12/5/11 Aid Agencies in Afghanistan Fear Reversals After U.S. Exit (New York Times)

Aid Agencies in Afghanistan Fear Reversals After U.S. Exit

By ROD NORDLAND

Published: December 5, 2011

Although President Hamid Karzai hopes to continue aid to Afghanistan for another 10 years, the American withdrawal from Afghanistan is already being felt among civilian aid workers, raising anxieties that Afghanistan will be abandoned and that the hard-earned development gains will be reversed.


The US provides two-thirds of all development assistance in Afghanistan, but it cut its $4 billion aid budget to $2 billion in the 2011 fiscal year. In 2012, it might be going to cut the budget more.


CARE has lost 80% of its budget here. CARE is deeply involved in setting up schools and improving life for Afghan women. 400 of its 900 workers were unemployed. Other American-based charities are suffering from the budget cut.


Mercy Corps, which is another American-based aid organization, has lost its $32 million "Cash for Work" program in northern Afghanistan and gone to an end. International Rescue Committee's budget for Afghanistan next year is also almost halved to $9.5 million although the committee is still hopeful.


Total foreign aid to Afghanistan in 2010 was equal to the country's entire GDP, $15.7 billion. The World Bank said that this cannot be sustained. By 2018, it is predicted that 90% of that aid will be gone.

12/3/11 Leaders Look to I.M.F., Again, as Euro Crisis Lingers (New York Times)

Leaders Look to I.M.F., Again, as Euro Crisis Lingers

By ANNIE LOWREY and STEVEN ERLANGER

Published: December 3, 2011

European leaders were looking for help from the outside of the continent, but because the International Monetary Fund (IMF) may be able to help, they won't probably get helped by the outside Europe.


Leaders of the 17 European Union nations that use the euro meet to prepare for a summit meeting on Thursday and Friday (Dec. 9 & 10).


European Union leaders have already turned to the I.M.F. to assist smaller nations, such as Ireland, Greece, and Portugal. 


In order to increase IMF funds, American agreement is necessary.

11/30/11 Turkey Moves to Intensify Sanctions Against Syria (New York Times)

Turkey Moves to Intensify Sanctions Against Syria

By DAN BILEFSKY and ANTHONY SHADID

Published: November 30, 2011

The article starts very briefly:

Turkey took steps on Wednesday to freeze the Syrian government’s financial assets, impose a travel ban on senior Syrian officials and cut off transactions with the country’s central bank, sharply escalating international pressure on Damascus in response to its continuing violence against civilians.

Turkish officials said that the latest measures were enacted to follow the Arab League that imposed broad trade sanctions and are part of a developing international effort to strangle Syria's economy and diminish the power of Syrian government.

The Arab League published a list of 17 senior Syrian officials who could face a ban on travel to other Arab countries. The officials include the ministers of defense and interior.

European, American Turkish officials all said:

they believed Syria’s economic troubles could prove the undoing of Mr. Assad, who to date has managed to maintain the allegiance of Syria’s business elite.

The economic sanctions would be a big damage to Syria.

The European Union and the United States were the first to impose penalties, and European sanctions, in particular, harmed Syria’s oil industry, which once contributed as much as a third of the government’s revenue. Though Europe is Syria’s biggest overall trading partner, Turkey and Arab states make up four of its next five biggest, and the Syrian leadership, along with those tied to it, has large investments in the Persian Gulf.

 There's another thing that Turkey decided:

Turkey also decided, given that Mr. Assad continues to ignore the Arab League’s calls for peace and political reform, to divert all of its Middle Eastern trade away from routes that traverse Syria, siphoning off yet another source of income for an increasingly isolated government.

11/30/11 As Britain Closes Embassies, Iran's Isolation Could Complicate Nuclear Issue (New York Times)

As Britain Closes Embassies, Iran's Isolation Could Complicate Nuclear Issue

By JOHN F. BURNS

Published: November 30, 2011

Iranian attack on British embassy.


Britain decided to close its embassy in Tehran and to expel all Iranian diplomats from London. Following the decision of Britain, Iran appeared to be more isolated, internationally. However, this withdrawal is seen to complicate efforts by Western governments to halt what they have identified as Iran's covert efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.


British Embassy has long been denounced by many Iranians, but its maintenance of has provided a useful bridge for diplomatic contacts on the nuclear issue.


Foreign Secretary William Hague said that diplomatic relations had not been ruptured altogether and showed the need for continuing contacts with Tehran on Iran's nuclear program.


Britain emphasized the broad international support it had received over the embassy attack. Britain is supported by Washington, Russia, China, etc.


European countries, such as France, as EU, are considering an embargo on Iran's oil or a freeze of its central bank holdings in Europe.


Some countries are withdrawing their ambassadors from Iran, such as France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Italy is still considering. Austria is against Iran, by saying that Iran had placed itself "outside the framework of international law."


The article ends with a surprising comment that Mr. Hague:

“Iran is a country where opposition leaders are under house arrest, more than 500 people have been executed so far this year, and where genuine protest is ruthlessly stamped on. The idea that the Iranian authorities could not have protected our embassy or that this could have taken place without some degree of regime consent is fanciful.”

12/10/11 U.S. Troops Could Stay in Afghanistan Past Deadline, Envoy Says (New York Times))

U.S. Troops Could Stay in Afghanistan Past Deadline, Envoy Says

By ROD NORDLAND

Published: December 10, 2011

The American ambassador to Afghanistan raised the possibility that the US combat troops could stay in Afghanistan after the 2004 deadline. The deadline has been set by the White House for their withdrawal.


The ambassador, Ryan C. Crocker reported that if the Afghan government wanted American troops to stay longer, the withdrawal could be slowed. But, such a decision has not made yet.


In June, President Obama said that  American troop withdrawals would begin the following month, December 2011, with 10,000 of the roughly 101,000 American troops. Then, an additional 23,000 troops would be withdrawn by the summer of 2012. According to NATO official, 4,000 of the 10,000 have already left.

11/28/11 Militants Turn to Death Squads in Afghanistan (New York Times)

Militants Turn to Death Squads in Afghanistan

By RAY RIVERA, SHARIFULLAH SAHAK and ERIC SCHMITT

Published: November 28, 2011

Target killings across Afghanistan have risen. American and Afghan officials believe that many are the work of Haqqani militant network and Al-Qaeda that are charged with killing suspected informants and terrorizing the populace on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.


Military intelligence officials say that the units act as death squads, and they also say that Khurasan has been responsible for at least 250 assassinations and public executions. Khurasan operates mainly in Pakistan's tribal areas.


There is also another group, but its name is not known. The group works mainly in Afghanistan and may be responsible for at least 20 killings in Khost Province over the summer.


The article reports:

It is another indication that the Haqqanis, a mostly Pakistan-based faction, remain the most dangerous part of an insurgency that makes full use of a porous and often ill-defined border, as the NATO strike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers over the weekend showed. Though the circumstances of that strike remain murky, it has now further upset relations between Pakistan and the United States, even as it once again demonstrated how havens inside Pakistan remained a critical part of the insurgent strategy. (New York Times)

No matter what happened, the relation between Pakistan and the United Sates has not got worsened.


The percent of assassinations in Afghanistan is growing.

Across Afghanistan, assassinations have jumped 61 percent, to 131 reported killings, through the first nine months of this year, compared with the same period in 2010, according to NATO statistics. United Nations officials say they began noticing a sharp increase in 2010, with 462 assassinations according to their records, double the number from the previous year. The figures may not include many killings in remote areas, like the mass beheading, because fearful villagers never reported them. (New York Times)

Khurasan

Khurasan is a militant group that has quite newly formed and that is seen as American foe.


Khurasan is operating in Pakistan tribal areas. It is believed to have formed in early 2009 in the North Waziristan area of Pakistan. The members are said to wear black clothing with green armbands. They work closely with Al-Qaeda in the region. Estimated number of the members are from 100 to 2,000 members. The group is seen to be responsible for some assassinations in Afghanistan. ("Militants Turn to Death Squads in Afghanistan," New York Times)

The United Nations and Peace

Does the United Nations create peace? or, did peace create the United Nations?

The United Nations, as well as League of Nations, were created after major wars, WW I and WW II. During the wars, they were not built.

That means that they were created during no war, peace. But, the purpose of them is to build peace.

Which is which?

The United Nations is making efforts to build and maintain world peace. It is enough for me. I like it.

However, this shows the weakness of the United Nations.

Both world wars have started with an aggression of one state, and the war was expanded over the world because of alliances that the aggressor had. The alliances involved many states in the wars. Then, a war between two states gradually became a world war.

....Alliance

Yes, the Untied Nations is a kind of alliance. Alliance seeks collective defense. If one state attacks another, the other states who have an alliance with the attacked state join the war against the attacking state.

I think the United Nations is large organization enough to prevent world war, but systemically it is possible for the next world war occur due to the United Nations as one alliance.

There is no guarantee that the world war will never happen again.

Politician - Difficult Position

When I was younger, my image of politicians are people who are working under government and who are not liked so much by citizens. I don't know how such an image was shaped, but this is what I used to think.


Politicians may be not liked by citizens because they increase tax rate, make a new law that may be disadvantage of some people, and....etc.


Mr. Noda, Prime Minister of Japan, was very criticized when he said that Japan is going to join TPP. One reason is that TPP is assumed to be very harmful for agricultural industries and to destroy them. Many farmers stood up to criticize him. Many people started criticizing him.


Do you know that Mr. Noda's mother is a farmer? If it is true that TPP will destroy agricultural industries, why did he decide that? Did he want to harm his own mother? Is he such a person who can never sympathize? How could he do this? Many questions came up with me.


Working on some assignments, which were usually about politics and economics, I could (maybe) understand what Mr. Noda may have been thinking. The assignments required me to think of some policies that improve such as social security, health care, etc. I found myself very liberal. I made some proposals, and they tend to be policies that increase government intervention. I said, on my one of the assignments, that government should increase taxes to gain more funds to rebuilt health care.


After submitting the assignment, I was reviewing what I wrote, and my reaction is "I don't wanna pay more tax though. I don't actually wanna taxes to be increased." Well...inconsistent. What I politically suggested on my assignment was completely opposite to what I personally thought.


How about politicians? Do they REALLY want to increase tax? I think they don't because they are also subject to pay more tax if it is increased; they also have to pay more for tax. BUT, they decided to increase tax for their country even though their output may increase.


What I noticed was "Politicians never decide to do what they want to do, but what they should do." There may be politicians who do what they want to do, but just ignore this case this time. They think of the country, and they are trying to dedicate for the country.


I believe that Mr. Noda never wanted to harm farmers, but he thought that joining TPP would work for Japan. I believe that he did what he should have done. I believe that he didn't do what he wanted to do. I hope these are true. I believe this is how politicians should be.


I don't know what he was actually thinking, of course, but I don't know joining TPP is successful or not; the future will tell me. Therefore, I don't criticize him. I want to carefully watch this case as one student who is studying politics.


I actually used to criticize him, but I will never since I sympathized and since I knew what he is thinking about this case.


Politicians sometime need to sacrifice, sometimes...or always...

Possibility of the Third World War

As you know, or generally speaking, World War III hasn't started...yet. I would say, 'yet' because there is enough possibility that it occurs.


The United Nations, mainly General Assembly and Security Council, are authorized by the United Nations Charter. The charter says that these institutions are responsible for international peace and security. Therefore, the UN may intervene into international conflict, which means conflicts of more than two states. However, the charter does not include any civil war which means internal conflict that happens within one state. The charter never talks about it. That means that the state where a conflict is happening has to solve the conflict by itself, basically.


Also, one more thing that has to be pointed is that the Untied Nations ant its charter were created, based on the world experience: World War I and II. Both the wars started with aggression of states: Germany in WW I and Japan in WW II. Aggression simply refers to an attack from one state to another without any reasonable or legal consequence. The framers have assumed that world war may occur with such an aggression of a state. They have not thought of nonstate behaviors.


The possibility of the Third World War comes from, maybe, nongovernmental, interest, or religious groups. Such wars are already happening in the world, such as War on Terror, which is kind of religious war from one perspective. If this war was more worldwide, such as that, for example, Islam extremists acting over the world and if such activities involved more more states, isn't the war 'world war'?


Actually, I cannot still clearly imagine such a situation. However, this is true that wars are not necessarily done by states, but they can be done by nonstate actors, like religion.


I used to believe that the world is more peaceful than it used to be, and I haven't taken such wars involving nonstate actors. I used to think that religious conflict is a small part of war or just a conflict. I have never thought that such conflict could be worldwide and involve many states in the world.


It is too hard to express what I am thinking as sentences and even as speaking. Language I use doesn't matter. But, what I learned today, which is a great astonishment to me, was this: the Third World War can happen.


I want to do more and more research on this topic.


I, of course, do not want WW III to happen.

Number of People Who Died During the Second World War

I am taking a course, Introduction to International Politics, this semester. Today's topic was the United Nations, and professor talked about the second World War as well.

He said that 60,000,000 people died from 1939 to 1945 during the war. That means more than 27,000 people died per a day for six years. 27,000 people died each day!? Isn't it unbelievable, is it?

I was surprised and shocked.

This is just a short blog from my experience. I want to do further research on this topic someday.

