Yukiya Amano, a Japanese diplomat and long-time government specialist in arms control and nuclear nonproliferation, has been elected to be the next director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The end of three terms of Mohamed ElBaradei is an important change in itself. Yet I am intrigued by the potential effects of Amano’s nationality on nuclear nonproliferation over the next few years.

This news just broke, so the following is entirely speculation. I would like to start with the Japanese domestic perception, and work my way out.

The election was close, and has been somewhat followed in the Japanese media. The gaining of such a prestigious international security position will be welcome news for the Japanese politicians and pundits that have been longing for the elusive UN security council seat since the early 1990’s. Despite Amano’s internationalist CV and absolutely no indications suggesting Amano will use his position for the gain of the Japanese state, I am sure Japanese nationalists will be ecstatic that one of their nationals will be in a position to put pressure on North Korea. This will not work in Amano’s favour.

Amano is a professional diplomat that has been active on the international scene for many years. He is well-versed in in disarmament issues and was previously the Chair of the Board of Governors for the IAEA (2005-2006). Amano is a professional diplomat that has been active on the international scene for many years. Such nationalist maneuvering is below his integrity, I am sure. Yet wait to see how fast the KCNA paints Amano as a “Japanese reactionary” and accuses the UN of being a “bourgeois beast”. “We will thwart your frantic attempts to stifle us!” (or some such other insult as per the generator).

It will also be interesting to see how China will react to this news. Will China’s hatred of all things Japanese prod it to be more protective of the Hermit Kingdom? With the Norks launching more missiles again today, I can’t see China’s patience lasting much longer. But they still must keep their distance from Japan.

As for Iran, going by my minor experience in the country, the Japanese are well respected there. Japan has close energy relations with Iran. Throughout the 1990’s Japan hosted thousands of Iranian migrant workers. Furthermore, Japan has maintained active cultural exchanges with the Iranians over the years. This close relationship has prevented the Japanese administration from speaking out on the current uprisings in Iran so far. All this in contrast to the Islamic Egyptian ElBaradei. The Japanese, who have never had any imperial ambitions on Persia, and who are not “People of the Book”, are the ultimate neutral arbiters. Being Japanese, Amano might represent a clean break with the past. Back in 2006 foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki asked Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi for Japanese participation in Iran’s nuclear power plants. A year before that I argued that Japan is well-positioned to engage with Iran.

Ideally the nationality of a representative of an international organization such as the IAEA should not be relevant. However this is not an ideal world. During Amano’s term as DG, we may see the effects of nationalism preventing progress on the Korean peninsula while simultaneously contributing to a breakthrough in the Middle East.

Michael Totten, whose Iran coverage I have been following at both his site and at Commentary, recently had a conversation with Robert D. Kaplan, the patron saint of our endeavour here at ComingAnarchy.com. Kaplan gives a geopolitical tour of The East, discussing why the Chinese won the war in Sri Lanka, land powers vs. sea powers, Russia’s aching need for Ukraine, Bush’s failure in Georgia, Baku, Bulgaria, “the soft power of Persian culture”, AfPak, McChrystal = Petraeus, and of course the upcoming book on the Indian Ocean where much of the juicy bits of the interview are. For example, I love the ironic line:

Piracy is an indication that things are good, in a way.

You will recognize much of this from Kaplan’s articles and books, but it is interesting to see it in a conversational form. Totten’s is a great post. I have just one thing to say to Mr. Totten: get ready to be branded a narrowminded Kaplan fanboi by the haters. And also: welcome to the club.

H/T to Kirk Sowell for sending this in.

ADDENDUM: More from Kap on the Sri Lankan war. H/T to the Chief.

DoD Announces New Defense Policy Board Members:

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates today announced the following new members to the Defense Policy Board: Gen. (Ret) Larry Welch, former Air Force chief of staff ; Stephen Biddle, Council on Foreign Relations; Richard Danzig, former secretary of the Navy; Robert Gallucci, former assistant secretary of state; Chuck Hagel, former senator from Nebraska; Robert D. Kaplan, Center for a New American Security; Andrew Krepinevich, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; Rudy deLeon, former deputy secretary of defense; John Nagl, Center for a New American Security; Sarah Sewall, Harvard University; Wendy Sherman, former special advisor to the President.

These members join the following returning members: John Hamre, chairman; Harold Brown; Adm. (Ret) Vern Clark; J.D. Crouch; Fred Ikle; Gen. (Ret) Jack Keane; Henry Kissinger; Dave McCurdy; Frank Miller; William Perry; James Schlesinger; Marin Strmecki; Vin Weber; Gen. (Ret) Pete Pace.

Via SWJ via Simlaughter

Via @Durf. See the whole set.

Says Industry, Science and Technology Critic Marc Garneau

The issue of net neutrality is a global one. Internet management should be neutral and not be permitted for anti-competitive behaviour nor should it target certain websites, users, providers or legitimate software applications. We must protect the openness and freedom of the internet, and maintain competition to spur innovation, improve service levels and reduce costs to users.

Positive development in a country which has a very active media censorship bureaucracy. Net neutrality has been part of the Green Party platform since 2007. The NDP followed in 2008. Now only the Conservatives (and of course the People’s Political Power of Canada and other nutcase parties) are lagging behind. For the sake of my fellow countrymen who suffer terribly at the hands of the communications monopoly, I hope the Conservatives cave sooner rather than later.

Net neutrality and digital copyright management has become a greater topic of concern in Canada over the past couple of years. See Michael Geist’s site for more information.

Internet funny man Ze Frank recently got a mainstream gig at Time. His latest video talks about what it means to go green during the #iranelection. Check it out:

Also, I leave you with this amusing comic from John Cole of the Times Tribune (via laughing squid):

In my last post on the Iranian elections I asked:

[W]hat is going on in the countryside? Because it is those people that got Ahmadinejad elected in the first place. Are they rioting?

@Mutantfroginc linked to this article by Eric Hooglund, author of a recent article in MERIP entitled “Thirty Years of Islamic Revolution in Rural Iran”. He mulls over the following:

Is it possible that rural Iran, where less than 35 percent of the country’s population lives, provided Ahmadinejad the 63 percent of the vote he claims to have won? That would contradict my own research in Iran’s villages over the past 30 years, including just recently. I do not carry out research in Iran’s cities, as do foreign reporters who otherwise live in the metropolises of Europe and North America, and so I wonder how they can make such bold assertions about the allegedly extensive rural support for Ahmadinejad.

I guess I have been called out. However, the article does not provide any hard numbers, and furthermore, the scope is only around Shiraz — a city where your correspondent was once lost alone with only three American dollars to his name. But the viewpoint is based on the experience of a longtime researcher (I’ll have to read his full article in MERIP) and provides some insight into the rural perspective and the issue at the heart of the protests, which some may be surprised has nothing to do with building better relations with the West. Summed up:

[The] political elite is divided over how Iran should be governed: a transparent democracy where elected representatives enact laws to benefit the people or a ‘guided democracy’ in which a select few make all decisions because they do not trust the masses to make the right ones. This astute political insight is one that is prevalent in Iran but seems to have escaped the notice of the Western reporters who are trying to explain Iran’s political crisis with resort to simplistic stereotypes.

This via shloky on Twitter. I have been following it closely for the past couple of days. There is lots going on under the #iranelection hashtag. I am glad Twitter rescheduled its maintenance so as not to stifle news coming out of Iran.

I am still waiting for some solid evidence of election thievery. Speculation based on feelings in the urban centers of Iran have failed western analysts so many times over the past 30 years. Tehran would have erupted even if Ahmadinejad’s results were the same. It is a positive sign that protests have made it out to other places such as Esfahan and Masshad. But I have to ask: what is going on in the countryside? Because it is those people that got Ahmadinejad elected in the first place. Are they rioting?

Nothing seems to have come from the leaked memo showing Ahmadinejad coming in third place. However, we are beyond that now. I think the protests have taken on a different theme. This is no longer about elections and has become about repression. The protests have become a reaction to a police-state crackdown.

Enough rambling. Just would like to say I hope my friends in Tehran and up north are doing well.

Addendum: (2009-06-16 18:14 PM) The BBC reports that Iran’s Guardian Council says it is ready to recount disputed votes.

Addendum 2: (2009-06-16 21:12 PM) fivethirtyeight.com has loads of indepth analysis of Iranian election numbers throughout the past. Nate Silver reflects my skepticism in an interview with Threat Level:

I would characterize the statistics as ambiguous. But there certainly is not a smoking gun as far as what I’ve found.

Shrinking glaciers are not only heating up relations in the Arctic, with countries competing for control over maritime passageways or undersea natural resources, these victims of global warming are also kindling tension on land by forcing Europe to redraw its borders. The line of demarcation between Italy and Switzerland has been defined by the ridge crest of glaciers in the Alps by convention since 1941. This crest is changing, requiring a new criterion for demarcation.

Luckily this is not likely to cause conflict — diplomatic or otherwise — between these two European countries. However, one might not be so confidant that a peaceful resolution lies under the ice for less friendly nations. The border between Pakistan and China is already a vague, frozen zone. What about the snowy boundaries of Kashmir or Nepal? Fortunately we have GPS technology which can solidify border agreements between nations without relying on “patriotic rocks”. Countries whose borders may be afflicted by the effects of climate change should deploy these solutions soon in joint operations with their neighbours. There is likely to be a bit of cheating if any new resources are found under the ice. Thus, for the sake of peaceful co-existence, GPS demarcation should be established where current borders lie.

[Diagram from Wikipedia]

Scientific American publishes a puff piece on human warfare in the article Taming Humanity’s Urge to War. On one hand SA seems to take a biological approach, but then muddies the water with the question: “Must lethal conflict be an inevitable part of human culture?”

Is war biological or cultural? No answer is given in the SA article which features a wide range of “causes of warfare” as given by researchers from the University of Utah conference The Evolution of Human Aggression: Lessons for Today’s Conflicts. For those that have studied political science and warfare, this article is simply a roundup of undergrad level polisci issues: Power Disparity, Polarity, Economic Interdependence, Prospect Theory and Resource Warfare (both due to population booms and climate change). Though the article fails to impress, it is nice to see the psychologists, biologists and anthropologists address issues usually relegated to the Humanities Department.