Posted on 10/29/2005 8:11:45 AM PDT by Lessismore
Over the past five years, much has been made of the personal rapport between Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and U.S. President George W. Bush. Their friendship is said to have set the tone for smooth diplomatic relations between Japan and the United States--further reinforced by the relatively high popularity both leaders have enjoyed throughout much of their tenure in office.
Now, though, the Bush presidency is in a dramatic tailspin, with its credibility in question over policies from homeland security to the war in Iraq. The political damage to the Bush administration is obvious, but given the "special" relationship that has evolved between Bush and Koizumi, it is possible that Japan-U.S. relations may suffer from collateral damage as well.
It may be difficult for those in Japan to appreciate just how precipitously the Bush presidency has fallen, let alone the political malaise now permeating Washington. Polls show that Bush's popularity has sunk to approximately 40 percent, among the lowest figures for any president this early in a second term. Yet among the so-called chattering classes of Washington's intellectual and political elite, there seems to be an even greater loss of confidence in the president and his administration.
Most significantly, Bush's controversial nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court has angered many conservatives at a time when Bush is under attack from all sides for his response to Hurricane Katrina and policy toward Iraq. Other scandals, such as the alleged White House leaking of a U.S. Central Intelligence Agency officer's identity, have further damaged an already shaky presidency.
Meanwhile, the political situation in Tokyo could not be more of a contrast. Koizumi is riding high in the wake of his sweeping victory in the Sept. 11 election. A couple of weeks ago, the House of Councillors approved the prime minister's political raison d'etre, the postal privatization bills, and Koizumi now has the political capital to spend on virtually any agenda of his choosing.
Can the growing discrepancy in Bush and Koizumi's respective political standing have an impact on their close relationship and, in turn, bilateral relations? The question, however speculative, may be worth asking, but the answer is difficult to extrapolate in any empirical sense.
Already, though, some Japanese observers note that Koizumi has grown increasingly insular (that is, devoting more attention to domestic rather than bilateral issues) since his electoral victory last month and is eager to shrug off his critics' image of him as "Bush's poodle." Indeed, the prime minister's personal involvement has been conspicuously absent in two bilateral issues that are of top concern to Washington: the dispute over bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the U.S. base realignment talks.
There are also reasons why Bush may be less chummy with Koizumi when he visits Tokyo in November. The president has enjoyed the upper hand over the legislative branch throughout his first term, carving out areas of policy (including Japan policy) with arguably less scrutiny from Congress than ever before. But Bush's recent political misfortunes seem to have triggered more direct oversight from Congress of late.
For the first time since 1998, the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee last month held a hearing on Japan-U.S. relations, particularly focusing on the BSE issue and trade disputes over medical devices. Days later, a Senate subcommittee held a similar hearing on Japan. Unlike any earlier period of his presidency, the pressure is now on Bush to show that he can get tough with Koizumi on key U.S. interests ranging from beef exports to military base realignments.
A little tension, though, between Bush and Koizumi might not be such a bad thing. Diplomats often say that disagreement between friends is a healthy sign of a mature alliance. While this may be true, bilateral discord has been unnaturally suppressed in recent years by the veneer of cordiality sustained at the top level.
Inasmuch as friendship between world leaders is truly genuine, the Bush-Koizumi bond has, nevertheless, always been a friendship of convenience--sidestepping underlying bilateral differences for ultimate political goals. Thus Bush downplayed economic problems with Japan when he needed an ally in Iraq, and Koizumi overlooked his nation's ambivalence toward U.S. adventures in the Middle East when he needed to prop his image at photo-op sessions at the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas.
However pragmatic this tacit arrangement was, it is not sustainable in the long run--either because of the eventual tug of competing national interests or, as the case may now be, the political vulnerability of one of its actors.
All would not be lost if both leaders confronted bilateral difficulties more frankly. Much hard work needs to be done to advance the Japan-U.S. relationship beyond the status quo. If Washington is so frustrated with the lack of progress in the base realignment talks, then Bush himself should take the issue up with Koizumi--thereby compelling the prime minister to become more involved in the process. Koizumi should also be more frank about his expectations of U.S. support for Japan in areas such as U.N. reform.
These are the kind of issues both nations should address head-on--and at the highest level--even if it leads to some degree of tension. It is time for bilateral summitry to move beyond photo-ops and to a more substantive and potentially constructive dialogue.
Konishi is program director at the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation.
??