12/6/11 Rare Attacks on Shiites Kill Scores in Afghanistan

Rare Attacks on Shiites Kill Scores in Afghanistan

By ROD NORDLAND

Published: December 6, 2011

The article starts, saying:

A Pakistan-based extremist group claimed responsibility for a series of coordinated bombings aimed at Afghan Shiites on Tuesday, in what many feared was an attempt to further destabilize Afghanistan by adding a new dimension of strife to a country that, though battered by a decade of war, has been free of sectarian conflict. (New York Times)

The attacks has struck down three cities in Afghanistan, which are Kabul, Kandahar, and Mazar-i-Sharif. 63 Shiite worshipers on Ashura were estimated to be killed almost at the same time.


Sunnis strikes against the minority Shiites are alien to Afghanistan. Therefore, no Afghan was surprised when responsibility was claimed by a Sunni extremist group from Pakistan.


One important point would be:

The group, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, had not previously claimed or carried out attacks in Afghanistan, however, and its emergence fueled suspicions that Al Qaeda, the Taliban or Pakistan’s spy agency — or some combination of those three — had teamed up with the group to send the message that Afghanistan’s future stability remained deeply tenuous and indeed dependent on the cooperation of outside forces.

The president of Afghanistan commented, "The enemies of Afghanistan do not want us to live under one roof with peace and harmony."


The timing of the attacks is considerable. That was a day after international conference on Afghanistan in Bonn, Germany, and that conference had been viewed as an opportunity for Afghanistan to cement long-term support from the west.


The article also tells:

Critics of Pakistan were quick to read Monday’s boycott and Tuesday’s bombings as a signal from the Pakistanis, delivered by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, that Afghanistan could not ignore Pakistan. (New York Times)

“Pakistan is our historical enemy and wants us to never live in peace,” said Noor Mohammad, one of the wounded worshipers, who was covered in blood minutes after the attack in Kabul. “What should we do, where should we go? The terrorists are not even letting us carry on our religious practices.” (New York Times)

Harlem, New York City

Harlem is one of the cities that are celled 'dangerous place.' But, looking there with google map, it doesn't really seem to be such a place. Is it an old story? I don't know. Harlem is a part of north Manhattan and is where many African-Americans live.

But, one reason why there are many unemployed people or why relatively more poor people live there is deindustrialization after World War II. Deindustrialization is such as an economic shift from factory to service sector. If you go to New York City, you see that there is no factory. May be there are, but almost no.

I have never been there, but many people say Harlem is a dangerous place. I understand there are relatively high crime rate where poorer people live. But, my image of such a city used to be like there are many dirty or half-broken buildings...etc. But, Harlem doesn't seem like.

Just, I wondered, because my textbook says that the unemployment rate among Black youth would be 86%. This seems really large number.

11/25/11 Syria Lets Arab League Deadline on Observers Pass (New York Times)

Syria Lets Arab League Deadline on Observers Pass

By NADA BAKRI

Published: November 25, 2011

Syria ignored an Arab league deadline to accept observers to oversee a peace deal to end the bloodshed that has been lasting more than eight months.

Arab League official said:

if the government of President Bashar al-Assad failed to agree by Friday to sign a protocol detailing the mission of the observers, Arab finance ministers would meet Saturday in Cairo to discuss imposing sanctions that could include halting flights to Syria, curbing trade and stopping transactions with the country’s central bank. (New York Times)

 The new sanctions would deal a severe blow to an economy that is already suffering under the European Union's and the United States's.

Turkey said that its foreign minister would hold talks with foreign ministers from Arab nations in Cairo to discuss Syria's failure to admit several hundred military and civilian observers.

The United Nations estimated that at least 3,500 people have been killed since mid-March in the government's crackdown.

What Does Arresting Mean?

I have read an article about three American students who were arrested in Egypt. They were going to be released and freed. Another female journalist was also arrested, and she was released as well.

However, what happened to her when she was in detention? Polices touched her breasts and reach hands to her genital area. She does not remember how many hands were reaching her. She was surrounded by polices, and was sexually treated. Her detention was for 12 hours. How quickly do the polices begin such an action? She was transferred to military during the detention. Therefore, one can assume that her detention at the police was not long as 12 hours. Maybe 4 hours, 6 hours, 10 hours...I don't know. But, I think '12 hours' is short enough to claim my opinion.

Is it kind of a law to sexually treat arrested females? No way, but I don't know the reality.

Anyway, this is my astonishment. How quickly and easily can humans do this? The polices seem to be wild animals with costume.

