Tag: World Affairs

Australia and Japan are at loggerheads before the International Court of Justice not because they disagree over whaling but because they disagree and are both members of the International Whaling Commission. What may at first seem a fussy distinction is fundamental and important. It is only because of their mutual commitments under an international convention that the whaling dispute can come before the court in The Hague. In response to Australia’s complaint that it has been acting in bad faith by cloaking ‘commercial whaling under the lab coat of science,’ Japan has cited its continuing membership of the IWC as proof of a good faith commitment to multilateralism and consensus building. The accusation of bad faith is one to which Japan has taken particular exception, not assuaged by assurances from Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus that the ICJ case need not harm bilateral relations. In oral arguments before the court, the Japanese legal team has taken aim at Australian bad faith in the presentation of selective and distorted testimony and comments by Mr Dreyfus that, irrespective of the court’s decision, the government would continue to oppose Japan’s whaling program by, among other things, accommodating the activities of the radical Sea Shepherd group.

 Australian media coverage of the ICJ case has been patchy, at best, given the amount of space and time devoted to the antics of Sea Shepherd. Methodical argument in a court of law is necessarily less accessible to superficial minds. But the to-and-fro in The Hague has been quite as lively by way of sarcasm, rhetorical flourishes and the cut and thrust of cross-examination. Both sides have employed an impressive array of advocates including, on the Japanese side, leading Iranian, Scottish and English barristers.

 But what is the court asked to decide? What is it empowered to decide?

 The ICJ is asked to determine whether Japan is meeting its obligations under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, specifically whether its program of ‘scientific whaling’ meets the requirements set out under Article 8. Japan argues that research data it has obtained through the killing of whales could not be obtained any other way and that it has fully met requirements to notify the IWC and respond to the input of its Scientific Committee. According to Japan, the court is not competent to distinguish good science from bad but must determine simply whether the whaling convention has been followed. While Australia argues that Japan’s research does not fulfill essential criteria for a scientific program – specificity and apparent usefulness, the formulation and testing of hypotheses, and peer review – the narrow scope of the court’s competency and jurisdiction would seem, on the evidence presented, to make a ruling against Japan unlikely. The outcome is expected before the end of the year.

 Australia took a costly, high-risk gamble by bringing the case to the International Court of Justice. If Japan’s ‘scientific whaling’ is endorsed by the court, anti-whaling groups that pay no heed to anything other than direct action will claim vindication. If the Australian government continues to agitate against Japan, having lost the legal argument, it may appear a bad loser whose opposition to whaling lacks logic or scientific basis and rests merely on a presumption of cultural superiority – the very thing Japan alleges. But, on the other side of the ledger, is the modern obligation on nations with shared interests and joined together under an international convention to seek and respect the judgment of their peers. Here is the inestimable value of the exercise.

 Which brings me back to the importance of the two countries’ membership of the IWC. While the commission is not worth much at present, being deeply divided between pro- and anti-whaling factions, the alternative is unilateralism of the Sea Shepherd sort. Australia has a distinguished record of participation in multilateral responses to world problems. Since 1945, so has Japan. A compromise on the whaling issue was within reach at the IWC a few years ago, until zealous prohibitionists gained sway within both Labor and Coalition circles. Unilateralism is not a sound policy for a country like Australia (leave that to the North Koreas of this world). If it does not like the decision coming from The Hague, Australia’s worst course of action would be to leave the IWC or surrender prosecution of the argument to demagogues and free agents. Some Australian media outlets have selectively reported Japan’s comments before the ICJ to suggest it is ready to pull out of the IWC if the decision goes against it. As already pointed out, to the contrary, Japan insists its continued membership is proof of its good faith. It would puncture that argument by leaving, and the same goes for Australia.

Walter Hamilton was formerly Correspondent for the ABC in Japan.

Which of China or Japan has the stronger claim to the Senkaku or Diaoyu islands in the East China Sea, the dispute that has driven their relations to the lowest point in 40 years?

China’s case is that the islands, having been appropriated by imperial Japan, were forfeit when it surrendered to the Allies in 1945. Japan argues that China acquiesced in Tokyo’s annexation of the uninhabited islands in the 1890s and only changed its tune after oil and gas reserves were found nearby in the 1960s. From my reading of the facts neither argument can be sustained.

The Potsdam Declaration of the surrender terms said “Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we [the Allies] determine.” The earlier Cairo Declaration – also cited by advocates of China’s case – was more polemical but less precise. The Allies’ war aim was to force Japan to give up territories “stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa and the Pescadores,” adding that it would be expelled “from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.” Violence was not used to annex the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands (contrary to some accounts they were not acquired through the Sino-Japanese War) and greed is a shaky basis for apportioning blame in international affairs.

When Japan accepted the terms of the Potsdam Declaration the surrender document signed in September 1945 set in train arrangements for the country’s demilitarization and occupation. It did not, however, place conditions on a future sovereign Japan – no more, say, than the surrender document General Percival signed in 1942 could be considered to bind the present government of Singapore.

Some commentators treat the Potsdam Declaration as if it were a lodestone for determining the rights and wrongs of states’ actions in 2013. They argue that the Allies’ war aims were circumvented during and after the occupation by conservative forces in Washington and Tokyo and that that false outcome, frozen in time by the Cold War, can only now be put right as American power declines and China obtains the means to defend its interests. Since any argument mounted on the basis of the Potsdam Declaration also calls into question Japan’s sovereignty over the Okinawan islands, the fate of a few specks of land in the East China Sea may open a Pandora’s box.

The international agreement more relevant to the case than either the Potsdam or Cairo documents is the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951, which specifically addressed the scope of Japan’s postwar sovereignty. Under the treaty Japan renounced “right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.” Some regard this provision as crucial because the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands traditionally were part of Formosa, or Taiwan. But early drafts of the treaty, which went into greater detail than the final document, did not treat the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands as part of Taiwan/China.

Not only did the San Francisco Treaty fail to specify which state had sovereignty over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, Article 3 bestowed upon the United States trusteeship of territories south of 29 degrees north latitude including the Okinawan islands, as well as – in the view of Japanese and the American officials – the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. Prior to the reversion of these territories to Japan in 1971, the PRC’s state-controlled media adopted the same perspective, notwithstanding that both China and Taiwan would challenge the legitimacy of the reversion (neither of the rival claimants to represent the government of China, communist or nationalist, had been invited to the peace conference).

