Late, But Important

For John, BLUF:  Part of the value of history is finding good things to build on.  Our positive relationship with Singapore is one such good thing.  It is due, in large part, to the late Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

PM Lee commemorates 70th anniversary of Lee Kuan Yew being called to S'pore Bar

Here is the sub-headline:

He was called to the Bar on Aug. 7, 1951.

From , by Reporter Jane Zhang, 8 August 2021, 05:31 PM.

The article is interesting and enlightening, but the key point is Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew himself.  When Singapore separated from Malasyia, Lee Kuan Yew became the first Prime Minister.  From that position he was an important person in the progress of Southeast Asia and in resisting further Communist agression in the area.

We, the United States, owe thanks to Mr Lee for helping to hold things together in the 1960s and 70s.  I hope we don't forget.

Regards  —  Cliff

China CNX's Port Call by US Carrier

For John, BLUF:  This is a problem and the Administration either steps up or we cede our rights.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

"China Denies U.S. Carrier Hong Kong Visit Amid Maritime Tension"

From Bloomberg we have this report by Reporter Ting Shi

The Aircraft Carrier USS JOHN C STENNIS, which had been scheduled for a port call at Hong Kong, was disinvited Thursday.

China has denied a U.S. carrier strike group’s request for a port visit to Hong Kong next week amid escalating tensions in the adjacent South China Sea.

The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs notified the U.S. Thursday of its decision to deny the USS John C. Stennis and its escort ships access to the former British colony, Darragh Paradiso, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong, said by phone.  The ministry provided no explanation for the move, she said.

This is a clear signal from the Chinese Government that, from Beijing's perspective, the United States is not being sufficiently conciliatory just because it is not conducting Freedom of Navigation (FON) Operations directly off Chinese artificial islands in the South China Sea.  Put another way, it isn't enough that we don't conduct FON Operations, they expect us to concede that, just like Hawaii is part of the US, the South China Sea is part of China.

Recently the issue has been Scarborough Shoal, off the coast of the Philippines, as shown in this Wikipedia map:

From the Chinese perspective the United States has NO BUSINESS in the South China Sea, except to transit to other points.  That is to say, China expects the United States to provide suitable information (time of entry/exit, course/flight plan, etc.), and to refrain from all actions other than just passing through.

And since the United States will not accept this "proper, gracious" way of behaving in Chinese territory, China has no reason to invite the United States to spend some time in Hong Kong.

So why are we continuing to invite China to participate in international Naval Exercises, such as RIMPAC?

How does this play into President Obama's foreign policy, articulated by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as the Pivot to Asia?

We are going to have to pick up our game.

The other option is to just cede to China the fact that the South China Sea is a Chinese lake, controlled by them, and the rights of other nations, such as the Philippines and Viet-nam, are to be ignored.

Regards  —  Cliff

Visit to Hiroshima?

For John, BLUF:  This is a dumb idea.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

"Non-proliferation crusader Obama ponders a visit to nuclear ground zero: Hiroshima".

The reporter is Mr David Nakamura and the paper is The Washington Post.  Here is the lede:

HIROSHIMA, Japan — For nearly 71 years, the consequences of the world’s first atomic bombing have remained close to the surface here.

This visit by the President to Hiroshima seems like a good idea.  Nuclear weapons are a terrible thing. Even a "small" nuclear exchange, say between Pakistan and India or Iran and Israel, would result in millions of deaths, and, perhaps a nuclear winter.♠  So, the President going to Hiroshima and acknowledging the devastation (and perhaps apologizing♥) might be a good step in the direction of nuclear disarmament.

However, there are the second and third order consequences.  Most things have a knock on effect.  For example, this action could tear apart relations between Korea and Japan, as the Koreans demand similar formal visits by Japanese officials to like sites in Korea, where the Japanese did horrible things.  It could cause some in these United States to demand that the Japanese Prime Minister (or even the Emperor) make a formal visit to Pearl Harbor, to apologize for starting the whole thing.♦  And, it might alienate our Asian allies, who think the Japanese got what they deserved.  And, it will make Beijing happy, as they continue to agitate the Japanese and a bunch of Southeast Asian nations over international waters and who owns what.♣

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  A recent conference I attended at MIT had folks who claimed that even a 100 weapon laydown could create a devastating nuclear winter (forget global warning).
♥  The odds of it not being an apology are pretty slim, assuming the trip is on.
♦  Should we expect the relatives of Mr Harry Dexter White to travel to Hawaii to apologize to the Japanese PM?
♣  The standard rule is to not get in the way while your enemies are tearing themselves apart.

Anniversary of End of WWII

For John, BLUF:  A peaceful Japan is good for Asia, and the United States.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The end of World War II, VJ-Day is reckoned differently in different nations.  In some it is 14 August (or 15 August, accounting for the International Dateline) and in others it is 2 September, with the signing of the Surrender aboard the USS MISSOURI.  In the US it will be 2 September.  However, in Japan the annual apologies have been given.  Here is the report by Mr Jonathan Sobleaug, dateline 14 August, from The New York Times—"Shinzo Abe Echoes Japan’s Past World War II Apologies but Adds None".  The sub-headline is "The Japanese prime minister delivered a statement on the 70th anniversary of the announcement of the country’s surrender in World War II, expressing “profound grief” at the loss of life."

TOKYO — Using the carefully chosen words that govern reckonings with Japan’s militarist past, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reiterated his country’s official remorse for the catastrophe of World War II on Friday, the eve of the 70th anniversary of the war’s end.

In a nationally televised address, Mr. Abe described feelings of “profound grief” and offered “eternal, sincere condolences” for the dead.  He said Japan had inflicted “immeasurable damage and suffering” when it “took the wrong course and advanced along the road to war.”

But in a potentially contentious break with previous expressions of contrition by Japanese leaders, he did not offer a new apology of his own.

The decision, a product of months of deliberation, appeared calibrated to draw a line under what Mr. Abe and many Japanese see as an endless and enfeebling cycle of apologies for decades-old offenses.  But Mr. Abe sought to do so while still addressing lingering resentment in China and South Korea, nations that bore the brunt of Japan’s often brutal empire building in the first half of the 20th century.

Then there is the Emperor, who is still respected in Japan.  Here is a Wall Street Journal article on the Emperor's statement.  The reporters are Mssers Alexander Martin and Peter Landers.

TOKYO—Japanese Emperor Akihito expressed “deep remorse” over World War II at a memorial service, deviating from his customary script in what could be seen as a veiled reproach toward Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s conservative policies.

For many years, the emperor had delivered a virtually identical address at the annual Aug. 15 service for the war dead.  But this year, marking the 70th anniversary of the war’s end, he made several additions, including the mention of remorse and a statement that Japan’s postwar prosperity rested on the people’s “earnest desire for the continuation of peace.”

The remarks Saturday came just 18 hours after Mr. Abe, in his own statement marking the anniversary, declined to deliver an explicit apology for the war in his own words, alluding instead to apologies issued by predecessors.  The prime minister also said he hoped future generations wouldn’t have to apologize.

The war-anniversary statements came in the middle of a vigorous debate in parliament over Mr. Abe’s push to expand the role of Japan’s armed forces by reinterpreting Japan’s postwar constitution.  A majority of voters oppose that move, according to polls.

An interesting question is how long will the rest of the world hold Japan down for its activities before 1945?  At the WSJ link is a chart of attitudes amongst various Asian and Western Pacific nations.  This question is a two edged sword, in that Japan has grown and prospered under its Constitution, renouncing war, and under the US Nuclear Umbrella.

Regards  —  Cliff

Different Views of Political Culture

For John, BLUF:  Not everything looks like it does from Belvidere Village.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Wikipedia view of Mr Alexander Gelyevich Dugin. From World Affairs we have an article by Andrey Tolstoy and Edmund McCaffray, "Mind Games: Alexander Dugin and Russia’s War of Ideas"

Although Dugin has stated, “I support Putin because he declares and fulfills the goals and ideals that are essentially mine,” it is, in fact, Putin who supports Dugin because of the pathways he creates in national and foreign policy.

At home, Dugin energizes a conservative intellectual and voter base, while abroad he reinforces political networks that are disruptive to Putin’s adversaries.  Finally, synthesizing national and foreign policy, Dugin provides Putin with a Eurasian master narrative of Russia’s history—encircled and subordinated by Western liberalism—that provides a rationale and an imperative for expanding territorially at the expense of his neighbors.

Yes, the view from Moscow is different from the view from Lowell.

What we are seeing is a different view of how the world should be organized:

According to Dugin, while modern-day Atlanticists, led by the United States, have consolidated their position via international organizations and political hierarchies, their Eurasian opposition is disorganized and largely defenseless.  This is because Atlanticism, by prioritizing individual liberties above all else, dissolves social bonds and obligations and devalues cultural legacy, thus destroying the very fabric that allows traditional societies to exist.  Its hegemony is pursued by construing any opposition to its political or economic interests as an affront to freedom.

Dugin’s solution is for Eurasia to consciously become a Grossraum (“great space” in German), analogous in scope to the Atlanticist world.  Within this Grossraum, Dugin proposes a complex distribution of power between a “strategic center” and various subdivisions, based on culture and history, known as “autonomies.”  This center is responsible for basic economic and military coordination between the autonomies, which are otherwise left to organize their internal affairs in accordance with their own unique traditions.  Thus there is room for a range of different political, economic, and social systems, though it seems clear that Dugin imagines most will adopt a basically conservative and corporatist structure.

While Iran, and Daesh, are commanding our attention, there are other things going on in the world, things bigger than just the Ukraine.  China is trying to reorganize how the Western Pacific is organized and Russia would like to change how Europe is organized.  And, there are people who are thinking and writing about these various ideas.

Regards  —  Cliff