NOT.
Konishi is ichiban left wing media-san.
Define the current condition of the Presidency as you will, but there is a leadership void. This is an administration in a time of war. But it still cannot talk straight about the nature of the enemy. Compare what the President and Condi say versus what Truman would have said.
And make no mistake about it, this war, however different it is from conventional war, is a "world war."
Mr. Konishi (he's from the U.S., though he has spent some time living in Japan) is egregiously off-base in his assessment. In light of his other writings, such as here at the Mansfield Foundation where he is a program director, where he states:
There is enough blame to go around the Pacific Rim, starting with the United States. The lone superpower's high-handed treatment of others is nothing new and requires little extra description here. Yet U.S. President George W. Bush has elevated this practice to a new level. Bush's infamous "axis of evil" speech carelessly triggered concerns in the region that North Korea was next on the list for regime change after Iraq.
he appears to be quite left-wing, since all of the previous is standard left-wing claptrap.
And his biography, what little of there is since he appears to be a young man, consists only of working for liberal Tom Udall's campaign in 1999. I don't know how one goes from college student to campaign worker to a program director at the Mansfield Foundation, but I cannot see how it could have been on the basis of his writing or analytical skills.
I don't know what you mean by that. Bush has defined the enemy qute well it seems to me.
Compare what the President and Condi say versus what Truman would have said.
Truman refused to recognize and deal with the true enemy in Korea, China. He even fired MacAurthur because the General did understand and did want to do somethng about it. Your knowledge of that era seems a little cloudy. Truman gets far more credit than he deserves.
Denying Bush is in trouble is denying factual reality.
I don't know what you mean by that. Bush has defined the enemy quite well it seems to me.
Last week, in her Iftaar address Condi called Islam the religion of "peace and love." The week before the President did virtually the same.
That is a lie. Not all muslims are evil, but the real ones are supportive of the dream of a world caliphate and never condemn terrorism because terrorism is a holy duty.
It is just my opinion but the President is not telling us the truth (he may not know it).
Truman might have been overrated (Churchill, too) but at least they spoke the truth as best they could.
Islam has not been hijacked by extremists. That is complete and utter BS. Islam is extreme and anyone who has read the Quran and the Hadiths knows that.
There is a war underway. It is a war that is the very essence of Islam...between Islam and ALL non-muslims. The President is not leading us in this larger war...and he is not telling us the truth.
Muslim leaders like Ahmadinejad are at least telling us the truth when that say they plan to rid the world of Israel and the U.S. Everyone who knows Islam knows what is coming and coming soon. The President wants us to believe that the enemy is a handfull of extremists while he says nothing about the vast sums given to the Wahhabis and Salafists by the government of his friend, Prince Abdullah.
No, IMO, the President has not defined the enemy. It is as though we are swimmers at the ocean and are being encircled by sharks. The President says the sharks are not the problem if we can just avoid their teeth.
I disagree that our enemy is all of Islam, no matter what the Koran may say. Much of the Koran is similar to the Old testament and we have Christian and Jewish fundamentalist cults, too. Putting into everyday practice some of the commands and tenets of the Bible would be pretty Draconian, also.
The Wahhabis control Saudi Arabia. King Abdullah must recognize that or he will be gone, executed. Many in his own family, members of the ruling kingdom, are Wahhabis. Osama bin Laden was one. That means he must step lightly where they are concerned. Even with that, the King and his father before him have assisted the US behind the scenes in some of our foreign and CIA operations. They are generally on the plus side of our relationships.
Just as Christian and Jewish cults cannot control large groups of people, neither can the Wahhabis without financial and logistical support from other countries, countries from which they can operate and have diplomatic and foreign access. Ossama was kicked out of SA to prevent that but he maintained his access to his and his family's personal fortunes. Still, he had to set up shop elsewhere. That is the situation today in this WOT.
If you think Bush is not aware of that then try to make sense of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Explain our warnings to Syria, Iran, Libya, North Korea, and the rest. We have eliminated all but Iran and Syria as bases of terrorists operations.
For a cult to gain power and influence they must have the opportunity of greater influence. The Wahhabis gained that and we are trying to eliminate it. That does not make every Muslim an enemy and it would be political suicide to declare they are. Too many opportunists, not the least of which is the Democrat Party, would exploit that for their own victories and our defeat. That would be the end of the WOT with the terrorists winning.