11/24/11 Egypt Orders 3 American Students Released, and Journalist Is Assaulted in Detention (New York Times)

Egypt Orders 3 American Students Released, and Journalist Is Assaulted in Detention

By ANTHONY SHADID

Published: November 24, 2011

Egyptian court ordered the release of three American students. The students were arrested during their protests in Cairo's landmark Tahrir Square. A prominent documentary filmmaker, Jehane Noujaim, was also arrested. The students had been during a semester-long study abroad program in the American University in Cairo.

However, that the students had been freed is unclear because there was no immediate confirmation. Interior Ministry officials said that the students just need to be processed through Egypt's court system.

The Egyptian-American journalist, Mona Eltahawy, who was arrested, was freed. However, she was so badly treated:

On her Twitter account, she wrote, “5 or 6 surrounded me, groped and prodded my breasts, grabbed my genital area and I lost count how many hands tried to get into my trousers.” She said the beating and assault stopped once she was transferred from the police to the military, though military interrogators kept her blindfolded for hours. (New York Times)

Eltahawy's accusation, according to a military official in Cairo, Col. Islam Jaffar:

“She complained to me that she was beaten and sexually assaulted by Central Security Forces,” Mr. Jaffar said. “But what did she expect would happen? She was in the middle of the streets, in the midst of clashes, with no press card or form of ID. The press center had not given her permission to be in the streets as a journalist. The country is in a sensitive situation. We are under threat. She could be a spy for all we know.”

The group's Middle East and North Africa program coordinator claimed:

“Filming is not a crime, and authorities must release Noujaim immediately,Tte military and the police must stop using physical violence and detention to silence or intimidate journalists.”

Occupy Wall Street

Not knowing is sometimes disadvantage. It is not right to have an opinion without knowing. Well...it's may be right, I mean 'not wrong,' but it is not cool.

I didn't know much about the protest, Occupy Wall Street. One group in my school is protesting the decision of increasing tuition. One of my friends told me today that SUNY decided to increase tuition. SUNY stands for State University of New York. It is a group of public colleges and universities in New York. I heard that the tuition increases by $300 for in-state students and $600 for out-state students, and in four years, the tuition is going to be its 160%.

I am not sure where the source from, and I do not know what increasing to 160% is referring to. Actually, I was confused when the friend was telling me, but, at least, the tuition increases.

Occupy Wall Street protests have multiple reasons to protest and purposes to pursue. Based on one of the reasons, the school protesting group is protesting against SUNY: increase in tuition.

I met my other friends and talked about this. Our opinion is that it is good that schools repair buildings that should be repaired. However, we do not want the school to make new things for the future students with our money. I mean that if the school wants to cut its budget, it has to try so. It is not supposed to spend more money for new stuffs. It is supposed to provide good educations and to make the environment where more people can study. This is our opinion.

We do not pay for school to build new stuffs. Broken things have to be fixed, but the school does not need new things that do not equally help its students.

Schools now are cutting budgets for the stuffs that students want and spending money to things that students do not necessary need. This is not 'saving,' but is just 'shifting' money. My school is saving paper, water, electricity, etc, and to offer us more money? because it wants to have new, clear stuffs? because it wants to just get more money? No Way! Why is a public school benefiting? Why is it increasing its tuition? because of inflation? No. To cut budgets. Is it really cutting budgets? Maybe. BUT it is spending as well...to have things that students are not desiring.

Actually, what motivated me to think about this is because of my feeling that I don't want to pay more money and that I don't want the tuition to increase. But, this became a good opportunity for me to start focusing on such protests. I have been unlikely focusing on motions of individuals or relatively small actors. Thanks, Occupy Wall Street.

11/29/11 Iranian Protesters Attack British Embassy (New York TImes)

Iranian Protesters Attack British Embassy

By ROBERT F. WORTH and RICK GLADSTONE

Published: November 29, 2011

Iranian protesters attacked the British Embassy territory and a diplomatic residence in Tehran (which is a city in Iran). They tore down the British flag, smashed windows, defaced walls, and detained six staff members. What they are protesting against is Britain's tough new economic sanctions against Iran.

This action surprised even Iranian officials.

Analysts said,

Iran’s leaders, buffeted by the new sanctions, a collapsing economy and increasingly bitter infighting among the political elite, may have welcomed a chance to change the subject. But the episode also appeared to be a shot across the bow aimed at the West, in line with Tehran’s old policies of escalating defiance. (New York Times)

A statement was issued by the United Nations Security Council to call on Iran to protect foreign diplomats and embassy property.

Britain's new sanctions provoked special anger because

they require all contacts to be severed with the Iranian Central Bank, a step other countries, including the Unites States, have not taken. (New York Times)

The embassy attack happened the next day of when Iran's Parliament approved to expel the British ambassador and to downgrade diplomatic relations between Iran ant Britain, due to the Britain's new economic sanctions.

First and Second Strike Capabilities

That a country has the first-strike capability does not mean that the country is capable of attacking its adversary. In order to have the first-strike capability, a country has to have enough technology to produce weapons that can reduce or nullify the ability of its adversary.


For example, the US has ability to destruct nuclear-weapon launchers in the Soviet Union. That means that the US has the first-strike capability because it can reduce the ability of launching weapons of the Soviet Union. The US does not randomly launch missiles to somewhere in the Soviet Union.


The second-strike capability is simply the ability to attack back. That a country has the second-strike capability means that it can attack back against its adversary when it had been attacked.


For example, Iran is attacked by the US, and it can attack back against the US. Iran can simply send missiles or drop bombs on the US territories.


Therefore, that a country has the first-strike capability simultaneously means that the country has the second-strike capability, technologically. 




* The examples that I used are not based on the facts. They may be facts, but I am not sure.

11/16/11 A U.S. Marine Base for Australia Irritates China (New York Times)

A U.S. Marine Base for Australia Irritates China

By JACKIE CALMES

Published: November 16, 2011

President Obama announced that the U.S. planned to deploy 2,500 Marines in Australia to shore up alliances in Asia. However, China accused Mr. Obama of escalating military tensions in the region.

The agreement with Australia has been long discussed since the end of Vietnam War. 

"The president said the moves were not intended to isolate China, but they were an unmistakable sign that the United States had grown warier of its intentions." (New York Times)

"While the new military commitment is relatively modest, Mr. Obama has promoted it as the cornerstone of a strategy to confront more directly the challenge posed by China’s rapid advance as an economic and military power. He has also made some progress in creating a new Pacific free-trade zone that would give America’s free-market allies in the region some trading privileges that do not immediately extend to China." (New York Times)

The U.S. have some bases in the North Pacific area but does not have those in Southern area. Therefore, having a base in Australia, South Pacific, would be great for the U.S. The U.S. is not going to build a base of its own in Australia, but is planning to use Australian military facilities instead.

Core Characteristics of Religious Terror

There are several things that religious terrors have in common.

• Violence as a Sacramental or Divine Act
• Terrorists may not think that violence is not good, but may believe that they have to use violence for their purpose. Or, they may use violence because they think their use of violence is justified by the God they believe.
• Conflicts Seen as Total War
• Belief in Apocalypse, End of Days
• Demonization of the Enemy
• Not Killing People, but Objects
• For terrorists, people whom they kill are not people living but objects used to send their message throughout terrorism. The people are killed to gain attention from as many people as possible; civilians may be better targets than soldiers. Terrorism is done as a message, which is not for us, but may be Muslim to remind of starting Total War.
• Outsiders Who Aim to Tear the 'System' down
• Emphasis on Martyrdom
• This is a cause of suicide bombings. Suicide may be seen as sin. For terrorists, suicide bombers will be innocent after killing people by suicide-bombing terrorism.

Actually, I am not understanding completely, but those are the things that terrorists have in common and that I've learned in lecture. This is very scary, and is enough reasoning for the motivation of terrorism. 

10/24/11 U.S. and North Korea Begin Groundwork for Talks (New York TImes)

U.S. and North Korea Begin Groundwork for Talks

By NICK CUMMING-BRUCE and CHOE SANG-HUN

Published: October 24, 2011

In Geneva, the United States start two-days talks. American officials have said that they will test the ground for a possible resumption of wider discussion of the nuclear program of North Korea. 

At the end of the first day, in a statement, Mr. Bosworth said:

"I think we are moving in a positive direction. We have narrowed some differences, but we still have differences that we have to resolve.

He described the discussion as 'very positive,' and added: 

"I am neither optimistic nor pessimistic but as I said, we have made some progress. But we have issues still to resolve, ans we will work hard to do that."

 Last week, American officials said that the discussion is to determine whether North Korea is serious about the problem.


In September 2005, North Korea agreed to abandon its nuclear programs in exchange for economic support and diplomatic incentives from other parties to the six-party talks, including China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea as well as North Korea and the United States.
-----terrible levels of malnutrition children
-----6,000,000 North Koreans needing food aid


"Nearly half of North Korean children were chronically malnourished and the situation has been getting worse." (New York Times)

TPP: What Can Japan Really Do?

TPP = Trans-Pacific Partnership.

I want to ask, "what does Japan really want to do?"

I think Prime Minister of Japan, Mr. Noda is taking TPP as an opportunity to start negotiating with countries where Japan does not have EPA and FTA with. He says that he will protect what Japan is proud of and what has to be protected. However, TPP is basically an alliance of multiple countries aiming zero-tariff and free-trade, including workers as well as imported and exported products.

I somehow agree with Mr. Noda because he sounds like he is going to protect Japan's important products and will not eliminate all the tariffs. If he can do that, there would be no problem. And, maybe, only some good EPA and FTA will be left.

However, the problem is how strongly TPP can work to Japan. TPP consists of multiple member countries. Do the members have any power to influence Japan? Can Japan neglect if it is offered to eliminate tariffs of the products that Japan wants to protect with tariffs?

I think Mr. Noda's strategy itself is good, but it does not seem to be realistic. Can Japan REALLY do that? Is it possible?

I need to do more research to examine this problem.

The other point is TPP as a treaty preventing China's powerful growth. China cannot or may not be able to join TPP as long as it does not change its policy. I don't know much about China, but because China's economy is more like socialist kind of system, it does not fit the pact that seeks free trades: capitalism thought. Therefore, one perspective is that TPP makes a great large market on pacific area, pressuring China. Many countries are suffered from China's recent growth.

Again, I need to do more research on this. I should not write what I am not sure. But, this is what I'm thinking recently.

TPP: Trans-Pacific Partnership

TPP stands for Trans-Pacific Partnership. I think, this TPP is the current largest issue in Japan. TPP does not do anything to Japan yet, but the discussion for it is involving a lot of issues. On November 11, 2011, Mr. Noda, Prime Minister of Japan, said that Japan is joining the negotiations of TPP. However, there are supporters as well as protesters, claiming many problems that would occur if Japan joins TPP. TPP is a treaty among member states and is aiming a free trade market. TPP aims 'no tariffs.' How does it sound to you? Good? Bad?

If you are a consumer who works at a general company to earn money and spend the money to purchase food to eat, you may be happy because no tariff means that cheaper imported goods will be in the market. For example, you can buy imported rice which is very cheap, instead of domestic rice. Rice isn't a good example if you are Japanese because, I personally believe, Japanese rice is the best rice in the world for Japanese....anyway, yes, if you are such a consumer, you can pay less to purchase the same amount of products. Are you happy with that?

How about if you are a farmer who is producing vegetable, fruits, and whatever. Do you think you are happy with TPP that allow more goods to be imported from other countries? Obviously, Japanese products are more expensive than those in other TPP member states. If there is no tariffs, such cheap products will be imported more and traded in the market. That means that you need to compete with more cheaper-goods. You may have to reduce price...maybe you can. You may need to reduce costs of your production...maybe you can. But, do you think you can win the cheapness of products imported from less-developed countries? I DON'T THINK SO.

Now, imported rice is levied with 777.7% tariff. This means that rice whose price in the original country is $100 will be at least $877.7 (100 + 777.7% of $100 as tariff).....sorry if my calculation is wrong.....'at least' because importers definitely put more price to benefit.

Japanese domestic rice is protected under such extremely high tariff. In other words, such thigh tariff is needed to protect Japanese rice. The tariff is high in order to protect Japanese rice. What happens if this tariff becomes 0%? Importers can import rice with the same price as the local market. Who wants to buy rice which is 8 times expensive as foreign rice? Maybe me, I love Japanese rice, so I would love to buy it, but not everyone. That means Japanese rice will be bought less, by hurting rice farmers. This is not only in the case of rice, but all other agricultural products.

Also, another problem is that even though deflation is a big problem in Japan, TPP would accelerate it. That cheaper goods are purchased more means that there will be more cheap goods and less expensive goods. Gradually, the cheap goods dominate the market, causing prices to decrease: deflation. Companies want to sell their products with higher price and benefit more. The problem of deflation is that they cannot productively benefit. They have to sell more and more to benefit in deflation.

There are still more problems with Japan joining TPP, but I cannot list all of them. I am not understanding all of them. I am just a college student who studied little about economics and can guess what is going to happen if Japan joins TPP. I don't know what the prime minister of Japan is thinking. As you may know, I am one of the protestants against TPP and am not just a consumer who simply seeks cheaper goods. I do not think that expected increase in exports will benefit more than supporters believe. Joining TPP, Japan will lose what it will never be able to regain. I am sad about the prime minister deciding without enough consideration and explanations to the public.

