Via Marmot:

In his meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo during the APEC summit in Hanoi on Nov. 18, President Roh Moo-hyun proposed that the East Sea (otherwise known as the Sea of Japan) be called instead the “Sea of Peace.”Â?…

According to the source, the Japanese were caught off guard by the suggestion and avoided an immediate reply, saying only that they needed time to think about it.

The comments are worth reading for a good chuckle. Perhaps Japan was asking for it with SDF recruitment videos such as this:

Special thanks to Michael Lotus for pointing to a new Kaplan article in the LA Times.

Arab nationalism’s last gasp
January 7, 2007

JUST AS THE demise of Slobodan Milosevic in Yugoslavia closed the lid on national communist parties in Eastern Europe, the demise of Saddam Hussein in Iraq appears likely to do the same for secular Arab nationalism across the Middle East. And just as communism exited the European stage exposed for what it always truly was — fascism without fascism’s ability to make the trains run on time — secular Arab nationalism will exit the stage revealed for what it always was: a despotic perversion of the western nation-state that lasted as long as it did mainly because of secret-police techniques imported from the former Soviet Union.

Arab nationalism’s roots go back to the revolt against European colonialism in the early decades of the 20th century. But as it developed, it faced a serious problem: Because it was organized around the artificial national borders that these same colonialists had drawn — which generally ignored ethnic and sectarian lines — the result, in too many cases, was multiethnic rivalry and the subjugation of one part of the population by another.

In Iraq, for instance, the national borders created a state in which the majority Shiites were subjugated by the minority Sunnis (as we all now know). In Syria, the majority Sunnis came to be subjugated by the minority Alawites, who constitute a branch of Shiism (and who had been favored in the armed forces by the French). In Lebanon, it was the Shiites who ended up subjugated by both Christians and Sunnis.

Read the rest of this entry »

The answer’s not so simple.

Where is Europe? Via Registan comes this post at A Fistful of Euros, which quotes this article at wikipedia:

The south-east boundary with Asia is not universally defined. Most commonly the Ural or, alternatively, the Emba River serve as possible boundaries. The boundary continues to the Caspian Sea, the crest of the Caucasus Mountains or, alternatively, the Kura River in the Caucasus, and on to the Black Sea”¦ However, numerous geographers consider Azerbaijan’s and Armenia’s southern border with Iran”¦ as the boundary between Asia and Europe because of political and cultural reasons”¦

Due to sociopolitical and cultural differences, there are various descriptions of Europe’s boundary; in some sources, some territories are not included in Europe, while other sources include them. For instance, geographers from Russia and other post-Soviet states generally include the Urals in Europe while including Caucasia in Asia.

The comments are well worth reading, and thought-provoking. As Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU this month, we must wonder how far the EU can expand. Morocco applied to join the European Community in 1987 but was rejected on the grounds that it was not in Europe. Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and even Kazakhstan have expressed varying levels of interest in membership, although none have submitted formal applications and none are expected to in the near future. And we’ve all heard the cartographic arguments against Turkey’s membership.

UPDATE: See also the Copenhagen Criteria definition of Europe, map below:

Kaplan had some nice words about President Ford on the Atlantic’s online edition:

That’s Character
The dignity of Ford’s post-presidency

In all the commentary about Gerald Ford, one aspect of his life that has received little notice, but which I suspect is subconsciously behind a lot of the accolades, was his public role after he left the White House. It was understated to the point of disappearance. Two years ago in a piece about the media in Policy Review, I wrote that it may take long “for the realization to seep in that Ford has been our greatest contemporary ex-president. For in an age of mass media, where divinity is dependent upon being noticed by the crowd and being forgotten is the equivalent of excommunication””?high character is rightly defined by the willingness to embrace obscurity the moment one relinquishes lofty bureaucratic responsibility.”

