of the postwar Iraq becomes clearer in comparison with the postwar period of Japan which was occupied by the United States. When the United States experienced the ghastly ground war in Okinawa, it expected a huge U.S. soldier's damage when it became the ground war of a Japanese mainland. For this reason, the atomic bombs were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the large-scale ground war was avoided by surrender of Japan. However, since Japanese people were educated so that even one last person would fight with bamboo weapon, the guerrilla war might have continued against the U.S. occupation. In reality, the U.S. Forces were pleasantly greeted as a liberation army, and democracy and the peace constitution were accepted enthusiastically. And, in even after sovereignty recovery, Japan did not return to militarism. What made this great success for the United States occupation? I think that three factors were important.
A. Continuation of the Emperor as a national identity
It was the biggest subject for U.S. occupation forces how the Emperor's war responsibility was considered. Most Americans thought that the Emperor had the responsibility for the war. It is natural to think that he had a responsibility, even if it was the plan of the military authorities; if it was possible for him to make the decision to end war, it was also possible for him to stop starting war. (Actually, the recent studies say that the Emperor was participating deeply in decision-making of a war start.) However,the U.S occupation Forces decided not to pursue the Emperor's war responsibility in an early stage of its occupation. This was because the U.S. Forces strongly wished that its occupation could be performed stably. In order to carry out the demilitarization of Japan certainly and to lose a resistance movement to the U.S. Forces, it should be carried out in the Emperor's name. In this way, the United States used the Emperor politically. And also the leaders of Japan were considering that the continuation of the Emperor was the biggest subject. In this way, the secret complicity relation was built between leaders of Japan and the U.S. Forces. Existence of the Emperor gave the Japanese continuation of a national identity. The Japanese who lost all by war were still able to have the symbol of national unification called the Emperor. Even though the Emperor was no longer God as before, he often went among people frequently, and carried a new symbol of peace and democracy.
B. Continuation of the bureaucratic system
Although the military authorities of Japan were thoroughly disassembled, bureaucracy, having managed the war regime of Japan in planned economy, was left intact. GHQ utilized them as a means of governing Japan succeedingly. The bureaucrat system from prewar days was even strengthened as the management tool of GHQ. This bureaucratic system worked mostly very efficiently in realizing GHQ's orders, though they sometimes performed to protect a former-system. The United States was contradictory a little in using the bureaucrat system of prewar days in order to introduce liberalism and democracy into Japan. But it was the most efficient method for them. (After the occupation, they were left strong and they worked effectively in economic development of Japan. They became the causes of the success and today's stagnation of Japan.)
C. The national feeling of war-weariness
Although Japan started war with the United States in 1941, it had been in the state of war for 15 years since the Manchurian Incident in 1931. In 1945, they were strengthening a feeling of war-weariness secretly by air strikes of a repeated mainland. It was atomic bomb dropping to Hiroshima and Nagasaki that made this sentiment decisive. Japanese people absolutely tasted a feeling of defeat. The national sentiment produced by this atomic bomb dropping was not the hate to the United States, but it was a hate for the military authorities which began such a reckless war. Such feeling was strengthened by the report of the war crimes in the oversea land of the hidden Japanese army during wartime. They gradually accepted the tragedy as a tragedy to human-being of the contemporary world. And they strongly desire to peace. Thus, the Japanese people searched for peace and democracy strongly, and accepted enthusiastically the U.S. Forces as a liberation army. At the beginning, it was partly because the Emperor told people to accept the U.S. Forces. But eventually Japanese people loved the U.S. Forces for giving them chocolate and chewing gum. And Japanese people even started to love Gen. MacArthur more than the Emperor.
Japan is a homogeneous society not like Iraq. Moreover, Japanese people were able to hold national identity, bureaucratic system, and national sentiment to make democracy workable. In Iraq these conditions cannot be seen. Considering that exclusion of Saddam and the Baath Party was the war purpose, there is no room for the existence of A and B in Iraq. Even though people tasted the feeling of defeat which is equal to atomic bomb dropping by the "shock and awe" strategy, they are not in the condition of searching for democracy with forgetting who dropped bombs.
Some pacifists claim, "Since it is a problem that the United States starts an unjust war and continues unjust occupation, the conditions of the Iraq peace is that the United States withdraws immediately." I agree that the war by the United States is unjust, but the withdrawal in the time of now may only cause more confusion. It will be much more desirable that the post-war regime of Iraq was controlled by multi-national agreement, such as peace maintenance in the framework of the United Nations. However, unfortunately, the terrorism of Iraq is going also to the United Nations. The U.N. personnel containing United Nations secretary general's special representative were killed by terrorism. Maybe, the most required thing for Iraq is the leader from Iraq who can, first of all, recover the national identity of people. If such potential leaders had been all killed during the Hussein Administration, the hope for the peace in Iraq would be a very long and tough way forward.
(23/August/2003)
Anarchy in Iraq
I haven't mentioned about Iraq for more than a half year. Many things happened since the last time I wrote about Iraq. But nothing has really changed since I wrote about the difficulty of building democracy in Iraq. And it may have not been changed since I wrote about the post-war before the war. This dis-encouraged me to write something more about Iraq, and still it does.