When we speak of cults the Communist Party easily fits the description of a religious cult. The Democrats are emulating them. Both are very dangerous to our way of life.
The WOT is similar in complexity to protecting our borders, reforming the tax system and SS, and nominating someone for a position on the Supreme Court. Many say, Just Do This!, without considering all the ramifications. It is like the blind men describing an elephant. Each knows for certain that he is right, and he is, but right about only a small part of the whole. The person making the decision, in this case it is Bush, must consider the whole.
No argument about a problem. I wouldn't define it as a leadership problem and I respectfully disagree with you.
The war in Iraq isn't under one man's control, not one party's control, either here or in Iraq. All Bush and our military can do is their best. I think that they are doing their best, though the armchair quarterbacks are positive that if THEY had their way, the war would be won. That is pure speculation. War is just not so predictable and pat.
The gas prices are also not under one man's control or one party's control. Despite the bloviating of O'Reilly petroleum isn't such a simple commodity that even American petroleum companies can control.
Gas for cars is only ONE use for petroleum. It's also used for all fuels, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, pest control, plastics....a myriad of uses. Everyone on the planet uses petrochemicals in one form or another and it is thus simply not that easy to define. Also, it's a resource that will disappear.
It's a most special kind of commodity, VERY dangerous and speculative to find, get and refine. Explosions and fires are common even with the strictest rules. It's amazing.
My ex and I worked in Saudi Arabia with ARAMCO for five long years and we learned a lot about the business. It's a HUGE, complex business got into by the few, the brave and sometimes and the very rich (or the very busteroo-ed).
And, since you admit that it is a world war (I agree.) the leadership quality is REALLY not one president's or one party's job. Not even we can FORCE other nations to do what we want. We can't always bribe them, threaten them or punish them either.
Finally, when it comes to petroleum, you have to put the Saudis in the mix since they have 200 years MORE of oil reserves, 200 billion barrels, so far.
When you put THEM into the mix, with OUR needs, you must add Israel, our Achilles heel. Just ask Usama bin Laden why he hates America so much. His number two reason is our foreign policy towards Israel (weapons, money, training, foreign aid and, probably the "worst," as far as UBL is concerned, our moral support).
Speculating on what Truman might have said is hindsight. Hindsight is a waste of time. Say what you will about Bush and Condi, they have done a heck of a job. Rather them than Clinton, Kerry, Dean or any other Democrat around today. We have who we have.
My read is that as soon as GAS PRICES drop people will put Iraq, UBL, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the world problems in the kitchen drawer, watch football and go Christmas shopping.
That does not make every Muslim an enemy and it would be political suicide to declare they are.
Unfortunately, there are many muslims who want to moderate Islam, but they are being overpowered by the hardliners. And the powers in the world that keep saying that Islam is a religion of peace make it difficult for those who want to reform Islam.
I don't blame muslims at all. They can't help it. But the heart of Islam is the Prophet and he was not a nice fellow.
If a Christian sect (in violation of the teachings of Jesus) set out to terrorize the world and grew by bullying and violence, I as a Christian would speak out loudly and would demand that it be killed. But muslims around the world do not forcefully condemn terrorism and extremism because that would be apostasy.
Every mosque--everywhere--that speaks violence or supports it or ultimately says "terrorism is bad BUT" must be closed.
Islam in its virulent form must be eradicated, IMO. It is not people who are the enemy...it is a religion of death and destruction.
Say what you will about Bush and Condi, they have done a heck of a job. Rather them than Clinton, Kerry, Dean or any other Democrat around today.
...you are most certainly correct. I can't imagine how horrible our situation would be with Kerry or Dean running the show.
As regards leadership, I am particularly fond of the kind of leadership Churchill demonstrated during WWII. He is far from perfect, but his courage was contagious. Victory was just a matter of time, because we knew Churchill understood the problem and would never give up. (By the way, I was born after WWII so only know of it vicariously). However, I cannot say we will win this war, because I don't yet see a leader that sees (or has satisfactorily communicated that he/she sees) the vastness of this problem we face.
Thx again for the great discussion. It's a relief just to have a good chat about this matter.
The Wahhabis are no different than any other ruthless gang, whether the Mafia, drug dealers, the Communists, Slick Willie, or anyone else willing to kill to impose their way. Unless one feels the opposite of them with equal fervor they remain quiet and try to stay out of the way of the violence. That empowers the thugs.
Yet, as we agree, you don't condemn everyone in the neighborhood because of who controls it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.