Not surprisingly, one victim of this compliment to Ford is President Carter, who Kaplan has excoriated on numerous occasions since his first book, Surrender or Starve. Continued:

Indeed, because of the way technology has revolutionized the media, never before in history have all of us been so tempted, and under so much social pressure, to have our opinions in the marketplace. [CZ: Heck, why do you think I blog?] If any former president has been a creature of an age of mass media it has been Jimmy Carter, who for a generation now, cannot seem to go a few weeks without issuing a statement, embarking on a diplomatic initiative, or publishing yet another new book or article. Behind all his undeniable good deeds, this former president seems to have an obsession with being noticed by the crowd. While his diplomatic initiatives have sometimes been well-founded, overall they have complicated rather than helped along the work of sitting presidents, both Democratic and Republican. It is almost as though he has been competing with them, offering an alternative address for foreign dictators who don’t much like White House policy. And yet the more high profile stunts he tries””?and the more books he publishes””?the more devalued he seems to become. Being noticed by the crowd exacts its own law of diminishing returns.

Todd Gitlin at TPM Cafe has this response:

I can’t help wondering if Kaplan and his supporters were all so up in arms when Richard Nixon, during his twenty years of forced retirement, churned out books and op-ed pieces on every foreign policy question under the sun. Or for that matter, when Henry Kissinger did, and does, the same.

Certainly Nixon and Kissinger published numerous books after the end of their political careers. But the difference in their behavior as compared to Carter seems obvious. Both of these men were far more interested in history, and spent their time writing books on diplomacy, history, and promoting their version of the 1960s and 1970s with their memoirs. The closest Nixon got to criticism of, or competition with, the ongoing public polity was in his last book, written and published while Bush I was president, titled Seize the Moment: America’s Challenge in a One-Superpower World, saying that Communism had lost but freedom had not yet won, and America’s challenge now was to spread free markets and government to prevent authoritarian retrenchment. Kissinger was a little more forthright in his criticism of post-Cold War politics in Does America Need a Foreign Policy?, but even that was muted. That’s a far cry from regularly competing with the foreign policy of elected officials, which is what Carter has made of his presidency.

Today I returned to El Yunque, Puerto Rico’s biggest and most famous national park. It comprises 28,000 acres and lies southeast of San Juan. Although also known as the Caribbean National Forest, here it is known as El Yunque, coming from the Táino Indian word for “Forest of Clouds.” Today, I returned to hike a much longer trail which took me to the peak of El Yunque, the main mountain in the park which was worshipped by the Táino Indians. As I ascended, I discovered quickly why it was named such. By the end of the first hour, I was already walking through cloud and surrounded by a light mist. As I continued, the clouds thickened and began pour. I arrived at the top completely soaked. On the way back down, I took a side trail which brought me to the top of another peak, Las Picachas. It was there that I sighted the reason for many a warning sign around the park, namely the Indian mongoose. They were originally taken from India by the British and exported to a number of different colonies to kill rats on sugar plantations. Unfortunately, it took off before my camera was ready. I’m having a fabulous time down here in Puerto Rico and will celebrate the Feast of the Three Kings tomorrow.

The new year marked an expansion of the EU on two fronts: Slovenia became the first Eastern European member to take the Euro currency, and Bulgaria and Romania became EU member states. The eight ex-communist states that joined in 2004—Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, etc—have done well, and that success was crucial for Bulgaria and Romania’s membership. But the problems with the addition of these two new members are multifold, and the challenges ahead are tougher than anything the EU has faced before. (Graphic from CBC.)

1. Economics. Bulgaria’s GDP per capita in 2005 was $3,480, and Romania’s $4,490. The average for the eight 2004 entrants was $9,240, and the EU-wide average is $29,330. These two 2007 members are poorer and weaker than then 2004 members, so the issues are not the same.

2. Politics. Both countries are backward in their politics and infrastructure. Corruption is entrenched in many levels of government administration. Bulgaria faces the ipso facto rule of organized crime in many areas of the country. In Romania, the least-trusted public institution in is the courts.

3. Culture. Romania is in some ways a Latin outpost in a Slavic land, with a poor opinion of Russia. Bulgaria’s language is as close to Russian as Spanish is to Italian, cultural ties with Russia are strong, and many Bulgarians today believe communist rule modernized the country. This brings us to…

4. National Security. Both these countries will alter how Europe deals with the world. As noted above, Bulgaria is close to Russia, but Romania is distancing itself from its eastern neighbor and is strengthening ties with the US. Both countries also bring perils to the EU, as they have leaky borders and poorly regulated immigration.