This is my summary of this event published by New York Times.

11/11/11 Premier Says Japan Will Join Pacific Free Trade Talks (New York Times)

Premier Says Japan Will Join Pacific Free Trade Talks

By HIROKO TABUCHI

Published: November 11, 2011

Prime Minister of Japan, Yoshihiko Noda said that Japan is going to join the talks of the pacific free trade called TPP, which stands for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Joining TPP is concerned to be encouraging exporters who seek new markets but to endanger farmers: the farmers are very angry about this.

The Asia-Pacific economic summit meeting will be held this weekend in Hawaii, and President Obama is going to promote the far-reaching TPP regional trade agreement. The aim of the agreement is to cut import tariffs to zero. Nine governments are joining the discussion.

Mr. Noda strongly claimed that global competition eventually makes a domestic economy, including a more competitive agricultural sector, stronger.

The United States has been buying more from Japan than it has been selling to Japan. Therefore, the United States has pushed for better access to Japanese markets. One concern for the US is that Tokyo's participation may complicate talks if Japanese government is unable, or unwilling, to commit to slashing some tariffs.


The pact for Japan means lower tariffs that encourage some imports and exports. Of course, the effect reaches to highly protected domestic sectors like farming.


Japan is now just entered the negotiations, but there is already protesting campaign.


Japan's farmers have been protected under very high tariffs, such as 777.7 percent levy on imported rice. Those farmers are protesting the government against the pact.


The protesting campaign is supported by the public, while free trade proponents argue that consumers benefit from cheaper imports, such as of food.


Even members in Noda's Domestic Party strongly oppose Noda's policy, and the party split, dooming his government.


Exporters claim that without the pact, Japan risks being left behind in the world economy. They believe that joining the pact create a better condition for Japan against regional rivals like South Korea.


South Korea already has a free trade agreement with European Union and the United States, whereas Japan doesn't.


Calls for free trade has been discussed at a very high pitch.


Yoko Ishikura, a professor of global business at Keio University in Tokyo, said at a recent economic forum that the government had:

"not done a great hob of explaining the benefits, and the debate has become emotionally charged."

and she added,

"we need to ask, 'what if Japan doesn't join?' That could be the bigger risk."

Thus, there are many supporters for the pact as well as many protesters against the pact. One problem claimed in Japan is that the government is not providing enough information to the public. Many people do not know what would happen if Japan joins the pact. Another problem is that Mr. Noda very quickly decided to join the pact. Whether Japan joins the pact has long been discussed for several years, but a large earthquake happened in March this year, and the government suspended the discussion for a while in order to focus on the damage of the earthquake.  

---------------------

The Governments Attending: 9 + Japan = 10 governments.

• Australia (20 November 2008)
• Brunei (28 May 2006)
• Chile (28 May 2008)
• Japan (11 November 2011)
• Malaysia (October 2010)
• New Zealand (28 May 2006)
• Peru (November 2008)
• Singapore (28 May 2006)
• United States (February 2008)
• Vietnam (November 2008)

Source: Wikipedia "Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership"


You may find more details here, Office of the United States Trade Representative, Trans Pacific Partners

Here's my reaction.

11/7/11 Syria Unleashes Assault to Take an Unbowed City (New York TImes)

Syria Unleashes Assault to Take an Unbowed City

By ANTHONY SHADID

Published: November 7, 2011

The Syrian government has started a cruel assault to retake Homs, which is "Unbowed City" and which is the third largest city in the country. The government faces defectors who have prevented the government from seizing the city. The right side is the map (from New York Times).

The specter of civil war

has long hung over Homs, the most tenacious and determined of cities opposed to President Bashar al-Assad’s rule, where the city’s Sunni Muslim majority has closed ranks behind the revolt. This month, parts of the city have become an urban battlefield, with activists saying government forces have killed 111 people in just five days, opposition groups warning of dire shortages forced by the siege and residents complaining of lawlessness by marauding soldiers and paramilitary fighters. (New York Times)

The article provides more details about the background of  the civil war:

In some ways, Homs is a microcosm of Syria, with a Sunni Muslim majority and minorities of Christians and Alawites, a heterodox Muslim sect from which Mr. Assad draws much of his top leadership. Unlike the countryside, where sectarian tension runs deeper, Homs managed to rely on established ties between communities.

But in the past months, those relationships have frayed. While residents say many Christians have tried to remain on the sidelines, tensions have deepened between Sunnis and Alawites, as the most severe challenge to four decades of the Assad family’s authoritarian grip on the nation continues to burn.