The Headline
Japan elections lead to a rare change in leadership. The victorious party ran on a platform of shifting ties from the US to Asia.
5 minutes to understanding the situation
Why is this a headline:
The Liberal Democratic Party has held a lock on Japanese leadership almost continuously for over 50 years. Now, the opposition Democratic Party of Japan has won an election on a campaign of change, including promises to soften ties to the U.S.
The issue:
Japan is US fourth largest trading partner. The US and Japan have had common national interests since the end of the second World War that have grown only stronger since the end of the cold war. The two nations' foreign policy interests have rarely diverged. With this most recent election, that close relationship has been called into question. What follows are 5 easy points for quickly understanding the recent situation:
-
For most of the last 60 years, Japan has been led by the same conservative party (the Liberal Democratic Party). During this time, Japan has seen its economy erode, the economy of neighboring China soar, and the US desperately trying to preserve the equilibrium in Asia in the face of a nuclear Korea.
-
Japan's economy has been dragging for two decades. It is facing record unemployment (5.7%) combined with its highest inflation rate in a decade. Japan has a rapidly aging population, which means more people are retiring on pensions. Economic woes mean that there are fewer taxpayer Yen to support them. To make matters worse, Japan has a notoriously well-entrenched, complex bureaucracy that is blamed for tremendous waste.
-
On August 30th, the opposition Democratic Party of Japan won parliamentary elections. The DPJ is a mix of socialists and progressives . They ran on an economic platform of “change”, focusing on: untangling Japan’s enmeshed bureaucracy; rolling back planned tax hikes; breaking the LDPs hold on the budget; and freeing the state from the status quo of corruption and special interests.
-
The DPJ also ran on a foreign relations platform of strengthening its ties to Asian states, and away from the U.S. and more in the direction of its Asian neighbors. America, they have said, is losing its preeminence in Asia, while China is strengthening its dominance.
-
It remains to be seen whether a Japan moving close to China is good or bad, in the long-run, for the U.S. The US-Japan alliance has been central to the US strategy for a stable Asia, and any talk of strains in that alliance are troubling. At the same time, Japan is not talking about totally negating key agreements (such SOFA and Japan’s alliances with NATO). Further it could well be in the U.S. interest that a strong Japan build diplomatic ties with China. The U.S. is actively trying to get China to take on a greater role in helping maintain stability and security in an international system, and Japan can take on an active role in this endeavor.
The HeadlineThe US is losing ground in Afghanistan's tribal regions.5 minutes to understanding the situation
Why is this a headline:While the US is trying to build a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Taliban are growing their toehold on the tribal areas that make up a significant portion of the society.
The issue:
The US has a history of trying to graft its brand of democracy and pluralism onto other nations during or after a conflict. At times, it has been successful. For example, after World War II, the US took the lead in building back the institutions of Europe that had been destroyed by Nazi aggression and war.
At others, it was a futile exercise. US policy in Vietnam included building South Vietnam into a democratic nation as a buffer against Communist expansion. This was wholly unsuccessful.
The difference between post-war Europe and Vietnam was that Europe had a long history of defined statehood and possessed long-running institutions prior to World War II and the reconstruction. In Vietnam, statehood hadn’t existed in over 150 years, and there were no institutions from which to build. In other words, democratic institutions were not a well-understood concept in Southeast Asia at the time.
The experience in Vietnam parallels where we stand in Afghanistan today. US foreign policy is to build a strong central government with democratic institutions in Afghanistan. Simply put, like Vietnam, Afghanistan just doesn’t work that way. Rather than a nation state in the traditional sense, Afghanistan is a collection of more or less independent tribes and clans. These tribes are dispersed, self-governing, and often at odds with each other.
You cannot take a country that has for years been run by these decentralized tribal institutions and graft on American values of democracy and pluralism. These are totally foreign concepts.
In fact, you cannot take a country run in this manner and overlay any form of centralized government. The Soviets learned this lesson decades before the US did. Toppling the Taliban was absolutely necessary. Building a modern- state with a strong central government and democratic intuitions a la post WWII Europe in Afghanistan is folly.
Understanding the tribal dynamic is what makes the Taliban so successful in keeping an American-backed government in Afghanistan from taking hold. In his WSJ article on the subject, Seth Jones points out that the Taliban effectively work with the local tribes, sub-tribes, and clans. When they cannot enlist their support (through bribes, coercion, etc.), the will simply kill them and replace them with someone more pliable.
The best the US can do at this point is to let the communities of tribes operate as they are accustomed to doing, as opposed to trying to overlay a democratic form of governance modeled on our own experience. It might not conform to the American sense of idealism, but at least it provides localized security without having to commit to the impossible task of having our forces fight insurgents spread over an enormous area for years to come.
|
The Headline:
The US and Israel are at odds over growth inside Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem.
5 minutes to understanding the situation
Why is this a headline?
As one of the few democratic allies that the US has in the Middle East, it is rare to see Israel and the US openly disagree.
The Issue:
Israel has approved the building of a 20-unit housing complex in a part of Jerusalem that the Palestinians claim will be their future capital. The Obama administration has been pressing Israel to halt all construction in settlements built on captured land claimed by the Palestinians. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says limited construction must be permitted to allow "natural growth" in the existing settler population.
The US argument:
U.S. has demanded that Israel stop all construction in Israeli settlements on lands they claim for their future state. The Obama administration sees any construction as a threat to peace talks. And, in fact, Palestinians are refusing to go back to the negotiating table unless such construction stops. Halting the growth of settlements built on captured land claimed by the Palestinians, the US argument goes would be seen as a positive gesture and would improve prospects for a peace deal.
Israel’s argument:
Israeli Prime Minister counters by saying that a “united Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people and of the State of Israel . Our sovereignty over it cannot be challenged; this means … that residents of Jerusalem may purchase apartments in all parts of the city”. No foreign government has protested the increase in Arab housing in Jerusalem . Nor does anyone think there is anything wrong about Arabs living in predominantly Jewish areas. Therefore, the argument goes, it is disingenuous to call Jews building homes in the country’s capital a diplomatic incident.
The background:
The Six Day War in 1967 pitted a coalition of Israel’s neighboring states of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria; with support from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria. That war ended with Israel wresting control of the Siani and Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank from Jordan, as well as east Jerusalem.
The Palestinians claim the West Bank and Gaza as territory that will form a future state with east Jerusalem as its capital. While Israel has indicated that both the Gaza Strip and West Bank are negotiable (many Israelis see the advantages of having both territories outside the boundaries of Israel), a divided Jerusalem with limited access by all religions remains the most delicate issue.
Demographically, Jerusalem is still a divided city. The houses in question are being built in a neighborhood of Jerusalem that, prior to June 1967 was occupied by Jordan and, therefore, off-limits to Jews from roughly the time of Israel’s creation until it was captured in six day war.
|
|