Open Thread: Off to Tokyo

-

I’m off to Tokyo for a few days of meetings. I will have much to report.
George Soros will be there with me — and I will be blogging about some of the meetings we have planned about the evolving debate on competing variants of nationalism and what this means for the health of Japanese internationalism.
Play nice.

— Steve Clemons

Comments

10 comments on “Open Thread: Off to Tokyo

  1. allsupercars super says:

    I think Indian Garament export are increasing nowadays. they have welldeveloped industrial trends and Lots of Manpower.

    Reply

  2. MP says:

    Shouldn’t we be using open threads to revisit Den’s comments about nuclear disarmament? A few threads back, he brought up the examples of SA, Argentina, and Brazil as countries that either had the bomb and gave it up or abandoned their quest for it.
    Why did they do it? Can their experience be reasonably replicated elsewhere? Or do we simply conclude that the genie is out of the bottle, and we have to learn to live with an ever-growing nuclear club. I found these three examples provocative and wish I had more time to do the research. But they do suggest that it might be possible to put the genie back in the bottle.
    Any thoughts out there?

    Reply

  3. Reader says:

    The problem is not with “experts” but with well connected, self-promoting “experts” who lack expertise… types who market themselves relentlessly as expert in matters of which they know precious little, e.g. Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, John McCain. Sadly, the reality is that any networked political donor with a Harvard Law degree can be taken seriously as an “expert” in international negotiations, international diplomacy, foreign cultures – regardless of ignorance of languages and cultures in the countries for which they seek to offer their putative expertise. This is the antithesis of expertise. Look at the educational and life experience bios of all key Bush administration officials working at the UN, State Department and as ambassadors in key nations for proof of the root of the problem. The other half of the problem is the horrible lack of transparency in the formulation of international policy. The Founders created the Senate to add a dose of democratic will to the formulation of the nation’s foreign policy, and they were right and wise to do so.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-slater/should-american-foreign-p_b_31526.html
    “In democratic organizations mistakes are more quickly exposed, making it easier for the organization to correct them and become more efficient. And a range of viewpoints gives them the flexibility to adapt to change. Authoritarian bureaucracies lack this trait, which is why they seem incapable of learning from experience. Germs that would die within minutes if exposed to the light can live and breed forever in a dark enclosed environment. Mistakes that are covered up tend to mushroom into disasters, and classified material is usually released only when it’s too late to prevent the follies it reveals.”

    Reply

  4. Finest says:

    By any and all measurement Hezbollah has been dealt a serious blow by Israel with one hand tied behind it’s back. Israel’s intention was simple, create a disturbance in an area replete with terrorists armed to the teeth and prompt an international peacekeeping force to occupy that area. That is the end game. Hezbollah acheived nothing. They were slaughtered. They have no country and the area they occupied has been decimated, and yet they declare victory. This is laughable. Israel’s only irritation was they didn’t operate in their usual clockwork fashion, which they will remedy in short order. They will not repeat it. It seems Hezbollah and Nasrallah have no more intelligence than Arafat. Look where Palestine is after Yasser’s reign of terror. Change is the only constant, and the more things change the more they stay the same, in the Arab world.

    Reply

  5. chris_from_boca says:

    i could never understand why the US can’t do more to export our constitutional values. at least those we used to embrace pre torture and pre patriot act/eavesdropping sans warrants variety we have now. we invaded afghanistan to throw out the Taliban, but I never once heard about any agenda to assure religious freedom in that country or anywhere else.

    Reply

  6. chris_from_boca says:

    i could never understand why the US can’t do more to export our constitutional values. at least those we used to embrace pre torture and pre patrot act/eavesdropping sans warrants variety we have now. we invaded afghanistan to throw out the Taliban, but I never once heard about any agenda to assure religious freedom in that contry or anywhere else.

    Reply

  7. JS says:

    I dont understand how people can continue to call for open border policies.
    In order to make immigration work, you have to control it. Its is the most basic of principles.

