Will things calm down?

As people wake up this morning around the world they will want details about North Korea’s successful nuclear test. The 7:00 PM news here was stretched to a full hour but I would not call it enlightening. Since lunch when news first trickled in, only one national channel interrupted programming for extensive coverage. After a short announcement, other channels quickly returned to normal programming (consisting, for example, of a celebrity baseball game and a timely program about Korean cooking hosted by a popular Japanese physic). The extended coverage on BS1 was not much more helpful; they had a long string of talking heads – I mean analysts – that explained who had predicted what successfully and who had been wrong.

Tomorrow I know that all of Japan will be abuzz and only in part because we are in the direct line of fire. The issue within Asia had been growing for a long time, and this was a major escalation. As I watched the news - always clumsily translated into English – it became clear it was simply going to be a long litany of everyone making official statements. (And I mean everyone.) Other than outlining the history of the issue, there was very little analysis. But to be fair, there is very little to go on at the moment. The political ramifications in Japan are enormous.

The online reaction took an interesting turn early on; that of humor. Not the obvious reaction, I agree, but isn’t there always some sharp truth to the heckles of the jester? Hawks in Asia will attack the long policy of appeasement (which I agree should be closely examined), but with humor and satire the internet community quickly exposed a far more complex picture of today’s developments. I considered posting some of the more humorous comments but realized an intimate knowledge of Japanese current events and extensive background information is needed for it to be funny; but really, believe me, it was funny.

Below, I humbly offer what little insight I have into the issue. (I apologize for its lack of humor.)

What has always struck me about people that go on to get doctorates in geo-politics is the large gap that lays at the foundation of their discipline. They’ve glossed over it long enough that one day an enterprising professor will re-define the subject and what has always been a weakness will become someone else’s problem. While one goes across the scale of person-to-person relationships governed by laws, to international relationships, there is a great discontinuity. A primary factor in the leading so-called "realist" camp is the anarchical environment in which the international politik works. There are no laws; only the powerful (using various means) are obeyed, all other structures are superficial. But in the common sense world we inhabit – outside of text books - a country is not an entity one can shake hands with; a country is led by a group of individuals. And so while internally we are bound by laws; internationally it becomes something out of Nietzsche. Which is fine with me really, if that’s how it works. But the line has to be defined for their conclusions to valid, and they haven’t even remotely acknowledged the it. To dramatically over simplify it: Why can’t one person force their will on someone by holding a gun to their head domestically, but at the same time hold basically the same guiding philosophy internationally? It is morally ambiguous at best. This is not a comment on U.S. politics. This is simply what is taught at universities across the West. It can’t be helped if some find their way into various governments.

Very little of what geo-political researchers have ever predicted has come true. But I made a prediction years ago that has held true. Don’t plan a parade yet. I’ll be honest and admit it didn’t take an advance degree or much brainpower to work it out; it only took what little common sense I have (see the post about the most dangerous meal of the day). A pre-emptive doctrine, while sounding heroic, is not pragmatic, and leads to the opposite result; that of an arms race. Flashback: Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and must be taken out. Are you sleeping better now because Saddam is in jail? And more importantly: Did Iraq have weapons of mass destructions at all?

The second question is of key importance because Iraq didn’t. To a small country which views America as a predatory superpower, Iraq becomes a very clear example of what happens to countries that don’t possess weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent. They get taken over in a matter of days. This becomes a very powerful rational to develop weapons of mass destruction.

So how would I fix it? Well firstly, I want to be clear I didn’t get us into this situation. (So no time outs for me please.) I will proudly take what responsibility I have in correcting the issue seriously. The people that guided us to this point were the same group of people with fancy geo-political degrees from Harvard and Toronto. And in the near future, as encouraging as this may seem, they will be in charge of fixing it. What becomes a simple question of morals in domestic situations becomes immensely complex on the international stage. Reality has a nasty way of rearing its head into even the best planned policy.