It is apparent that no existing international agreement clarifies the sovereignty question. The search for a solution, therefore, must focus back on how Japan and China managed the issue following the normalization of their relations in 1972 and why that modus operandi has broken down. In brief, the two countries preferred to let the issue rest in the background so they could get on with more important business. Now, for reasons to do with national pride, a shift in the regional power balance and the exigencies of internal politics, both find it useful to assert their claims and muscle up to each other. Claims of an imminent risk of military conflict, in my opinion, under-estimate the strategic patience of the two old rivals. There are inherent dangers in having patrol vessels shadowing each other in the disputed waters day after day but the situation currently seems to be under control.

It is instructive, meanwhile, to look back at the preparations for the San Francisco peace conference and find that American officials identified “psychological disadvantages in seeming to fence Japan in” by imposing a continuous line around it. They felt that rigid territorial containment could prove provocative: an interesting perspective in light of the current debate on the best response to a resurgent China. The aspect I wish to stress is the value of ambiguity and flexibility as instruments of statecraft. They were once also the preferred tools of those charged with guiding Sino-Japanese relations. Diplomatic ambiguity, while much maligned, can derive from a commonsense refusal to second-guess the future; it can again serve the interests of all sides much better than the simplistic formulas of hardliners who dress up expediency as principle.

Those who argue that the treaty planners of 1951 were irresponsible for failing to settle the territorial issue in definitive terms must believe nations will always act according to the prescriptions of previous generations. Patently this is not how the real world operates. China and Japan have changed dramatically since 1951; they have potent weapons, unimaginable back then, for future mutual support or mutual harm. It is beholden on responsible leaders to manage bilateral relations in the light of existing realities, not according to the dusted-off slogans and grievances of the past.

Walter Hamilton reported from Japan for 11 years. His latest book is Children of the Occupation: Japan’s Untold Story

The Japanese pacifist constitution prohibits Japan from waging war. This restriction will be removed if the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has his way. And he is likely to succeed come the 21 July national election for the Upper House of the Japanese Diet (parliament).

Abe’s government is riding high in polls since his Liberal Democratic Party election win in late December 2012. His government now controls more than 2/3rds of the lower house. After 21 July elections he is likely to have 2/3rds support in the Upper House. On a 2/3rds majority vote in each house the constitution can be amended in the Diet. A majority vote of the Japanese people in a referendum is also required. But the crucial first step for Abe is amending the constitution in the Diet.

Abe’s goal is to amend Article 9 of the constitution, the pacifist provision. Article 9 proclaims that “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes”. Abe has avoided amendment specifics.

Abe’s tactic is first to amend Article 96. It states “amendments to this constitution shall be initiated by the Diet, through a concurring vote of two-thirds or more of all the members of each house and shall thereupon be submitted to the people for ratification, which shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of all votes cast, at a referendum or at special election such as the diet shall specify”. Abe’s first step is to reduce Article 96 requirement to a simple majority in each house – to make it easy to amend the constitution in the Diet in the future.

Abe can then take the next step to amend Article 9 in the Diet.  On Abe’s agenda is a proposed change to Article 9 to enable Japan to engage in “collective self defence”. Many high placed American defence and former government spokesmen have publicly urged Japan’s engagement in collective self defence. For obvious reasons, it is the United States self interests for Japan to join the US in its wars.

Japan has resisted to-date based on Article 9. Abe has made reference to the UN when speaking about constitutional amendment. His position will be to argue a collective self defence amendment of Article 9 is in line with the UN charter, Article 51, which affirms the right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations. But is it a good reason to amend Article 9?

Media polls are indicating support for constitutional amendment, but it’s far from clear what precise amendments are supported. If a poll question on collective self defence was put to the Japanese people, “Do you want your sons and daughters to fight for America in its wars”, one would expect a resounding no.

With most media supporting constitutional change, and Abe’s constitutional amendments rammed through the Diet, how will the Japanese people vote? How will they become informed on the implications of amendments? These are the big questions facing the 21 July election and a referendum. At present, a lack of information and debate exists in Japan on these issues.

John Woodward is an Australian lawyer resident in Japan

In my blog ‘On smoko’ of  2 April 2013 I again raised the issue of Australia’s continuing failure to equip itself for our future in Asia. I asked whether we would go on smoko again, as we had following the Garnaut Report of 1989. Professor Steve FitzGerald responded to this blog with some comments. I thought it would be useful to highlight again what he has said about the recently announced Asian Century Strategic Advisory Board. Incidentally, I was in touch with the Implementation Secretariat of the Asian Century Strategic Advisory Board on 5 April 2013. I asked how many of the Advisory Board can fluently speak an Asian language and their names. I am still waiting for a reply. Steve FitzGerald who was previously Australian Ambassador to China, wrote as follows:

Smoko’s right! When you look at the recently announced Asian Century Strategic Advisory Board ( http://asiancentury.dpmc.gov.au/about/board), you have to wonder if they even understand what they are talking about.

Why is there no one from Asia on the Board? Peter Varghese’s ancestry is Asian, and we should be pleased he’s there because he’s very bright and also independent-minded, but he’s there because he’s ex officio as the Australian head of DFAT. There are dozens of people in Asia who know Australia and would like to see it truly engage with the region, who are prepared to cast a critical eye over our endeavours and to be very frank in close quarters discussion. Kishore Mahbubani or George Yeo in Singapore for example. Or Dewi Fortuna Anwar in indonesia. The composition of the Board reflects a sadly insular thinking. Its discussion and advice can only be like listening to your own voice. I don’t see how you can be dinkum about engaging with Asia if you don’t include people from Asia in the strategic body that’s supposed to guide the way you do the engagement. Did it simply not occur to them? And if that was beyond their ken, surely there ought to have been some Australian Asians, to reflect the contemporary Australian demographic and show genuineness in their intent.

