Japan has had one miserable year. First they get beaten up by their neighbors, Korea and China, over controversial school textbooks, territorial disputes, and shrine visits. Then they get told to get stuffed over whale hunting. Now they get rebuked at the UN —analysts say that a permanent seat is now practically impossible without the African Union’s support. And yesterday afternoon, PM Koizumi’s pet project, privatization of the national post office, failed to pass the uppper house. Unexpectedly large numbers of the Prime Minister’s own party, the Liberal Democrats (LDP), voted against the bill, forcing Prime Minister Koizumi to come through on a threat to disolve the house and call an election. Perhaps he will finally come through on his initial election promise in 2001: “I will destroy the LDP.”*
I’m a big supporter of Koizumi and Japan’s perpetual majority party, the Liberal Democrats (LDP). The party is a center-right frankenstein consisting of everything from free market reformists to old-school conservatives, with my support firmly with the former. I hope, and think, that Koizumi is pulling a gamble that will pay off. But many of his supporters have called the move practically suicidal.
Analysts at Morgan Stanley, who have been pretty bullish on Japan for the past few months, issued this gloomy report:
What’s New
The Upper House rejected PM Koizumi’s postal reform bills by a large margin. This result was contrary to my expectations, and a surprise to political pundits, relative to their opinions as recently as last Friday.Conclusion
Rejection of the bills implies a long period of policy gridlock. This gridlock will occur regardless of who wins any Lower House election.Market Implications
Gridlock will be bad for bond, stocks, and the yen.Risks
Politics are inherently uncertain. However, the fragmentation of the political world (particularly the Upper House) makes positive scenarios harder to achieve.
Oh yeah, want to know when that new election is? September 11th.
*= Softened to “Change the LDP, Change Japan” on campaign posters.

Comments to this entry
Younghusband
August 9, 2005
5:51 am
bq. This week, the momentum for a bigger, more representative council got a vital new fillip when the four countries pressing for permanent seats"”?Japan, India, Brazil and Germany"”?clinched an agreement with the 53-member African Union (AU) to present a joint resolution on expansion to the General Assembly, thereby greatly increasing its chances of success.
Saru
August 9, 2005
12:15 pm
It's back to destroy now. All the news reports I read yesterday (so I'm sure it's all over the news there) have him telling people:
Ã¥Â?¤ãÂ?”žÃ¨”¡ÂªÃ¦Â°”˜Ã¥”¦Å¡Ã£”š'ãÂ?¶ãÂ?£å£ŠãÂ?—ãÂ?¦ã€Â?攓°ãÂ?—ãÂ?”žÃ¦”?¹éÂ?©ã”š'進ã€Â?Ã¥”ºÂ½Ã¦Â°”˜Ã£Â?®å¹¸ãÂ?”ºÃ£”š'考ãÂ?ˆã”š”¹Ã¦”“°ç”?Ÿè”¡ÂªÃ¦Â°”˜Ã¥”¦Å¡Ã£”š'作㔚”¹Ã£â‚¬”š
I think he means smash the Hashimoto Faction, and if the party comes down with it, so be it.
Still, I think my favorite quote out of all this so far is Koizumi responding to Mori's requests not to dissolve the house with:
殺ãÂ?”¢Ã£”šÅ’ãÂ?¦ã”š”šÃ£Â?”žÃ£Â?”žÃ£â‚¬”šÃ£Â?Šã”šÅ’ãÂ?¯ç·Â?çÂ?” 大蔡£ãÂ? ã€”š
What a hard ass!
Saru
August 9, 2005
12:16 pm
IJ
August 9, 2005
1:59 pm
This "link":http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2005/08/09/sanders.shtml tells of latest developments on UN reform.
"Japan also wants a permanent seat. Again its claim is its economic power and the fact that its contribution of 19.5% of the UN budget is second only to the US (22%). The US does support Japan, but significantly China vehemently opposes it."
Interestingly the link suggests that the UN's key economic committee, ECOSOC, should be replaced by an 'Economic Security Council'. This might go some way to answering the criticisms of the IMF, from China and Russia among others. A trade off?
Dan
August 10, 2005
12:07 am
Two Cents
August 10, 2005
7:21 am
IJ
August 10, 2005
8:39 am
It seems that Japan will get a permanent seat at the UNSC, if China (and others) can be convinced that the UN will become more effective in the process.
The replacement of ECOSOC by an 'Economic Security Council' many think is a necessary step forward. Chapter IX of the UN Charter deals with ' INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CO-OPERATION'. In Article 58: "The Organization shall make recommendations for the co-ordination of the policies and activities of the specialized agencies."
The IMF is a special agency of the United Nations. I see that Russia is tabling energy security for discussion when it hosts the G8 in 2006 - the present economic arrangements may need changing. And this is only one matter that is attracting attention.