    Reply

  8. Carroll says:

    More on the ME “imperialism” …..ah,..how long ago was it I said that this would end in a Isr/Merica vr. the “other” main powers of the world.
    We HAVE lost, we WILL keep on losing if we don’t purge the deranged “imperialist” from our government.
    “WHAT COMES NEXT” – Cantori
    WHAT COMES NEXT: THE FAILURE OF AMERICAN MIDDLE EAST POLICY
    LOUIS J. CANTORI
    UMIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, BALTIMORE COUNTY
    In early 2004, a Washington meeting of U.S. Government employees supporting American operations in Iraq gathered to hear the first hand reports of two Coalition Provisional Administration employees just returning from Iraq. These reports at this early point in the American commitment were novel in nature and had a quality of being “fresh from the front”. The two speakers did not disappoint the audience. There was a certain “Indiana Jones” adventurous quality about what they had to say. As they went on to recount their professional experiences, both of them made unselfconscious passing references to the pride they felt in fulfilling American “imperial” responsibilities in Iraq. Their references to things “imperial” was casual and matter of fact and no one in the audience of about forty persons then or later challenged the appropriateness of the word “imperial”.
    If “imperialism” is to have ideological and analytical significance, it must also explain where we are now. A basic meaning of the term imperialism is the ability of an imperial power to impose its will ideally as a matter of policy and if necessary as a last resort through the exercise of military power . For a brief moment in the aftermath of the Cold War from 1990 until 2003 America had emerged as the single remaining superpower/imperial power in the world . It not only objectively possessed the correlates of preeminent national power but its willingness to engage in military unilateralism was evident in its willingness to exercise this power in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. At first it succeeded in von Clausewitz’s meaning of the term to impose its will upon the former country but then from November 2002 and the failure at Toro Bora, it is now failing there as it as has from April 9, 2003 onwards in Iraq.
    This brings us to the present day and the significance of the recent war in Lebanon. There Israel was diplomatically shielded at the UN by the US in order to give Israel as the sixth most powerful army in the world thirty days to accomplish its war aims . Israel, however, failed in near militarily humiliating terms to subjugate Hezbollah, an at most 6000 man guerilla force. Israel’s failure as an American proxy was also America’s failure. In Iraq, the coming to power of a Shiite coalition by democratic means, subtlety confirmed Iran’s ability to dominate Iraq. It has occurred with little notice except for close observers noting the presence of Iranian intelligence “station chiefs” around the country. Iran has thus peacefully imposed itself politically upon Iraq and the proxy victory of Hezbollah in Lebanon means that Iran is the big winner in the Middle East, including the achievement as a Shiite nation in garnering both Shiite and Sunni Islamic support.
    As a result, the international relations of the Middle East are now being transformed from the recent one power, United States dominant system backwards to the preexisting one of a regional bipolar system of pre-1990. The regional system is now one where Iran and Syria are joined by Hezbollah and Hamas and possibly Lebanon, Yemen and Sudan plus the great powers of Russia and China arrayed arrayed against Israel and the US, plus in a more tenuous fashion, the GCC countries ,Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco and Turkey.
    ….in full at:
    http://www.turcopolier.typepad.com/

    Reply

  9. John says:

    Don’t miss a series by Alistair Crooke and Mark Perry at Asia Times Online: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ12Ak01.html
    Though by no means the final word on the subject, they show how Hezbollah successfully defended themselves against the IDF through what I’ll call a combination of dispersion, deception, and excellent counter-intelligence, communications and coordination. Israel succeeded in shocking and awing Lebanese civilians, Arabs and the world community with its destructive capabilities but totally failed in its strategic goal of significantly damaging Hezbollah, which is surely providing a model for asymmetric defense against an arrogant, well armed invader.
    The IDF and neo-cons are probably scrambling for expensive, new technologies to overwhelm such defenses. They have their work cut out for them. Iraq has shown the futility of occupation, and the IDF has shown the futility of air power in the face of a smart, organized ethnic group determined to preserve its independence.
    The Bush administration has indeed created a new Middle East, a world class center for research, development, and deployment of asymmetric defense and resistance.

    Reply

  10. Robert Morrow says:

    Nationalism. Boy, I love it. Let the Japanese be Japanese. Let the Americans be Americans. Let the Canadians run their own affairs and let the Mexicans run their affairs. I do not want to merge with Canada and Mexico which our elites of both parties are trying to shove down our throats.
    One thing Bush, Soros, and McCain ALL have in common is that they are open borders people. And if you don’t have a border then you don’t have a country and you don’t have a Constitution.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *