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.

The UN resolution allowing other countries to violate Somalia’s territorial waters in pursuit of pirates (as discussed before here) has passed.

The UN Security Council has unanimously voted to allow countries to send warships into Somalia’s territorial waters to tackle pirates. The resolution permits countries that have the agreement of Somalia’s interim government to use any means to repress acts of piracy for the next six months.

Somalia’s coastal waters are near shipping routes connecting the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, and the country’s government is unable to police its own coastline. Consequently, piracy is rife off Somalia’s 1,800 mile-long coast, says the BBC UN correspondent Laura Trevelyan. The resolution was drafted by France, the US and Panama.

Our correspondent says France originally wanted to expand the motion to allow piracy to be tackled in other areas, such as West Africa. China, Vietnam and Libya said they voted for the measure because it only applies to Somalia, and does not affect the sovereignty of other countries. But diplomats say the Security Council action is significant because it is using the force of international law to allow navies to chase pirates and armed robbers.

Security Council envoys are holding separate meetings in Djibouti with the Somali government and the opposition at a luxury hotel on the shores of the Red Sea.

Once you go down this route, what are the chances it will be undone? How long will it be until Somalia could realistically fight piracy as well as the West? I imagine the resolutions 6 month period of validity is a direct result of tricky questions like this.

The Scramble for Africa was a quick proliferation of often conflicting European colonial claims on Africa. While imperialism was initially an indirect process, i.e. ruling or influencing the through locals, it ultimately led to outright annexation and centralized control of foreign lands. As borders hardened and “free territory” quickly disappeared, European empires raced to snatch up what was left. It would seem, at the beginning of the 21st century, the same is playing out as the world’s resources become scarce, or are at least perceived to be scarce. It started in the Arctic and has now moved to all of the world’s oceans.

Oil reserves are running out, gas prices are soaring. France’s government is reacting to the dwindling energy supply much like Russia and Great Britain: the government is laying claim to vast stretches of the world’s oceans. In France’s case, the claims span the globe: from French Guyana in South America to Africa and across the Indian Ocean.

Paris would like to see its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) [...] expanded by almost a million square kilometers. [...]

Like many other states, the French government will be arguing in the next year that its geographic features in many cases extend far beyond the 370 kilometer zone. At most, that could mean an extension of its EEZ to 650 kilometers past the coastline. Right now, France claims more than 11 million square kilometers of the world’s oceans—the second largest in the world, after the United States. May 13, 2009 is the deadline for countries to submit territorial claims to the United Nation’s Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). A handful of governments have been scrambling to prepare the way for claims down the road by sending out exploration missions and establishing outposts in remote parts of the globe.

.

Under the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) at the United Nations, member states have until May 13th to officially submit their claims. The key parts of the treaty involves the various oceanic zones radiating out from sovereign territory. The UN Law of the Seas Treaty establishes several different types of zones: internal waters, territorial waters, Archipelagic waters, Contiguous zone, Exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and Continental shelf. The EEZ, as described above, is defined as follows

Exclusive economic zones (EEZs) – Extend 200 nautical miles from the baseline. Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources.

Unlike the high profile Russian attempts to stake a claim to the Arctic, increasing countries’ Exclusive Economic Zones has thusfar remained under the radar. But as claims proliferate and controversy ensues, even friends may clash over faraway islands and seas. Just as the nation-state system has begun to settle and borders have become more stable in many parts of the world, the race to claim every last bit of land, water and ice may undermine that stability, inflame tensions between enemies and divide friends. Oh, and let’s not forget about space.

Some call the Swiss immigration system racist. Is it racist or is it smart? BBC described it as:

Switzerland has Europe’s toughest naturalisation laws. Foreigners must live for 12 years in a Swiss community before they can apply, and being born in Switzerland brings no right to citizenship. Under the current system, foreigners apply through their local town or village.

They appear before a citizenship committee and answer questions about their desire to be Swiss. After that, they must often be approved by the entire voting community, in a secret ballot, or a show of hands. This practice, the report says, is particularly likely to be distorted by racial discrimination.

While individual Swiss citizens can be racist, one cannot logically carry that over to the immigration system. In fact, it is rather a traditionally Swiss system in which locals turn out to vote on issues. In Switzerland, where individuals are far more involved in politics and political power is devolved, the charges leveled at the Swiss system seem unjustified. While the report, which comes from within Switzerland, calls for far reaching changes, it seems unclear as to why this is necessary. The net effect of the system is that groups like Muslims, Africans and Asians often have poor chances of attaining citizenship. Yet, no one has a right to citizenship in a foreign country. Indeed, national laws describe the eligibility of individuals for residence and work permits and conditions under which one would be eligible to apply for citizenship. Switzerland, like all other countries, reserves the right to deny any of the above. After all, Switzerland is the land of the Swiss and not of Albanians, Nigerians or Vietnamese.

It seems rather funny that as immigration becomes a larger issue and integration a larger problem in Europe, Switzerland would criticize itself for having a system that ensures those who are thought unable to integrate are not given citizenship. And let’s not forget, one does not need citizenship to obtain residence. This author has permanent residence in Germany and will never become a citizen but has almost all the rights of one. One should no exaggerate the importance of a passport. In short, whether the system is fair or not is a moot point. The Swiss have the final say on who is Swiss and in a time of mass immigration to Europe and the resulting integration problems, it indeed would seem that Switzerland has one of the most successful systems and the fairest to its own citizens.