Though I anticipated the anarchy in the post-war Iraq more or less, I thought it would be getting better through time. When Saddam was arrested, there was a little hope for a gradual peace; Iraqi people could finally be sure that he would not return. But things got worse since then. Attacks on the U.S. army increased, and there are many hostages of many countries including civilian people.
If there was a change, the nationalism in Iraq may have been growing as an anti-American sentiment. I used to think feeling of nationalism in Iraq was weak because Saddam destroyed the nation. I thought there was only an anarchic chaos made of various religious and racial plurality.
The rise of nationalism in Iraq may be the problem for the U.S., if they want to control Iraq. But it may be a good sign, too. If there really is a nationalism instead of anarchism, this is a chance for the U.S. to end the unpopular war without losing honor. The U.S. changed the policy over Iraq. Now, they are trying to co-operate with the U.N.. Though it was a late decision, I hope it was not too late, and it will work better.
Iraq nationalism, which is now fighting against the U.S. occupation, can be a hope for the future stability of Iraq. This is only a hypothesis. Iraqi people seem to be against the U.S. occupation, but they might be against it because it failed to build the security. Or, nationalism may be just a power game of the sects to achive the people support before the transfer of the power to Iraqi people. If the U.S. army go back to their country, we cannot tell what will happen. At this moment, there is a strong possibility that the civil war like Lebanon might happen. And Iraq will become the home for Al Kaeda. I insisted that the Iraq War was an irrational and ilegitimate war. However, it happened unfortunately, and it ended the Saddam's domination. The international helps will still be needed in order to keep the safty of the society. Particularly, the U.S. has a responsibility to it. But it is mainly an Iraqi people's responsibility to build the peace in their country, instead of fighting each others.
P.S.
There have been a lot of confusion in Japan about Japanese hostages in Iraq. While there were a lot of sympathies to hostages and their families, there were also the antipathies to them. Some even doubt the kidnapping can be the fake made by hostages or Japanese leftist organization. When I saw the statements of kidnappers, I also had a feelings that they could been written by the Japanese. It seemed to be the ideas that Japanese leftist people were likely to think. Maybe, it was not a fake after all. But, at least, it really "looked" like a fake.
When the real world looks like the movie, the fakeness of the event may be inevitable. For example, the attack of WTC or the war in Afganistan and Iraq looked like Hollywood movies. And the real fall of WTC surely influenced the scene of the fall of Barad-dur in The Return of the King. There are dark relations of reality and movies shared by the U.S. government and Al Kaeda. As for the Japanese hostage problem, the event seemed to be the reflection of Japanese people's idea about international conflicts. And I have to say the event reflected the Japanese TV news shows, which tend to be very easy-going, and sometimes even make up a fake.
(17/April/2003)
The Speech of Bin Ladin
I have sometimes mentioned about the similarity of Bin Ladin and the president Bush in their fantasy of the war of good and evil, and in their Hollywood-like visions. As Osama Bin Ladin made a "Western" speech, their similarity became clearer to everyone.
According to the news reports, Bin Ladin spoke like a Western politician not like an Islam fundamentalism terrorist leader. He did not have a gun beside him, he did not talk much in an Islamic context, he talked in a plain tone, with referring to his private experience. And he explained the reason of his struggle against the U.S.. He explained about the reason of his attack on WTC. He mentioned about the Israel's attack on Lebanon. When he saw the buildings breaking down in Labanon, the same thing should happen to the U.S..
All these things make us think how they are alike. The reason of Ladin's struggle does not sound rational, but it is very similar to the Bush's reason of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because Al Kaeda attacked WTC, the U.S. attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. When he used the word, "security", the most unlikely word that we expect to hear from the terrorist, his speech became the perfect caricature of the American president. The speech of Ladin is well designed to make American people think this.
When Ladin mentioned about "security", it reminds us of his relationship with the U.S.; Ladin was fighting against the Soviet in Afghanistan with the financial support from the U.S.. Ladin changed his attitude to the U.S. after the U.S. forces stationed in Saudi Arabia. So, Ladin's principle can be simple like" no heathen forces in Islam country". If his reason is simple like that, there even seems to be a way to build a peace; the U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia may not be necessary for the U.S. in a long term because Sadam has gone.
The "fact" that there was a reason of terrorism itself makes us surprise. We tend to think the terrorists are fighting against the U.S. without reasons; they just hate the U.S.. We did not think that they have reasons or objectives to be achieved by the terrorist attacks. We thought the terrorist attacks are aiming terror itself. The speech makes us think, "Do people die just for making people terrified. They must have reasons to die for." So, the speech makes us think about the alternative of no terrorism world. Of course, it must be a sweet fantasy.
I don't know what Ladin really intended to suggest in his speech. It was a well-made speech after all, and it may have more powerful influence on the presidential election than terrorist attacks. The words are mightier than the sword...
(31/October/2003)