What about the Board Members who are there? Apart from Peter Drysdale, where are the other seasoned Asianists who have studied and have deep knowledge and experience of the region? Where are the intellectuals (if that’s not too dirty a word) who’ve spent years thinking about these issues? Where are the people who’ve been working on the frontline of education and understand why so many attempts to put Asian languages and studies into the mainstream of schools and universities have failed? Why not some of the people from Asialink who did studies on the state of Indonesian, Japanese and Chinese studies a few years ago? Or someone like Colin Mackerras, who’s been round this track so many times he could save them fifty meetings on the subject and as many information papers? I know it’s not all about languages and studies, but just as an engineer can’t design a bridge without basic training and all the knowledge that’s gone into that training, so also you can’t design a total strategy for Asia without the equivalent in training, skills and knowledge on the part of the designers. Or what about Hugh White, strategic and defence expert yet one who in 2011 came up with the most innovative proposal for Australia’s Asian language learning challenge we’ve seen in a generation? Why not a couple of our high-ranking recently retired diplomats, who know so much more about Asia and what the engagement demands of us than just how to count the money? And what about young people? For example from among young Asian specialists in academia, or one of those who has studied an Asian language and done all the right things and can’t get a job that uses their skills, or one of the young Asian Australians who see this all from a different perspective? These are the ones who will live through the Asian century and have to live with whatever we make of it now, or don’t.

Smoko anyone? Let’s just roll our own.

Since 1904 the brightest and best of young Australians have been winning Rhodes Scholarships to study at Oxford. Winners have included prime ministers, political leaders, a governor general, a Nobel Prize winner and high court judges.

How about funding a substantial foundation to provide for the brightest and best of young Australians to study at the best universities in Asia – Tokyo, Beijing, Seoul, Hong Kong, Singapore and elsewhere.

Your companies have been very profitable in exporting Australian owned ores to Asia. Your business futures and indeed Australia’s future is tied to Asia. But we lack the skills and understanding for the future in our region.  Rhodes-type scholarships for our region would be an enormous step forward.

I am not aware of any of our major companies, including our mining companies, who have board members or senior executives who can speak any of the major languages of our region or have much experience of living and working in Asia. Business, like most institutions in Australia, is UK and US centric.

We need to do much better in Asia. We need to change and our mining and resource company leaders could make a substantial contribution to making it happen.

Last month a private US Equity firm, the Blackstone Group, made an historic announcement. Stephen Schwarzman from Blackstone announced in Beijing that a group of US companies were establishing a $US300 million scholarship for study in China. Schwarzman said that he hopes the new scholarship will rival the Rhodes scholarship in prestige and influence. The scholarship will pay all expenses for 200 students each year from around the world for a one-year Masters program at Tsinghua University in Beijing.

Schwarzman has made a $US100 million private donation and is supported by major companies with interests in China – Boeing, Caterpillar, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Credit Suisse and the Bloomberg Foundation. Its advisory board includes Kevin Rudd, Condolezza Rice, Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, Robert Ruben, Henry Paulsen and Yo Yo Ma.

Surely Gina and Twiggy can persuade other business colleagues of theirs to set up a memorable scholarship for our future in Asia and for our young people.

The two greatest calamities to befall the people of Tokyo in modern times were the September 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake and the March 1945 firebombing by American B-29s. In each case, many tens of thousands perished within a matter of hours.

In Sumida ward, a working class area in the east of the city that suffered grievously on both occasions, a large Buddhist-style memorial hall, the Tokyo Irei-do (erected in 1930; rebuilt in 1951), links these two events – as though the whirlwind reaped by Japan in the Second World War was itself an act of God.

Nearby is a museum that preserves relics of the earthquake destruction: stopped clocks, fused glassware, that sort of thing. Entry is free, and the day I visited a sprinkling of Japanese visitors were making their way solemnly past the exhibits.

The museum is dimly lit and badly in need of refurbishment; there are myriad ways the objects could be better displayed and explained. But nothing about the Japanese treatment of history surprises me any more. Whether it is the glib denials of conservative politicians and media commentators or the whitewashed phrases of certain school textbooks – history is one of the most elusive and vulnerable commodities in contemporary Japan.

As I wandered through the museum I came upon a large wall chart illustrating the foreign relief aid provided in the wake of the 1923 disaster. I happened to have recently researched this subject and discovered that the £75,000 ($5.4 million in today’s money) pledged by Australians in private donations ranked them, per capita, among the most forthcoming in the world. Their “spontaneous sympathy and generous aid” was applauded by such as the leader of the Japanese delegation to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, which was meeting in Sydney at the time.

I examined the wall chart with a sense of anticipation. The donated sums were shown as coloured columns rising above the countries named: Mexico, Panama, Peru, Sweden… My eye ran along the line. No Australia. How could it possibly be missing? Then I realized that the Australian contribution must have been absorbed within the sum assigned to “Britain and her possessions.” Alas, I reasoned, the fact Australia had been a sovereign nation for two decades had not penetrated all levels of Japanese officialdom by 1923. Wrong again. At the bottom of the chart was the date it was made: August 1958.

While a small lacuna in the historical scheme of things, what are we to make of the fact that in 2013 Australia remains – in this Japanese memory at least – a “British possession”? It is surely a reminder that Australia continues to be perceived as culturally derivative and, to some extent, not quite authentic or sovereign. We may console ourselves with the thought that this old idea is suitably place among an ill-kempt collection of museum pieces. But, as we strive to confront the challenges of the “Asian century,” it is still a shock and a disappointment to find the stubborn anachronism on display at all.

After two decades mired in largely self-made problems (post-bubble depreciation; political instability; aging population; nuclear meltdown), Japan is suddenly feeling much better about itself. Anyone observing events could not fail to register the shift in the national mood. Are we witnessing a Japanese renaissance, a return to economic expansion? Will economic recovery ease the way for long-debated constitutional and political reforms?

Japanese have a name for it: Abenomics. It hardly matters that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is neither an economist nor the principal driver of the stimulus plan (that role is performed by the new central bank governor, Haruhiko Kuroda), what makes the slogan important is that it trumpets one identifiable hero to a public that has long craved a strong leader, someone with a capacity to exercise power.

I don’t say this on the basis of shopworn historical references to shoguns and samurai; I say so because opinion polls over the past several years have made it abundantly clear. The ousted Noda Cabinet, and those that went before it, did not lose public confidence because of unpopular policies. Japanese voters ditched them because they perceived they were unable to exercise power. Abe himself succumbed in 2007; an ineffectual leader, he stepped down as Prime Minister the first time around due to “illness”. In a stunning comeback, he appears energized, decisive and focused.

Previous attempts at stimulating the Japanese economy relied on public works spending and near-zero interest rates. Abenomics involves a more dramatic form of monetary stimulus aimed directly at currency depreciation and igniting inflation: two conditions Japanese governments have usually shunned as dangerous, even unpatriotic. Since Abe’s patriotic credentials are not in doubt, what is going on?

The central bank has undertaken to buy back huge volumes of government bonds, creating what appears to be another layer of debt for a country already burdened with massive public sector liabilities. But since Japan’s public debt is covered largely from domestic private savings, the strategy is not as reckless or contrived as it may sound – as long as confidence in recovery can be maintained. Abe and his team want to prod and coax the Japanese public to save less and spend more, and people tend to bring forward spending if they think prices will rise and/or they feel more assured about the future. This calculation lies at the heart of the government’s inflationary monetary policy.

The other part of the calculation is currency depreciation. If a country starts printing money at an unprecedented rate, as Japan is doing, its currency can be expected to fall. The yen has dropped from 80-something to the US dollar to about 100 yen to the dollar. That trend is supporting the third pillar of Abenomics. A cheaper yen immediately benefits Japanese exporters, driving up profits and share prices. The Tokyo stock index has rebounded from 9,000-something to 15,000 in a short time.

These circuit-breaking developments have made one class of Japanese much better off (on paper at least); and, for the rest, people’s hopes are raised about a flow through to higher wages. For someone earning $9 or $10 an hour, as do many part-time workers in the retail sector, the prospect is desperately appealing. The mainstream media, so recklessly negative about the former centre-left Noda government, finds nothing but virtue now in Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party. The Abe “magic” seems to be dazzling even practiced eyes. An Upper House election, due in July, may deliver a triumphant LDP the numbers necessary to push through constitutional change.

Conservatives have long wanted to be rid of the “American” constitution presented to Japan during the postwar occupation, which renounces the right to wage war as a means of settling disputes. They intend to start by making it possible to rewrite the basic law through a simple parliamentary majority of votes, instead of the current two-thirds. Since it can be argued the constitution has formed the most effective political “opposition” to one-party rule in Japan for the past 66 years, such a move would severely weaken checks and balances within the system.

Standing up to China over a long-running territorial dispute is the most conspicuous foreign policy manifestation of the Abe doctrine. Another important strand is Tokyo’s willingness to accept a significant deterioration in relations with South Korea for the sake of pandering to Japan’s right-wing nationalist fringe. Abe has set a low standard for public discussion of historical facts, effectively licensing other politicians and commentators to utter increasingly outrageous remarks on “comfort women” and other inflammatory issues.

These are risky self-indulgences for a leader whose daring economic strategy depends upon building and maintaining confidence in markets, among consumers and with strategic partners. Abenomics is still only a slogan and a starting point. Unless and until it delivers to the real economy higher wages, improved competitiveness and a genuine sense of security for ordinary Japanese, nothing is assured. A grab for power by weakening the constitution and indulging in historical revisionism can still undo it all.

Walter Hamilton spent 11 years as the ABC’s Tokyo Correspondent. He is just back from a six-week visit to Japan.

As a guest blogger on May 2 I described the intense interest in the General Election to be held on May 5. This was shown on election day with a voter turnout of more than 84%, the highest in Malaysian history.

The Opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) won the popular vote but lost the elections. It garnered 5,623,984 or 50.88% of the popular votes but won only 89 Parliamentary seats (40%) compared with the ruling Barisan Nasional’s (BN) 5,237,699 votes or 47.38% with 133 seats. The BN lost 7 seats.

The component parties of BN, the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), and the Gerakan were almost annihilated and the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) with only 4 seats barely survived the mauling. The United Malay National Organisation (UMNO) the strongest coalition partner however did well in the rural areas.

The hard fought elections had some undesirable aspects. Rumors were rife that “ballot box stuffing” by foreigners legitimized as “Malaysian citizens “was used in marginal constituencies to influence the result. Opposition supporters were encouraged by bloggers to alert the authorities, but some of them behaved like vigilantes.

Despite BN’s fear mongering tactics of talking up potential racial violence and religious tensions, the bribing of voters with cash handouts and promises of more to come after the elections, urban voters voted for the PR in large numbers. The Prime Minister’s election pledge of “you help me and I will help you” only amused urban voters.

The BN, particularly the PM and former PM Tun Mahathir Mohammed, bitterly criticized the Chinese voters for being racial in abandoning the party in urban constituencies. It became clear how out of touch BN was with the demographic changes and the powerful socio-economic and political forces at work in urban areas. Their political analysts must know that the Chinese electorate could not have pulled off the coup in urban areas without the strong support of the Malays. But stoking racial and religious sensitivities have always been exploited successfully by BN.  They must also know that Chinese candidates in BN lost to opposition Chinese PR candidates. Clearly this was a party preference and not an ethnic one. It is to the credit of the Opposition that they did not use the race card to criticize the BN for pushing for Malay dominance in rural areas.

What saved the BN were the rural Malays voters in the 317 Felda settlement land schemes spread throughout the country. 90% of these 600,000 settler voters, beneficiaries of huge payouts during the run up to the elections, are diehard UMNO supporters. The Pan Islamic Party (PAS) a component party of PR was hoping to improve on its 2008 performance in these areas but was not able to make inroads into the 54 parliamentary and 92 state seats in the Felda dominated areas. Also, BN maintained its stranglehold in the mainly rural areas of East Malaysia. The opposition DAP made impressive gains in all urban areas in the country.

The PR claims fraud in at least 30 seats. This is significant as it needs only 23 seats to unseat BN. Allegations have been made of vote buying, misuse of postal ballots, of legitimizing foreigners to vote and other irregularities. The Election Commission (EC) has said that appeals to the courts can be made within 21 days of the election results being gazetted. No one is holding their breath in expecting a fair outcome to any of the appeals. The credibility and track record of the investigating agencies have never inspired confidence in Malaysians.

Bersih, the NGO for clean and fair elections is setting up a Peoples Tribunal to probe election fraud and irregularities. Its findings may have little impact on the outcome of the election but it will certainly have long term national and international implications.

El Tee Kay from Kuala Lumpur

The run up to the 13^th General Election on Sunday May 5 has been described as the dirtiest in Malaysian history. For the first time in 54 years the Barisan Nasional (BN) Government led by Prime Minister Najib Razak fears it may lose its grip on power. For the first time the Malaysian voter has a choice of a credible opposition, the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) led by Anwar Ibrahim, which is mounting a strong challenge. Indications are that the main coalition partners of BN – the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) and the Gerakan may suffer severe losses or even be wiped out. The United Malay National Organisation (UMNO) may also lose some seats to the Pan Islamic Party (PAS) of the opposition coalition.

The UM Centre for Democracy and Elections in a recent survey has put the PR ahead of the BN by 43% to 38%.

There also seems to be a genuine concern amongst BN politicians that if they lose the elections, there will be accountability and retribution for past misdeeds. This has led to a change in strategy and the battle lines, unfortunately, are being drawn on racial and religious grounds. This has always been a disturbing tactic used by all parties to garner support of the disgruntled racists and fundamentalists.

Fear mongering in the BN controlled media and in party propaganda is also raising its ugly head. The opposition is countering with an expose of BN excesses on the internet. Notably BN has at every election including this one resurrected the ghosts of May 13^th 1969 when hundreds of people lost their lives in racial riots instigated by devious politicians which broke out after the elections. A film Tanda Putera (the Executioner Prince), a distorted version of the May 13^th events, is being allegedly screened privately to Malay audiences to stir up hatred towards the Chinese.

Numerous full page advertisements also appear in the media daily designed to instill fear in non-Muslims- that a vote for the opposition will be a vote for PAS and hudud law, dismemberment of limbs as punishment for certain crimes.. The opposition has been highlighting poor governance, mismanagement of public funds, bribery and corruption by BN governments at the State and Federal levels for decades.

Of equal interest to the General Election is the battle for 12 State Governments which is being held simultaneously. Sarawak held its elections in 2011. Currently BN controls nine States and PR four. BN says it can win back 2 States and PR has hopes to retain its 4 States and capture at least 3 more BN States.

It is difficult to gauge voter sentiment because there are no independent surveys, but if the crowd attendance at party rallies is an indication of public support, the Opposition has a great chance of winning at least another 33 seats in a House of 222 seats to obtain a simple majority. It could also win a number of States .At the very least PR may make substantial gains.

As a casual observer of the Australian media I keep asking myself how a bombing in Boston is more important to Australia than an election in Kuala Lumpur?

Kyoto is both an historic and beautiful city. Fortunately it was spared allied bombing during the last war.

When our family first visited Kyoto and other parts of Japan in the 1960’s the exchange rate was about 400yen to the Australian dollar. It  made for not only wonderful holidays, but cheap holidays as well. We usually stayed at Japanese minshuku for less than $A 10 for dinner, bed and breakfast for an adult.

Over the years, the yen strengthened considerably until it appreciated to about Yen 65 to $A1. To reverse this appreciation of the yen, the new Abe Government is flooding the economy with cash which has helped depreciate the yen to about Yen 104 to $A1.

The hope of Abe is that with the depreciation of the yen, there will be new opportunities for Japan’s export sector. But will it succeed? To combat the previous strong yen, Japan has moved a great deal of its manufacturing offshore, particularly cars to the US. Much of Japan’s manufacture of electronics and IT has been shifted to Asia. So the depreciation of the yen is unlikely to help these Japanese firms that have already shifted offshore. With labour costs in the ROK about half those of Japan, the Japanese will have a lot to make up if its manufacturing and SME sectors are to become competitive again.

The new debate in Japan, which is about the economy, has produced an unexpected benefit. In the months before Japan’s general election in December last year, the leader of the Opposition, Abe-san, and his Jimento Party were incessantly banging the anti-foreigner drum, a bit like Tony Abbott on asylum seekers in Australia. Abe and the Jimento were determined to head off the extreme nationalism of Ishihara, the Governor of Tokyo, and Hashimoto, the Governor of Osaka and seized every opportunity to beat the anti-Chinese drum. Now with a strong majority in the Diet and with Ishihara and Hashimoto side-lined, PM Abe can safely scale back his xenophobic posturing. Abe’s concentration on the economy will be a welcome change from the nationalist posturing and anti-Chinese sentiment that prevailed several months ago in Japan.

Japan has been nervous, but not particularly panicked by the dangerous tantrums of the North Korean regime. Japan has put on alert its anti-missile batteries around Tokyo and has deployed AGIS destroyers into the Sea of Japan. Even with this Japanese response, I sense that the Japanese people expect the problem to blow over quickly. They have seen these antics from North Korea so much in the past – acting belligerently and then being rewarded by the US when it starts talking and acting ‘normally’.  In the past this tactic has been a clear winner for North Korea. It obviously hopes that by being reasonable in the weeks ahead it will persuade the US to ease sanctions and increase aid.

Yet the North Korean action is to some extent understandable. After the American invasions of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, any small power could come to the conclusion that only the possession of nuclear weapons would prevent a US attack. A price is being paid for the US abuse of power in the world.

One consequence of North Korea’s erratic behaviour is that the US presence in north-east Asia is likely to be continued and possibly enhanced, particularly with its large bases in Japan. China is understandably concerned about the US presence in north-east Asia, but its failure to ‘manage’ North Korea means that it is encouraging a continuing US presence in the region.

John Menadue

This fear has been with us since European settlement – a small, relatively wealthy white community living on the rim of the large populations of Asia. This fear stunts our own human growth and is an obstacle to trusting relations with our own region.

Although we have broken the back of ‘white Australia’, fear of Asia and the ‘yellow peril’ is still alive. We see it in so many ways.

• Our uncritical alliance with the US and formerly with the UK stems from the fear of our region and the need for a strong external protector.
• Politicians such as John Howard, Pauline Hanson, Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison, see fear of Asia and particularly demonising of asylum seekers as a potent political weapon.
• The hostility to a small number of skilled workers on 457 visas.
• The campaign against Chinese investment by Barnaby Joyce and others which is really a re-run of the campaign by Pauline Hanson against Japanese investment 25 years ago.

These campaigns against our Asian neighbours are designed to appeal to our emotions, our feelings our prejudice. They are not directed to our intellects.

We waste a great deal of effort in trying to improve our relations and understanding of Asia with more diplomatic posts in the region, more conferences and more articles. These activities operate at the intellectual and cerebral level, appealing to our logic and rational natures.

Fear however is visceral, it is of the gut. It can really only be countered by experience and hopefully we come to a feeling that foreigners are not such a threat after all.

An important driver in the ending of White Australia was the experience by many of us in studying and living with Asian students in Australia. We weren’t changed so much by intellectual arguments about our relations with the region, but by our experience of feeling comfortable and at ease in dealing with people from our region who were quite different to ourselves. Experience of the unknown, not argument or logic was the influential factor. So Australian students of the 1950s and 1960s campaigned to end ‘white Australia’. We felt comfortable with fellow Asian students. They were not a threat.

For the same reason, I have been a strong supporter of working holiday programs in providing opportunities for young Australians to travel and work in Asia for extensive periods. Unfortunately recent Australian governments have not seen the long-term benefits of these programs. The first working holiday agreement in Asia was with Japan in 1980. We didn’t have another in Asia until the 1996 agreement with the ROK. In the last ten years, there have been another six working holiday agreements with Asian countries, but most of them have caps of 100 persons per annum. We still have no working holiday agreements with China, India or Vietnam.

Many universities now provide opportunities for undergraduates and graduates to take up 12 months or more study at an Asian university or college. Over time, with these programs, if well developed, we will have a core of young Australians who have studied and experienced an Asian culture and society. It will be a visceral experience as much as a cerebral experience

Studying foreign languages is also important if we are to ‘experience’ Asia. It is difficult to fully experience a foreign society, except through the language of that society. Yet unfortunately in Australia today Asian language study is in crisis. It is in decline. This trend must be reversed as soon as possible.

By all means let us have our seminars and intellectual discussions about Asia. But the real focus we need in combatting our fears of Asia is for hundreds of thousands of young Australians to study, work and live in Asia for extended periods. Fear is visceral, not cerebral and experiencing the foreigner is the best way to break down our instinctive fear and reservation about the outsider and the person who is different. Importantly, we have to name the fear and what drives it, in all of us. Unless we do, we will be dissipating our energies on secondary intellectual issues.

It is great to be back in Japan for cherry blossom. I first came to Japan almost 45 years ago and have been visiting regularly ever since. On our visits and residence in Japan, we stayed at scores of minshuku – Japanese B & B – across the country. It was a wonderful experience.

Cherry blossoms have been early in Japan this year. Many locals say that it is due to climate change! I suspect that many Japanese are more concerned about their environmental pollution of dust out of China, soaring eastwards, first over Korea and then over Japan. A family member who recently stayed in Seoul for a couple of days said that the dust obscured the sun until about 2pm each day.

We attended the Australian embassy cherry blossom celebration along with about 1,200 others last week. It is a great occasion for Australia to display its friendship and its produce. We established the first such celebration almost 35 years ago. It was then called a ‘wattle and cherry blossom day’. The cherry blossoms in the garden have always been beautiful, but in the early days we brought in wattle from the Commonwealth War Graves garden in Hodogaya.

In the 1980s, the Australian government sold a large section of the embassy premises for $750 million to a large Japanese company. The capital gain was tax-free. Some of the money was used to erect a new chancery and staff apartments. I am yet to hear of anyone who admires what we built. The Canadians did it much better than we did. However, a lovely part of the garden was retained and is well used for embassy functions.

I sense a much improved mood in Japan following the election of the Abe Government several months ago. After 25 years of stagnation, the Japanese are now much more optimistic. But time will tell whether the optimistic mood is justified. Major structural problems still face Japan – an ageing population and a refusal to seriously entertain immigration, a protected agricultural sector and serious governance problems whereby operators like TEPCO, the nuclear power operator at Fukishima, are much too close to government regulators. By flooding the economy with money and forcing down the Japanese yen, it is clearly causing difficulties for adjoining countries such as ROK. The depreciating yen will also increase prices of all imported energy and foodstuffs. But the mood has certainly improved, something I have not noticed for a long time.

Knowledgeable Japanese that I have spoken to express admiration for the strength of the Australian economy – growth rates over many years averaging about 3%, inflation ranging between 2% and 3%, unemployment just over 5% and miniscule government debt compared with Japan with its very serious international debt problems. But Japanese express real surprise that with such a strongly performing economy, the Australian Government should be at such political risk in the coming September elections. I don’t think they quite understand when I tell them that so much of the damage to the Australian Government has been self-inflicted.

John Menadue

Chaired by Ken Henry, the White Paper, ‘Australia in the Asian Century’ was released five months ago, in October 2012. We have heard precious little about it since. Prime Minister Gillard appointed Craig Emerson, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy. I have not seen or heard anything from him that gives me confidence that an implementation plan has been drawn up and is being implemented.

Will we go on ‘smoko’ again as we did after the Garnaut Report of 1989 on the challenge and opportunities we faced in North Asia and particularly Japan and Korea. (See ‘The Asian Century and the Australian Smoko’ which Greg Dodds and I wrote in April 2012 on my website publish.pearlsandirritations.com.)

A key issue from the Asian Century White Paper is to ensure that the key institutions are keeping up with the modest bench marks that were set. The Henry Review of Taxation showed that policy and ideas are the easy part. The hard slog is implementation. We have not heard from Craig Emerson how the modest objectives spelt out are to be achieved. What are the bench marks along the way to 2025? Where are the champions of our engagement in Asia? Those champions will have to come from within our existing institutions, particularly in business, media and education. We have not heard from them.

Commenting on PM Gillard’s pending visit to China, Minister Emerson said that in the White Paper ‘content is important, but even more important is the very existence of the White Paper’. I am not sure I understand what he means and I don’t feel the least bit reassured.

The response of Minister Emerson was almost as unhelpful and ill-informed as the comment by PM Gillard when referring to the “Asian Century”, she said ‘we have not been here before’. That may be true for her, but she showed little knowledge of our history and what was set out for Australia in 1989 by Professor Garnaut. We have “been here before” but the Prime Minister obviously missed it.

The barriers to our involvement in Asia are obvious. The first is our large companies with their Anglo-Celtic culture and clubbish directors who are failing to equip either themselves or their companies for Asia. The second is our media whose structure and coverage was laid down over a century ago. It is overwhelmingly focussed on the UK and the US. There is only token interest in our region.

A central issue beyond these two institutional failures is our fear of Asia. The White Paper did not adequately address this issue. This fear of Asia has been with us since European settlement – a small white, fearful English-speaking enclave surrounded by large numbers of Asians. That fear of Asia is regularly exploited. The Liberal Party with its ‘stop the boats’ one-liners incites exaggerated fear of Asia. The National Party runs the same campaign against Chinese investment that Pauline Hanson ran in the past against Japanese investment.  The Greens bash Malaysia over its human rights. The Government gives lip-service to our relations with the region, but the effort is not there.

So far the follow-up to the Asian Century White Paper is not encouraging. The Garnaut Report was influential for a number of years and then we largely forgot. Asian language learning in Australia today is worse than it was 20 years ago!

Is anyone really driving the implementation of “Australia and the Asian Century”?

John Menadue

Almost a month ago two hundred of the self styled Royal Sulu Army, some heavily armed, landed in a small coastal village in Sabah, Malaysia. They came from the nearby Tawi Tawi islands in the southern Philippines. Their objective was to “persuade” the Malaysian Government to recognize their “hereditary” claim to Sabah for the Sulu Sultanate.

The Suluk or Tausag tribes have traversed this narrow stretch of water as traders and pirates for centuries and many settled along the East coast of Sabah. The influx increased during the Moro uprising in the southern Philippines. This most recent invasion, it seems, has all to do with the Philippine claim to Sabah and reminiscent of President Marcos’s “Operation Merdeka” which was an attempt to launch 160 army trained Muslim youth from Sulu and Tawi Tawi to foment an uprising in Sabah in 1967. This plot went horribly wrong when this commando unit called the Jabidah found out they were to kill fellow Suluks. They mutinied and were apparently eliminated by their handlers. Coincidentally, Benigno Aquino Jr the father of the current Philippines President blew the cover of this covert operation and massacre.

The Philippines has not dropped its claim to Sabah and wants Malaysia to have the case adjudicated by the International Court of Justice. Malaysia dismisses this on the grounds of “effective” and “a’titre de souverain”.

The Manila government has said that the intruders and the Sultan will be charged under Philippine law but the Malaysian Government wants them to be tried in Malaysia. The opposing stands taken by the two Asean countries and the extradition process will be drawn out which will result in more political posturing.

The Philippines will hold its midterm elections in May. In an earlier election “Sultan” Jamalul contested a senate seat in the former President Arroyo’s Team Unity and lost. It is speculated in Manila that the “invasion” of Sabah is politically motivated by the opposition to embarrass President Aquino.

Malaysia will also hold its 13^th General Election soon and as Sabah emerges as a key to forming the next government, both the Barisan Nasional and the opposition Pakatan Rakyat are accusing each other of treachery for political gain.  The Malaysian government has become prickly about criticisms of this long drawn out conflict and of its alleged mishandling of the incursion by a handful of invaders and the loss of lives of civilians and security forces. There is also the question of Muslim voter reactions to the use of force in dealing with the situation. President Aquino also has to deal with the influx of refugees to Tawi Tawi fleeing the conflict and the loss of Filipino lives and alleged mistreatment of its citizens by security forces.

Fortunately neither the Philippines nor the Malaysian Governments’ have upped the ante. This is in keeping with ASEAN’s collaborative approach but there are fears that this spat could escalate into retaliatory terrorist activities within Sabah by Suluks which could further strain relations with Manila. Some of the “invaders” are said to be veterans of the Moro National Liberation Front who have relatives and sympathizers in both countries

But a recent look at the Australian media suggested greater interest in a New York Court decision on sugar in drinks and a former British MP and his wife jailed for a traffic lie. Does Australia have a real interest in Asia unless it is for economic advantage?

El Tee Kay, Kuala Lumpur

Australian Senator Nick Xenophon flew into Kuala Lumpur in mid-February. He was detained and deported back to Australia as he posed a “security threat” to the country. He was roundly condemned by the Malaysian Home Minister, the Election Commission and the media for his interference but received favourable support overseas and from the opposition parties, civil and human rights groups in Malaysia. He was blacklisted for participating in an illegal rally for free and fair elections in last April’s Bersih 3.0 rally and “tarnishing” Malaysia’s image. His summary deportation has cast further doubts about the fairness of the coming general election, probably in June this year.

The government can usually ignore protests about unfair elections as it has great influence over radio and television channels. Many of the main English, Malay, Chinese and Indian newspapers are owned by supporters of the the Barisan Nasional (BN) the major governing party. The BN is a coalition of UMNO, MCA, MIC and some smaller parties.

For 40 years, Malaysians have put up with rumors of election fraud but have been dismissed.  In 2004, the voters gave BN a strong mandate to support the new PM Abdullah Badawi after two decades of authoritarian rule.  Although the country was prosperous and peaceful, the ethnic minorities felt marginalized in government, business and education. Government affirmative action policies favored the Malays and Muslims and minorities felt deprived and discriminated against. The festering discontent was too strong to contain, and the Chinese and Indian partners in the BN, the ruling coalition, were blamed for not fighting for the rights of their constituents. UMNO (United Malays National Organization) too lost touch with the grass roots. It is alleged that UMNO Putras (the elite) got all the contracts and perks while the UMNO base was neglected.

To try and beat back the opposition to its money politics the leader of Pakatan Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), Anwar Ibrahim was charged and later acquitted on what many regarded as trumped up sodomy charges.

The opposition parties exploited this discontent in the BN. A large number of Chinese switched allegiance to the DAP (Democratic Action Party), and the Indians to PKR. PAS (Parti Islam Semalaysia) made inroads into the religious heartlands in the country where UMNO was strongest. The political advantage held by UMNO in gerrymandering in favor of Malay rural constituencies became less relevant as PAS mounted their challenge in these staunchly Muslim areas. In the 2008 elections, BN was devastated by the electoral swing to the opposition.  BN lost five States to the opposition and only strong support from Sabah and Sarawak saved them from losing the Federal Government.

The next General Election has generated a tremendous interest .The opposition is optimistic about winning the Federal Government and several State governments. This will depend on whether the loosely knit coalition is able to stick together. Bickering over seat allocations, differences on religious and social issues, unless dealt with maturely, may cause an erosion of confidence amongst voters.

Sabah and Sarawak still hold the key to success. They have 56 parliamentary constituencies and they have been loyal BN states. The predictions are that the BN will lose urban seats in Sarawak but the bulk of the rural seats are safe for the BN. This time Sabah is a problem. The presence of illegal immigrants in the State has been an open sore. For decades, the government has denied political gifting of citizenship to immigrants in exchange for their vote for the BN. Evidence presented at the Royal Commission of Inquiry recently confirmed that this occurred. In Parliament, it was alleged that about 700,000 immigrants were given citizenship and of these, about 200.000 were registered as voters. These numbers have changed the demographics of Sabah drastically and increased BN’s and UMNO’s dominance.

The global scrutiny of the elections and pressure at home to deflect growing concerns of massive electoral fraud motivated the PM Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to sign the Transparency International (TI) Integrity Pledge on Wednesday 20 February declaring that the governing parties would uphold integrity and reinforcing his commitment to fight corruption. The Opposition parties did not participate in this pledge and continue to insist that all members of the administration declare their assets and wealth. It is unfortunate the   pledge comes at such a late stage of the election process, but it is a positive message from the PM that “money politics”, a euphemism for corruption, a long standing scourge in UMNO politics, will not be tolerated.

Money politics in other parties also is common where the “frogs” (party hoppers) are enticed to switch camps after the elections for large sums of money betraying their parties and their constituents. There have been cases where State Governments have fallen due to these turncoats.

Senator Xenophon’s deportation may not have been unexpected. The bungling officials may have scored an own goal. It has only attracted more international attention which will no doubt please Anwar Ibrahim the leader of PKR and more broadly the coalition of opposition parties (Pakatan Rakyat). He needs to win an additional 34 seats. It is a big ask but not impossible.

El Tee Kay, Kuala Lumpur

In the Washington Post articles http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/japan-must-face-the-past/2013/01/25/7a9b9244-6713-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html  Jennifer Lind describes how Japanese conservative politicians have been playing a potentially dangerous game in disputes with neighbouring countries. The dispute arises mainly because of Japan’s inability to acknowledge its past aggression.

The current Japanese hostility to neighbours is in part designed to distract national attention away from the country’s economic woes. Fortunately, Prime Minister Abe did not antagonise the ROK on territory issues as feared on Takeshima Day on 3 February 2013.(Takeshima/Dokdo are the disputed islands between Japan and ROK). Hopefully, it is a sign that Prime Minister Abe is becoming more moderate. He may even decide not to make any more visits to the Yasukuni Shrine which commemorates Japanese war criminals and others.

The present hostility to neighbours may only cause short-term damage in Japan’s relations with neighbouring countries. However, there is the likelihood of continuing long-term damage as a result of Japan’s reinterpretation of history which is taught in schools under the direction of the Department of Education. After World War II a new and standardised national identity was created through the school curriculum. This curriculum reinterpreted history. As a result, the majority of Japanese adults, including conservative politicians themselves, have not had access to the teaching of a comprehensive view of history. They fail to comprehend why Japan’s neighbouring countries continue to be angered over Japan’s denial of the past on such sensitive issues as comfort women. The modifying of history through textbooks has indeed affected the Japanese public. It has caused a collective amnesia. It is likely to continue as conservative politicians are now proposing to further revise school texts to reflect their nationalistic view of history. The current damage could be made worse and reconciliation with neighbours could become all that much more difficult.

The problem runs deeper than the current indiscretions of conservative politicians. The problem is endemic as a result of 60 years of Japanese reinterpretation of history.

Susan Menadue Chun

Tokyo, Japan

Since 2007 Rio Tinto has written off $US 35 billion in failed investments. It must be a world record. There are probably more write-downs to come with its investments in Mozambique coal and in aluminium in North America.

Tom Albanese has been sacrificed but the remainder of the Rio Tinto board are apparently unscathed. They have been too lax with shareholders money that they have washed so comprehensively down the drain. The boards of some of our mining companies in the mining boom must think that they are playing with monopoly money. Booming commodity prices and demand lulled them into being careless on major investment decisions. They became very gullible. Not only have they been lax in investment decisions but they have been careless in allowing costs to balloon.

The board of Rio Tinto oversaw the company’s operations in China when the iron ore price quadrupled. But in the business euphoria, Rio Tinto took its eyes off the ball and left local staff in charge. Four of Rio’s staff in China admitted to bribery in a Chinese court. They are now languishing in Chinese jails for up to 14 years. This sorry performance was described by our former Ambassador in Beijing, Geoff Raby, as a ‘management failure’. He was being polite. It was a debacle. So far it is not clear that any senior executives or board members have been held accountable.

Sam Walsh was on the board of Rio at the time he headed Rio’s iron ore division, with its substantial trade with China. He is now the CEO of the whole organisation replacing TomAlbanese.

It is also suggested that the problems in Mozambique related in part to Rio’s management style, including its relations with the Mozambique government. Rio did not appoint Portuguese speaking executives in Mozambique to manage the business.

Our large mining companies have an excellent record as geologists, explorers and people skilled at digging up and transporting minerals but they are yet to demonstrate business skills particularly in countries that are culturally and linguistically different. I do not know of any major Australian mining company that has a board member or CEO who can fluently speak at least one of the languages of our major customers – China, Japan and Korea. Few would have even a cultural understanding of how business is conducted in these countries.

These large companies pontificate about sovereign risk when the Australian government attempts to introduce reasonable tax regimes. These companies also tell us that we should all be raising our productivity with upskilling and improved work practices. But they don’t practice wheat they preach.

The disasters which Rio Tinto has brought upon itself were predictable.

John Menadue