What does this mean for the EU’s future? The challenges are clear, the opportunities—a larger labor supply and more long-term growth potential—less apparent and immediately beneficial. Both countries now face intense pressure to meet Brussels standards. Criticism and sanctions are probably the rule for the future than congratulations and rewards. How the EU copes with these newest members will shape how candidates Croatia, Turkey, and others could enter the EU, and how the member states will respond.

Last month’s Atlantic featured an interesting piece that reminded me of my first class at Royal Military College entitled: How to Get a Nuclear Bomb. William Langewiesche flies the reader from one far flung locale to another, weighing the probability of successfully acquiring HEU and constructing a crude nuclear weapon against the impediments put in place by the US in the name of counter-proliferation and the War on Terror. The article provides some interesting sketches of HEU production facilities and possible shipping routes, all on a canvas of familiar criticism of the United States. It is all stuff we have heard before in related realms: lack of HUMINT effort; infatuation with technology; bureaucratic constipation. An example from the text:

The problem is that U.S. agencies, when pressured by conflicting mandates and forced to work with corrupt and dysfunctional local governments, essentially throw up their hands at the complexity of it all, and abandon the fight in advance. … Faced with the need to put systems in place that will function day after day to identify unexpected nuclear smugglers, America turns to the uniformed agents of local governments, loads them down with air-conditioned buildings and gadgetry …

I do not mean to be overly critical of Mr. Langewiesche’s work. The article is engaging, the style fluid, and the content compelling. But it seems to be too broad in its complaints, and lacking in alternative solutions. The indepth reporting is reminiscent of James Fallows in the days of the so-called Fighter mafia, except in Langewiesche’s tale there seems to be no Boyd. An alternative may be presented in Mr. Langewiesche’s upcoming book The Atomic Bazaar (due May 2007), from which I assume most of this article comes from. This article surely makes me want to read the book (if only I had the time) and I look forward to see how it is received by any CA community nuclear specialists out there.

The controversy surrounding Hussein’s execution has been aggravated by a crude video of the hanging in the last hours of 2006. This probably goes without saying, but be warned that this is a poor-quality snuff film and shouldn’t be viewed by the faint of heart.

One theological commentator had this to say:

[Saddam Hussein] shouldn’t have been executed. Nobody should. Saddam’s execution just adds one more death to the pile; it doesn’t bring a single one of his victims back to life. He should have spent the remainder of his life in prison making Iraqi license plates and reading the Koran—he might have been surprised at some of the things he found there. God, who created Saddam for a life very different from the one he decided to lead, wasn’t finished with him yet, as God is not finished with any of us. We don’t have the right to foreclose on what God may be doing, and we are not wise enough to know what that might be.

I’d like to go beyond the issue of the death penalty—which I am strongly in favor—and would like to instead address the specific instances of executing a dictator such as Saddam.

Many of the points above are true. Hussein’s execution does just add another body to the pile of violence in Iraq. It does not bring back his victims to life. Many are still angry that Hussein wasn’t tried for his crimes against the Kurds. But the bigger issue in Iraq is one of peace and stability. As long as Hussein remained alive, he was a real symbol of the old regime that slaughtered millions of its own people and its neighbors. In death, some may make him a martry. Some Sunnis have taken to the streets in mainly peaceful demonstrations to protest the execution.

No one can be happy with the taunting he endured in the quasi-public execution. Iraq has a long way to go in terms of public civility. But for all the critics, Hussein’s death closes a chapter of Iraq’s history for good.

I think we’re all back in the swing of things with the New Year, and regular posting should resume about now.

Happy New Year to all! May it be the best one yet. Hope you all are doing well. Today I had a super quick meeting with Curzon who is looking good.

Over the New Year’s holiday I was in Kyoto with the family going to the shrine and doing ohaka mairi (visiting Grandma’s grave). Check out some pics of the Japanese cemetery on Flickr.

This year will be busy for dear Younghusband — between working with oil tankers in Nagoya Port and researching/writing my master’s thesis. My New Year’s Resolution is to continue training and be ready for the anniversary. And of course, work hard here at Coming Anarchy. Best in ‘07!

After a fabulous New Years party last night, Lady Chirol and I headed into old San Juan (we’re staying outside) for a day of sightseeing. Here are a few snaps from the city: