Japan’s largest fish market, Tsukiji, caught fire last week in a blaze that burned for 15 hours, destroying massive portions of the historic building that has housed the market for decades. No one was injured in the fire but the cause is still unknown. The fire will not shut down the market, which has been a popular tourist destination since it opened in 1935, but it has brought international attention to the market–which is facing a dramatic move that few of the tourists visiting its stalls and shops are aware of.

Concerns about the antiquated refrigeration systems in the market and the building’s vulnerability to earthquakes have been present for years but the fast approaching 2020 Olympics accelerated plans to move the market, as Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike looks to create space for athletic venues and housing during the games. The Tsukiji market was meant to be relocated last year to the man-made island of Toyosu, a location which was not convenient for fishmongers or tourists, but was purpose-built with modern appliances and resources. However, Toyosu was occupied by the Tokyo Gas Company from 1966 to 1988 and industrial chemicals had saturated the area, skyrocketing past legal levels.

Officials claimed that they had sanitized the land but Koike revealed in a press conference last fall that those measures had never in fact taken place–yet she still plans to move the fish market to Toyosu. The local government has invested millions in cleaning up the Toyosu site but it has not yet been declared safe–leaving both the fishmongers who work there and tourists who plan to visit wary. The original site of the Tsukiji market will be rebuilt as a culinary theme park while the traditional fish market will be moved to Toyosu in the summer of 2018. More than 70 percent of the fish wholesalers working in Tsukiji oppose the move but unfortunately the decision is not theirs to make–there is no union, no collective bargaining and even if there was, this is not the type of battle unions are usually designed to negotiate.

Hosting the Olympics is an intensive process for any city–the infrastructure fiasco at Sochi and the massive protests in Rio are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to exploring all that can go wrong when hosting the international event. Koike faces an almost impossible decision–leave the Tsukiji market where it is, a crumbling building vulnerable to fires and earthquakes, or move it to the new site, where contamination could destroy the health of everyone who sells and shops for fish there. The market can’t be shut down–not only is it a tourist destination, it is the largest fish supplier for the restaurants of Tokyo. In a nation where sushi is sold on every corner, the fish supply cannot be cut off overnight. The fate of the market rests now rests entirely on the shoulders of the clean-up team working to purify Toyosu. If the site is still contaminated next summer, Koike will be back to square one–with the clock ticking closer to the Olympics every day.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Tourism and Toxicity at the Tsukiji Fish Market appeared first on Law Street.

Okinoshima, a 200-acre island off the Japanese mainland, was announced as one of the newest additions to the UNESCO World Heritage sites list on Sunday. But globe-trotters wanting to visit Okinoshima may need to reconsider: the island bans women.

The reason behind the island’s ban is unknown, but it is commonly thought to stem from an ancient belief that menstruation makes women impure.

Men who wish to go to the sacred island also have to follow strict guidelines, including ridding themselves of their impurities by bathing naked in the ocean before coming ashore. Men are allowed only one visit per year. They must also never speak of the island, nor remove so much as a flower or blade of grass from the environment, according to Japanese newspaper The Asahi Shimbun.

The female-free land mass is manned year round by a Shinto priest who prays to the island’s gods and watches over the 17th century shrines.

The mystical island is also home to a vast collection of culturally significant and virtually intact archeological artifacts that “provide evidence of intense exchanges between the Japanese archipelago, the Korean Peninsula and the Asian continent,” according to UNESCO.

The island’s treasures and new World Heritage status would have likely attracted a number of tourists, were it not for its policy on travelers. But local officials have stated they will not loosen any rules in light of UNESCO’s decision.

UNESCO Faces Criticism

While the Japanese government welcomed the announcement of its 17th heritage site, many took to social media to express their discontent that a site banning women was given a UN commendation.

Okinoshima island's forbidden to women & Unesco thinks it's ok since there's another place forbidden to women. whatever @UNESCO #WonderWoman

— V-Lex (@VitalMilla) July 10, 2017

The UNESCO Committee debated whether Okinoshima’s inclusion as a World Heritage site would be discriminatory, but found a precedent in Mount Athos, in Greece, which also prohibits entry to women. Okinoshima’s approach to gender segregation did not constitute a sufficient reason to prevent the island from becoming a World Heritage site, according to UNESCO spokesperson Roni Amelan.

An island official refuted comments saying the practice was discriminatory, and told AFP that the ban “is meant to protect women, the birth-giving gender” because travel by sea can be dangerous.

Still, some find that the decision sends the wrong message and is directly at odds with UNESCO’s Priority Gender Equality Action Plan, which has a stated goal to “ensure that a gender equality perspective is reflected in all its policies, programs, and processes.”

Rajan Zed, president of the U.S.-based Universal Society of Hinduism, called for UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova’s resignation for failing to uphold the organization’s ideals.

“Where women are revered, there the gods are pleased; where they are not, no rite will yield any fruit,” Zed said, quoting Hindu scriptures.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Japanese Island That Bans Women is Now a UNESCO World Heritage Site appeared first on Law Street.

One of America’s most enduring mysteries is what happened to Amelia Earhart after she attempted to become the first female pilot to fly around the world in 1937. Earhart, and her navigator Fred Noonan, seemingly vanished over the Pacific Ocean, and concrete evidence of a crash was never discovered.

But now, researchers may have a new theory. A previously classified photo was discovered at the National Archives which appears to show a short-haired woman sitting on a dock looking at a boat towing a plane that is 38 feet long– the same length as Earhart’s plane. With her back turned to the camera, the woman’s identity is unclear, but her short hair and height match Earhart, according to the Washington Post.

Additionally, there is a man in the picture whose nose and hair match up perfectly with Noonan, in the opinion of a facial recognition expert. Their location would make sense since the small islands could have been along the path that Earhart took before disappearing over the Pacific. The tweet below identifies the two subjects:

Holy crap, there may be new evidence that Amelia Earhart didn’t die in that plane crash https://t.co/RF3xT9jR1Z pic.twitter.com/2JFg00Ot9E

— BuzzFeed (@BuzzFeed) July 5, 2017

The photo was discovered by former U.S. Treasury agent Les Kinney. It will be featured as part of an upcoming History Channel documentary titled “Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence.”  In order to ensure the authenticity of the photograph, it was examined by two independent photo experts who confirmed it was not distorted, according to the Washington Post.

At first, Shawn Henry, a former FBI assistant executive director who is now helping privately investigate the Earhart disappearance, was skeptical of the photo. But once he saw the woman wearing what appear to be Earhart’s trademark pants, his opinion changed.

“I’m looking at her sitting on the dock and thinking, ‘This is her,’” he said.

One of the theories is that Earhart and Noonan were held in Japanese custody after crashing in Japanese territory. Kinney believes that this photo is as close to a smoking gun as has ever been discovered in this decades-long investigation.

“We believe that the Koshu took her to Saipan [in the Mariana Islands], and that she died there under the custody of the Japanese,” said Gary Tarpinian, the executive producer of the special.

After finding the photo–the location pictured is Jaliut Harbor on Jaluit Island, Henry traveled to the Marshall Islands to speak with those who claim that Earhart did in fact visit there. Henry spoke with the son of one man who claimed to have seen Earhart in Mili Atoll in 1937. He also met the last living person who claims to have seen the duo after their arrival, according to the Washington Post. While these stories are inconclusive when considered alone, Henry believes that they corroborate the picture and that all combined we have “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Japanese authorities did tell NBC News they have no record of Earhart ever being in their custody. However, many documents were lost after the islands switched from German to Japanese ownership, according to BBC.

Japanese explorers first arrived at the islands in the 19th century, but the first permanent settlements were created in the 1920s. The person who took this picture is believed to have been a American spy who was keeping tabs on Japanese military activity in the Pacific, according to NBC News. Japanese power over the region ended after the nation’s surrender in World War II. So, there is the possibility that Imperial Japan did keep Earhart and Noonan in its custody up until that point.

The mystery may never be solved, but this photograph is essentially the only concrete evidence ever discovered, and it has reignited the mystery.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Was Amelia Earhart Captured by Japan? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Brzezinski and Scarborough Speak Out About Trump Feud

President Donald Trump faced bipartisan criticism after launching a Twitter attack yesterday on the hosts of “Morning Joe,” Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. Many Republicans have expressed disappointment and embarrassment that the president would use such derogatory language. “I see it as embarrassing to our country,” said Maine Senator Susan Collins. It points to the problematic view he has of women, according to Republican pollster Christine Matthews, who spoke to the New York Times. But Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended the president’s words as “fighting fire with fire” and said they were appropriate.

Please just stop. This isn’t normal and it’s beneath the dignity of your office.

— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) June 29, 2017

This morning, Scarborough and Brzezinski said that officials from the White House called them and said that the National Enquirer, whose owner is a friend of Trump, would run a hit piece on them. According to Scarborough and Brzezinski, Trump would shut down the story if he apologized to them. The couple also said reporters from the Enquirer have been calling Brzezinski’s children and friends.

Here’s the clip:

This is a chilling story. https://t.co/HYJgBnajOy via @Morning_Joe https://t.co/6UCEHzfOET

— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) June 30, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 30, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Early Saturday morning a Philippine-flagged merchant ship collided into the side of a U.S. warship off the coast of Japan. The crash caused several parts of the American ship, the USS Fitzgerald, to flood. On Sunday, seven sailors who went missing after the crash were found dead in the flooded compartments. Now people are asking questions, as it was revealed it took the Filipino ship an hour to alert the Japanese coastguard.

Vice Admiral Joseph Aucoin spoke to reporters at Yokosuka Naval Base in Japan on Sunday. He said considering the damage that was done to the ship, many more people could have died. “There was a big puncture, a big gash underneath the waterline,” Aucoin said, adding that the flooding was “tremendous.” No one knows what caused the crash and there are multiple investigations underway.

On Monday, a spokesperson for the Japanese coastguard, Takeshi Aikawa, said that the collision happened at 1:30 a.m. But the Philippine-flagged container ship, named the ACX Crystal, didn’t alert Japanese authorities until at 2:25 a.m. Data from the ACX Crystal also shows that for some reason, the ship made a U-turn sometime between 12:58 a.m. and 2:46 a.m. Three U.S. crew members were injured, including Cmdr. Bryce Benson, who was in charge of the ship.

#USSFitzgerald listing after collision at about 3amJST with PH flagged container ship near Japan. (COR) Photo via NHK Helicopter pic.twitter.com/rSTVmE4Atw

— Robert Speta (@robertspeta) June 16, 2017

Japanese officials said they are conducting two separate investigations, one of which is for “endangerment of traffic caused by professional negligence.” It was unclear whether that applied to the U.S. ship or the Filipino one. The U.S. Navy and Coast Guard also opened an investigation.

U.S. Navy confirms all 7 missing sailors from USS Fitzgerald found dead https://t.co/amOOEjsg7h pic.twitter.com/NTQCetvr2E

— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) June 19, 2017

No one seems to understand how the Fitzgerald, one of the most technologically advanced warships in the world, could be involved in an accident like this. The damage indicates that the Fitzgerald was hit on its right side, while the Crystal was damaged on its left side, suggesting they were traveling in the same direction. Most of the crew on the Fitzgerald was asleep when the collision occurred and big container ships like the Crystal are often lightly crewed and use an autopilot.

There is also the question why the Crystal made a sudden U-turn right before the accident. Acting Navy Secretary Sean Stackley said the Navy is determined to get to the bottom of things. “In due time, the United States Navy will fully investigate the cause of this tragedy,” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post More Questions than Answers as Investigations into USS Fitzgerald Crash Begin appeared first on Law Street.

Japan’s lower house of parliament, the House of Representatives, approved a bill on June 8 that would amend the country’s rape laws. Japan has not changed its rape laws since 1907.

The amendment would expand the legal definition of rape, add a provision about the psychological factor of rape and sexual assault, raise the minimum sentence for rape convictions, and remove a provision requiring victims to press charges themselves to prosecute their accused rapist.

Currently, Japan’s legal definition of rape is limited to forced vaginal intercourse, but the new amendment would expand that definition to include all forms of forced sexual intercourse.

Current law also requires the use of threats and/or violence for an offense to be considered rape or sexual assault. However, the amendment would expand that definition to include instances in which an aggressor in a position to control or influence a victim–such as the relationship between a guardian and a child–exhibits psychological control over that victim.

The minimum sentence for those convicted of rape would be raised from the current three years to five years under the new law. The amendment would also remove a provision requiring victims to request the indictment of their accused rapist. As of right now, victims must decide whether to pursue the case, which can lead to aggressors pressuring their victims to drop charges.

Even with the amendment, however, prosecutors can still decide not to pursue rape charges. In fact, 53 percent of rape and sexual assault cases are dropped by prosecutors. In September 2016, prosecutors decided not to pursue rape charges against Japanese actor Yuta Takahata, who was accused of allegedly raping a hotel worker.

Support for an amendment to Japan’s rape laws was sparked by Former Minister of Justice Midori Matsushima in 2014. Matsushima founded the Discussion Group on Sex Crime Penalties which led to further governmental discussion about how the penal code addressed sex offenses, and later led to the submission of the amendment.

If the bill is approved by the House of Councillors, the upper house of parliament, Japan will amend the country’s rape laws accordingly.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Japan Moves Toward Amending its Rape Laws appeared first on Law Street.

Japan has come up with something that tourists love and Nintendo hates: real life Mario Kart on the streets of Tokyo. This may sound too good to be true, but the company MariCar really organizes tours on custom made go karts, complete with character costumes for rent and even an optional mustache. You can dress up as Toad, Peach, Mario or the other characters from Mushroom Kingdom, and there are also super hero and Disney character costumes.

You also have the option to play the music from the game through Bluetooth speakers in the car, for an additional fee. However, the website warns customers that they are not allowed to actually throw banana peels or red shells at each other or on the street–although it’s unclear where they would even find any red turtle shells. But now the video game giant Nintendo, that created Mario, has thrown a triple banana peel at MariCar by suing the company.

Nintendo is suing Tokyo’s real-life Mario Kart cosplayers for IP infringement ️https://t.co/y3OnWtecCG pic.twitter.com/LxBOQprJ5T

— AllGamesDelta (@AllGamesDelta) February 24, 2017

Nintendo filed the lawsuit last Friday, which stated that MariCar is promoting the Mario Kart-themed tours without permission, despite a previous warning from Nintendo. Apparently MariCar didn’t give Nintendo “a good-faith answer,” so it decided to sue. MariCar, on the other hand, said that it had asked advice from lawyers beforehand, who gave the green light to go ahead with the business model since it doesn’t constitute a trademark violation. MariCar has said it would like to work with Nintendo on the business, but it seems like Nintendo isn’t that interested.

EXOトラック
待ってたらまさかの
マリカー( ´ ▽ ` )ﾉ❤️ゎら pic.twitter.com/S9UJacVzAx

— ExO❤︎miku (@EXO218899) December 7, 2016

According to Tripadvisor, customers have rated MariCar almost exclusively as “excellent.” But MariCar representatives are concerned. “We cannot even imagine how much it would cost in a court dispute against the world-famous company. We are afraid that our business will be hugely influenced,” they said in a statement.

Nintendo is doing pretty well after it launched the new Pokémon Go game last summer, which made its stock price double. At the end of last year, Nintendo said it is planning to open several theme parks in Universal Studios in Japan, Orlando, and Hollywood. Super Mario fans definitely have something to look forward to: “Gigantic Piranha Plants spring to life. Question blocks, power-ups and more surround you,” a press release said. “Guests will feel as if they are playing inside their favorite games–this time in real life.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nintendo Throws a Banana Peel at the Real Life Mario Kart in Tokyo appeared first on Law Street.

American model Karlie Kloss came under fire on Wednesday because of a photo shoot in the March issue of Vogue, which was dubbed the “diversity issue.” In the photos, Kloss appeared as an Asian woman in a Japanese-themed shoot. People on social media were swift to criticize her and the magazine, accusing them of cultural appropriation.

Hey, Vogue: Embracing diversity does not mean styling Karlie Kloss as a geisha https://t.co/GnW04ejz4v pic.twitter.com/LZSQzIF3eb

— The Cut (@TheCut) February 14, 2017

The photo shoot was reportedly a tribute to Richard Avedon’s famous shoot in 1966, in which he photographed German model Veruschka in Japan wearing exclusive furs. This time, photographer Mikael Jansson photographed Kloss in Japan, dressed in a traditional kimono and wearing a black wig. In one of the photos she poses next to a sumo wrestler. In another, she pumps water from an old-fashioned well.

Emma Stone, Scarlett Johansson, and Tilda Swinton turn to Karlie Kloss. “Your turn, girl.”

Karlie on phone: “Hello, Vogue? Make me Asian.” pic.twitter.com/zgUWIB022Q

— Ira Madison III (@ira) February 14, 2017

But, you would think that if the point of having a diversity issue is to show the diversity of women in fashion and in the world, maybe it would make more sense to cast an Asian model in this role.

This is why Vogue is cancelled. Their idea of “edgy” is hiring white people to imitate other races instead of just hiring diverse models. https://t.co/29lUkHfjLn

— The Glossier (@theglossier) February 14, 2017

But it seems like the people at Vogue didn’t think about that.

IDAF this was an homage to a 1966 Vogue shoot. Sure, take the visual inspiration—Don’t copy the dusty cultural insensitivty from 50 yrs ago https://t.co/gBOKbRugEq

— Chin Lu 呂錦華 (@ChinHuaLu) February 14, 2017

Kloss later apologized through her Twitter account, and Vogue removed the pictures from its website.

pic.twitter.com/Xem3dkaDZZ

— Karlie Kloss (@karliekloss) February 15, 2017

Cultural appropriation in fashion is a common phenomenon, and it’s not the first time Kloss has been involved in a controversy of this kind. In 2012 the blonde and blue-eyed model walked the runway at the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show wearing a Native American-inspired headdress and fringe. The company and Kloss faced backlash immediately. Native Appropriations, a website that is dedicated to countering stereotypes of Native American Indians, Alaskans, and Hawaiians, called out Victoria’s Secret for the costumes, and the company and Kloss both issued statements with apologies.

6.)
Karlie Kloss wearing a traditional Native American Headdress, representing November, for the ‘Calendar Girls’ segment at VSFS 2012 pic.twitter.com/WP3VdOb9XE

— daphne (@voguejupiter) December 6, 2016

There have been other recent incidents that garnered criticism for casting white women in Asian roles. In November, the movie “Doctor Strange” premiered with white, British actress Tilda Swinton in the role of a character that originally was meant to be an older, Tibetan man. The movie “Ghost in the Shell” was accused of whitewashing as Scarlett Johansson was cast as leading role in a remake of a classic manga movie. And in the summer of 2015, white actress Emma Stone played a character who is part-Asian in Cameron Crowe’s flick “Aloha.”

It’s probably high time for Hollywood and the fashion world to start thinking about how to increase actual diversity.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Karlie Kloss and Vogue Slammed for Cultural Appropriation in Photo Shoot appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. military handed back nearly 10,000 acres of land to Okinawa on Thursday, the largest land transfer since the U.S. occupation of the Pacific island ended in 1972. Belonging to the 19,300-acre Jungle Warfare Training Center in the northern part of Okinawa, the land equaled 17 percent of the American-owned land on the island, according to the military.

Many residents continued to protest the U.S. military presence on the island, which they want to entirely disappear. Politicians, including Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, praised the move. On Thursday, during a ceremony in Nago, a northern city near the U.S. bases, U.S. Ambassador to Japan Caroline Kennedy said the land transfer “demonstrates America’s continued determination to reduce the impact of our presence here in Okinawa while maintaining our security commitments to the entire nation of Japan.”

U.S. military operations in Japan are heavily concentrated on Okinawa, Japan’s southernmost prefecture that makes up less than one percent of the country’s landmass and maintains a distinct cultural identity. Out of the 50,000 U.S. troops in Japan, about half are on Okinawa, mainly in the southern part of the island near its prefectural capital, Naha. About 20 percent of Okinawa is controlled by the U.S. military.

Protests in Okinawa, an ever-present feature of the tropical island, continued on Thursday. For one, in exchange for returning the land, the Japanese government agreed to build six helicopter landing pads at the jungle warfare training center. Last week, an American Osprey, an aircraft that would use the pads, crash landed off Okinawa’s southern coast, frightening and angering many residents.

Okinawa’s Governor Takeshi Onaga boycotted Thursday’s ceremony in Nago. “I greatly regret that the U.S. military doesn’t have any consideration for the people of Okinawa,” he said in a statement. Tensions between the U.S. military and Okinawa’s residents have been simmering over the past year. In May, a former marine was charged with raping and murdering a 20-year-old Okinawa woman, igniting fierce protests throughout the island.

Though the U.S. remains committed to maintaining its presence on the island, that could change under President-elect Donald Trump, who has suggested the U.S. pays too much to defend Japan. Japan is a key ally in the region for the U.S., and American bases there act as deterring forces against provocation from China and North Korea. For now at least, the U.S. will continue blanketing the island with fenced-off bases and troops.

In a statement, Lt. Gen. Lawrence Nicholson, commanding general of III Marine Expeditionary Force and Marine Forces Japan, said: “This decreased training area on Okinawa will not deteriorate our commitment or our ability towards working with the Government of Japan and our partners in the Japan Self Defense Force in mutual defense of this country.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Returns 10,000 Acres of Land to Okinawa appeared first on Law Street.

A 6.9-magnitude earthquake struck the northeast shore of Japan’s central island on Tuesday, bringing back memories of the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami that killed around 20,000 people, and reigniting the debate around the country’s capacity to safeguard against any future nuclear calamities. It may have also been worse than was thought, as the Japanese weather service is reporting that the earthquake was a magnitude 7.4. The scare did not result in any casualties, but a frozen nuclear campus just south of the Fukushima plant that was hit in 2011 did experience a brief malfunction.

Japan has 54 nuclear plants, most of which have been closed since the Fukushima Daiichi plant was inundated by water in 2011. The plant is still undergoing a clean-up effort, though it was briefly paused on Tuesday. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe would like to restart Japan’s reactors, but nearly 70 percent of the Japanese public is against that idea.

#Fukushima
Right now just prayers are needed! #PrayForJapan pic.twitter.com/XYhaa3NnMU

— شادا شرارتی (@shararti714) November 22, 2016

In the aftermath of the 2011 disaster–many Japanese refer to the event as 3/11–the public and advocacy groups have been critical of the Tokyo Electric Power Company, or Tepco, the company that operates three plants, including Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini, the plant that was hit Tuesday. Tepco was quick to assuage any fears after the quake struck this time around, issuing a series of tweets chronicling their progress in responding to the quake.

#Fukushima Daiichi and Daini Units – no abnormalities found, no radiation level changes detected, no injuries reported after the earthquake

— TEPCO (@TEPCO_English) November 22, 2016

Advocates who are against nuclear plants in general responded with cautious optimism in regards to Tepco’s response. The director of the Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition at Nagasaki University, Tatsujiro Suzuki, told The New York Times the response was “decent,” adding: “We should be informed fully whether this operation is reasonably done with cost effectiveness and safety and making sure that the best technology is being used.”

The bulk of Japan’s energy comes from imported natural gas, coal, and crude oil. The Fukushima incident forced Japan to reshuffle its energy portfolio, and today the country sources only one percent of its energy from nuclear power plants. In March, Abe expressed the need to reintegrate nuclear energy, saying Japan “cannot do without nuclear power to secure the stability of energy supply while considering what makes economic sense and the issue of climate change.”

All of that was an afterthought on Tuesday however, when #PrayForJapan was trending on Twitter, and an entire country was on edge, memories of five years ago rushing back like a tidal wave.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Earthquake Strikes Japan, Reigniting Nuclear Energy Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Like most of America’s longstanding allies, Japan is probably concerned, or at least surprised, about what happened here on Tuesday night. Japan, which the U.S. occupied for a time after World War II, now depends on the U.S. for almost all of its security needs–including deterring a nuclear North Korea and an encroaching China. As world leaders seek the ear of Donald Trump to probe whether his campaign rhetoric will hold once he takes office, Japan bursted out of the gate. In a show of good faith, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe held a 20-minute teleconference with Trump on Thursday and arranged to meet with him in New York next Thursday.

According to his deputy chief cabinet secretary, Abe told Trump that “a strong Japan-U.S. alliance is an indispensable presence that supports peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.” And though Abe embodies Japan’s version of the “political establishment” Trump railed against during his campaign, the prime minister bit his tongue and chose to pursue the amicable relationship Japan has enjoyed with the U.S. for decades: “America will be made even greater,” Abe told Trump.

President Obama has often signaled a “pivot” to the Asia-Pacific region throughout his presidency–seen with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a buildup of troops in the region, and engagement with its market, the largest in the world. Based off of Trump’s statements over the past few months, Obama’s Asia-Pacific vision and agenda could be upended by his successor.

“Of course they should pick up all the expense. Why are we paying for this?” Trump said, referring to the nearly 54,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan. He has blasted the TPP trade deal, which Japan’s lower house of Parliament passed on Thursday. Trump has also toyed with the idea of Japan and South Korea building up their own atomic arsenals, which would scale back the U.S.’s role in defending both countries against China and North Korea.

President Park Geun-hye of South Korea also called Trump on Thursday, and stressed the importance of the U.S.-South Korea alliance in pressuring its erratic northern neighbor. Trump assured her that he “agreed “100 percent,” according to a statement Park released after the phone call. “We are with you all the way, and we will not waver,” Trump said in a statement.

It’s the unknown of Trump, as well as the unprecedented campaign he ran, that spooks Japan and other traditional U.S. allies in the region. Some in Japan worry that even if Trump does not abandon Japan and Asia altogether, he could place the region much lower on his priority list than Obama, creating a void of influence that China could fill. Additionally, building up a nuclear arsenal in Japan might be difficult, if not impossible, because anti-nuclear sentiment runs rampant in pacifist Japan, which technically does not even have a military.

“We should be aware that the U.S. will pay less attention to Asia,” Nikkei Shimbun, a Japanese financial newspaper, wrote in an editorial Thursday. “During the transitional period, China could make a new move in the South or East China Sea. The Japanese government needs to be ready for such a situation.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With Trump as President, What’s Next for Japan and the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.

Tensions between residents of Okinawa Prefecture in Japan and stationed American soldiers have reached a new boiling point. Last week court officials in the prefectural capital of Naha rejected incumbent Governor Takeshi Onaga’s bid to close down the disputed Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Ginowan. The resolution signified the first official judicial ruling over the complex reclamation project that was ignited in 1996 after three American soldiers were convicted of abducting and murdering a 12-year-old girl. Long-time opponents were once again outraged over the recent slaying of 20-year-old Rina Shimabukuro by former U.S. Marine and current military contractor, Kenneth Franklin Shinzato.

Onaga’s administration teamed up with locals to urge the national government to scrap the foreign airbase altogether, but Prime Minister Shinzo Abe followed through on his resolution to relocate the contested encampment into a less populated region of Japan’s southernmost province. Keep reading to learn more about how the Okinawa is struggling to achieve self-autonomy after decades of American military intervention.

History

A historical perspective is necessary to fully grasp such a political conundrum. During World War II Okinawa (formerly known as the sovereign Kingdom of Ryukyu) experienced some of the bloodiest fighting and conflict against the Allied Powers, particularly due to its strategic location between the South China Sea and Pacific Ocean. Some accounts say that up to 70,000 Japanese soldiers and 150,000 civilians died in the Battle of Okinawa, which wasn’t as widely documented as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After the United States defeated Japan, Washington controlled Okinawa for 27 years until it became reincorporated on May 15, 1972.  However, the United States government managed to maintain its military installations throughout the island after signing a bilateral security treaty to end the war. Today there are over 25,000 American personnel deployed at 32 American military bases located on Okinawa, which occupy approximately 20 percent of the island’s total landmass.

Before Governor Onaga was elected in December of 2014, former Governor Hirokazu Nakaima permitted the construction of a new American military base in Nago, which is where Futenma will likely be relocated. The legislation has yet to be implemented, however, due to such widespread opposition throughout Okinawa. Prime Minister Abe’s recent resolution, though, now allows operations to formerly begin.

Local Opposition

Over the years, Okinawa’s citizens haven’t been keen on such arrangements, especially in terms of the noise, congestion, and crimes stemming from American troops in the area. Resentment against the United States heightened last spring after an American serviceman confessed to raping and murdering 20-year-old Rina Shimabukuro. Responding to the confession, an estimated crowd of 65,000 gathered in Naha to rally against the U.S.’s long-term military influence. A civil society group called All Okinawa Kaigi organized the event, with assistance from Okinawa’s current governor, politicians, and provincial mayors. Governor Onaga himself was elected to office based on his advocacy for limiting both the central government and the U.S.’s jurisdiction over the island.

“The government should know that the anger of the people in Okinawa is almost reaching a limit and it is not [right] to sacrifice Okinawa people for military bases anymore,” said Governor Onaga at the event. Determined to take matters into his own hands, Governor Onaga has not only requested Prime Minister Abe arrange a personal meeting with President Obama, but also presented a case to the UN Human Rights Council.

Anti-American sentiments are not uncommon in the Japanese prefecture after a series of violent crimes initiated massive protests and resistance. Prior to Shimabukuro’s murder, a 12-year-old girl was gang raped by three American personnel in 1995. This event in particular is what prompted the relocation project to begin in the first place. Even more recently in March of 2016, an American sailor raped a Japanese tourist in her 40s as she slept in her hotel.

In a report published by Women in Action Against Military and Military Bases, approximately 180 Japanese female civilians were raped between 1945 and 1997–22 of whom were less than 20-years-old. The study also examined how American soldiers are still committing war crimes against Japanese women. In addition to these sexual crimes, locals have also felt threatened by the imminent threat of catastrophe. For example, a military jet lost control in 1959 and ended up crashing into an elementary school where 17 people were killed and 121 were injured. Moreover, local activists are concerned about the possible environmental damage the relocated Futenma base could have on Nago’s ecosystem. Reports say that Nago Mayor, Susumu Inamine, has began mobilizing residents to resist the upcoming construction project.

Why are Some Japanese Supportive of American Military Bases?

Unlike Governor Onaga, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has condoned American military presence in Okinawa at one time or another. A prominent blog on Japanese culture, Tofugu, explains how the arrangements benefits Japan in terms of increased geopolitical stability. Japan is surrounded by some of the world’s most confrontational superpowers like China, Russia, and North Korea, and has few allies throughout the region after the damage it inflicted upon other countries in World War II.  It’s plausible that the Japanese government feels more secure with American soldiers stationed in such close proximity due to China’s increasingly assertive presence in the South China Sea. Yet the question sill persists–is Okinawa bearing the brunt of Japan’s national security concerns?

The United States has been rewarded by the provisions, which allow Washington to yield authority in East Asia if prompted and keep close tabs on perceived adversaries in the vicinity. The Heritage Foundation also contends that American military presence assists Washington in pursuing its diplomatic interest and deterring would-be aggressors from attacking the region.

Although Prime Minister Abe is trying to preserve cooperation with the Obama Administration, he did not veer away from expressing disapproval toward the American president during a recent joint-news conference.

“This is an unforgivable crime, and I have expressed our anger,” said Abe during a press conference with President Obama ahead of the Group of Seven Summit. “It has shocked not just the Okinawa people but also all the people of Japan.” Abe also vowed to work to prevent future violence, such as Shimabukuro’s murder, saying, “I have asked the president to carry out effective measures to prevent a recurrence of such crimes.”

Conclusion

President Obama expressed his condolences in a historic visit to Hiroshima over Memorial Day Weekend. Some analysts worried that the newest island scandal would threaten the post-World War II alliance between the U.S. and Japan, but both countries seem steadfast in resolving such matters.

“We will be fully cooperating with the Japanese legal system in prosecuting this individual and making sure that justice is served,” said President Obama in response to Shimabukuro’s murder. “We want to see a crime like this prosecuted here in the same way that we would feel horrified and want to provide a sense of justice to a victim’s family back in the United States.”

Washington has responded to these controversies by imposing certain restrictions on its constituents, such as prohibiting off-base alcohol consumption. The policy change came after an American sailor injured two Japanese civilians while driving intoxicated last September. Along those lines, part of Prime Minister Abe’s rationalization for relocating the contentious Futenma marine airbase to the island’s rural south is that deployed Americans will be farther away from crowded residential areas. Considering that locals are still averse to the resolution, Governor Onaga’s rivalry with Prime Minster Abe (and the Washington establishment) is likely to continue until Okinawa can truly disassociate itself from American troops.

Resources

Heritage Foundation: Top 10 Reasons Why the U.S. Marines on Okinawa Are Essential to Peace and Security in the Pacific 

TNI: The Human Rights of Children and Women Under the US Military Administration: Raped Lives

Tofugu: Japan’s Sacrificial Lamb–The Okinawa Military Base Controversy

Al Jazeera: Japan Court Clears Way for US Okinawa Base Relocation

Al Jazeera: Ex-US Marine Charged with Rape, Murder of Okinawa Woman

Al Jazeera: Voices of Okinawa: Standing Against a US Military Base

Al Jazeera: Japan Protests Alleged Rape by US Sailor

CNN: Japan: Okinawa Murder Provokes Protests Against U.S. Bases in Okinawa

International Business Times: Japan to Halt US Okinawa Base Relocation Work But Government Says Plan Intact

Japan Times: What awaits Okinawa 40 Years After Reversion?

Japan Times: Okinawa Suspect Allegedly Admits to Rape of Women Before Killing Her

Japan Times: Okinawa Gov. Takeshi Onaga Asks Abe to Set up Meeting With Obama

Japan Times: Anger Over Okinawa Murder Grows Despite Obama’s ‘Deep Regret’ Over the Incident

Sputnik News: Japan’s Okinawa Requests to Shut Down US Marine Base Construction

USA Today: Tens of Thousands Protest on Okinawa to Close Key U.S. Bases in Japan

The Washington Post: Okinawa Murder Dominates Talks Between Obama and Abe

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post A Complicated History: Japanese Court Blocks Bid to Close Down American Military Base in Okinawa appeared first on Law Street.

On a North Korean state news broadcast on Friday, an anchorwoman gazed downward as she read a prepared government statement: “Scientists and technicians of the Workers Party of Korea carried out a nuclear explosion test to judge the power of a nuclear warhead.”

“We will continue to strengthen our nuclear capabilities to protect our sovereignty. We have now standardized and minimized nuclear warheads… We can now produce small nuclear warheads any time we desire,” the anchor said.

Along with the country’s official statement, evidence of a nuclear launch came through an artificially caused 5.3 earthquake, detected by the U.S. Geological Survey near the site of previous nuclear test launches by Pyongyang. 

The test represents the fifth nuclear test conducted by North Korea, and the second in 2016. The first was in January. According to the South Korean Defense Ministry, Friday’s test was North Korea’s most potent to date. Since October 2006, when North Korea began testing its nuclear capabilities, the explosive power of its tests have steadily grown, from less than one kiloton of energy in 2006 to six to seven in 2013. Its latest attempt registered at 10 kilotons. For context, the atomic bomb the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima, Japan in 1945 was 15 kilotons.

Under heavy international sanctions and facing weakening ties with nearly the entire international community, minus China, which it still trades with, North Korea has been conducting missile tests seemingly every week. Most recently, it launched three ballistic missiles last week toward Japan, one of which landed within 155 miles of a Japanese island. North Korea’s bombastic leader, Kim Jong-un, is increasingly worrying the international community with his antics.

North Korea claims successful test of nuclear warhead, its 5th and potentially most powerful https://t.co/6r9Lyg4otI pic.twitter.com/RMFHhvPnRp

— CNN (@CNN) September 9, 2016

North Korea faced condemnation from its Pacific neighbors as well as international actors. President Obama, in a statement released Friday morning, said the U.S. condemns “in the strongest possible terms as a grave threat to regional security and to international peace and stability.” The test represents a “flagrant violation of multiple UN Security Council Resolutions,” the statement said.

Occurring just days after the G-20 summit in Hangzhou, China, a meeting between leaders of the world’s leading industrial powers, the test came at a peculiar time: Friday marks the 68th anniversary of North Korea’s founding. While it is unclear whether the latest test demonstrates an ability to launch an actual nuclear warhead mounted atop a missile, Obama and his allies in East Asia are certainly taking the test as a credible threat.

In his statement, Obama said he spoke with President Park Geun-Hye of South Korea and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, reiterating America’s “commitment to provide extended deterrence, guaranteed by the full spectrum of U.S. defense capabilities.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Korea Launches Nuclear Missile Test appeared first on Law Street.

With a submarine-based missile launch on Wednesday, North Korea reached dangerous new territory, as the missile breached Japan’s air defense identification zone–a first, according to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The missile, a 9 meter long KN-11, launched from the waters off Sinpo, in North Korea’s South Hamgyong Province. U.S. Pacific Command tracked the missile as traveling 300 miles over the Sea of Japan before falling into the waters below Japanese-controlled airspace.

“If the North Korean regime continues to pursue its nuclear and missile capabilities and ignore severe economic difficulties of its people, it will bring about more severe sanctions and diplomatic isolation. It should also realize that it will hasten its self-destruction,” South Korea’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

The KN-11, a missile with a maximum reach of 4,000 kilometers, launched from a submarine at 5:30 a.m. local time, according to South Korea’s Foreign Ministry. It marks the latest in a string of missile launches from the communist country over the past few months. It was not entirely surprising, given the fact that the North said if the annual joint military exercises between South Korea and the United States occurred (they started Monday), it has a “self-defensive right and justifiable action to respond in a very hard way.”

Video: North Korea test-fired a ballistic missile from a submarine, two days after ROK-US war game pic.twitter.com/pg1ftkeAdI

— China Xinhua News (@XHNews) August 24, 2016

And given a letter North Korea sent to the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday, that seems to be what happened. “U.S.-led large-scale joint military exercise in collusion with the South Korean forces despite repeated warnings of the DPRK is a grave military provocation aimed to launch a preemptive nuclear attack on the DPRK and a challenge to regional peace and stability in every way,” said the letter, referring to the country’s official title, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister, called the latest missile test “a threat to Japan’s security and an unforgivable reckless act that significantly damages the peace and stability of the region.” And the three most powerful nations in the region agreed on Wednesday to meet to discuss deterring an increasingly adventurous North Korea. At a meeting following the morning launch, the foreign ministers of Japan, South Korea, and China announced a trilateral summit to take place in Japan by the end of the year.

“There are many problems existing between the three countries, but China, Japan, and South Korea are the three biggest economy entities in Asia. It’s our responsibility to promote economic development, lead regional cooperation and maintain regional peace and stability,” said Wang Yi, China’s Foreign Minister.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Korean Missile Reaches Japan’s Air Defense Zone appeared first on Law Street.

The voters of Tokyo made history this month, voting in Yuriko Koike as their first female governor. Koike ran as an independent, which isolated her from her former allies in the Liberal Democratic Party, but ultimately served her well, as she won in a landslide. Koike’s political attitudes fall in line with that of the Liberal Democrat Party (LDP) but her frosty personal relationships with party leadership kept her out of favor for years. Koike has been a trailblazer in her time, serving as Japan’s first female defense chief and not shying away from feminism, encouraging female politicians to be involved in more than “women’s issues” and challenging her male peers to place women on an equal level.

Koike is now tasked with managing the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo, a task that is always challenging but which will be especially difficult in the wake of the Rio Games, which were labeled a disaster before the Opening Ceremonies even began. But the LDP will have control over Koike’s budget for the 2020 Games, and there is suspicion that it will use its financial power to punish her for her break with the party.

During her campaign for governor, Koike pledged to review the budget for the Olympics, suggesting that her predecessors were overspending–a feasible assumption considering that governor Masuzoe stepped down earlier this summer after allegations of massive misappropriations of political funds. Masuzoe denied breaking the law but did admit to several ethical violations regarding the funding of the Games. As Koike takes office, the 2020 Games have been forecast to cost at least double if not more the original budget of $7 billion. It is not uncommon for nations to spend over $14 billion to host the Olympics, which raises questions about why Koike’s predecessors set the original budget so low. The games already face difficulties, as construction of the central stadium has been pushed back and the original logo was left behind after accusations of plagiarism.

There is already chatter in the political world about Koike running for Prime Minister, but that bid can likely only come after she proves herself as governor. At this moment, with Olympic pride at fever pitch, the 2020 Games are central to her success not only as a governor but as a female politician in an arena dominated by males. She will need to manage the building of new infrastructure, a massive influx of tourism and coordination across dozens of different athletics organizations–all the while protecting Olympic sites from terrorist attacks and staying away from the human rights abuses that have plagued Rio.

Dilma Rousseff, Brazil’s recently impeached president, may not have set a high standard to live up to but Koike will need to deliver an excellent Olympics if she wants to push back against both personal criticism against her from the LDP and larger prejudices against women in offices of power. Japan has long undervalued its female population, and Koike seeks to integrate more women into the workforce, simultaneously stimulating the economy and changing attitudes about women’s value. Koike has pledged to improve daycare and care for the elderly, freeing up women from caretaker roles they have historically occupied out of duty and pushing them into the workforce. She has not yet announced major appointments to her organizational team, but imagine the potential: an Olympics where the decision-makers are women. Koike will need to work with only the most qualified advisors, but if she chooses to open the door to more female politicians and organizers, she may deliver the most equitable Olympics yet.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The 2020 Olympics and Feminism: Yuriko Koike in the Spotlight appeared first on Law Street.

It has been nearly 200 years since a Japanese emperor abdicated the throne, that is, renounced his duties prior to death. But in a pre-recorded address broadcasted on state television across Japan on Monday, Emperor Akihito, 82, foreshadowed doing just that at some point in the future.

“Fortunately I am now  in good health,” said Akihito, the 125th emperor of the Chrysanthemum Throne, a hereditary line that goes back to at least A.D. 500, perhaps even further, making it the oldest ruling family line in the world. “However, when I consider that my fitness level is gradually declining, I am worried that it may become more difficult for me to carry out my duties as the symbol of the state.”

Since 1947, after Japan’s World War II defeat, the emperor has been officially humanized and stripped of political power. Pre-1947, the emperor–tenno in Japanese, or “heavenly sovereign”–was recognized as divine, which legitimized a dynastic claim to the throne. But as a part of its WWII surrender, Japan had to withdraw the emperor’s divine claim, which is reflected in the 1947 constitution: “The Emperor shall be the symbol of the State and of the unity of the People, deriving his position from the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power.”

Japan in many ways at a standstill, an agonizing one, for weeks. By retiring, Akihito could avoid that fate, live out final years in peace.

— Hiroko Tabuchi (@HirokoTabuchi) August 8, 2016

Monday’s 10-minute speech marked Akihito’s second public address since he became emperor in 1989 when his father, Hirohito, the leader of imperial Japan during WWII, passed away. Akihito’s first public address came in March 2011, when he urged Japan to stand together after the devastating tsunami and subsequent nuclear disaster in Fukushima, a town in northeast Honshu, Japan’s largest island.

According to Imperial House Law, Japan’s judicial code regarding the succession of the imperial line and the emperor’s powers, Akihito’s eldest son, Crown Prince Naruhito, 56, is set to be the next emperor should Akihito abdicate or perish. Akihito’s second oldest, Prince Akishino, 50, is second in line to the throne, and Prince Akishino’s 9-year-old son is third. Imperial House Law dictates that the emperor “shall be succeeded to by a male offspring in the male line belonging to the Imperial Lineage.” The last empress of Japan died in 1771. There have been eight female rulers in total since 585 B.C., when Emperor Jimmu founded modern Japan.

Japan’s constitution does not allow an emperor to abdicate his duties while alive, so if Akihito were to relinquish his seat, Parliament would have to approve a law change. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe seemed open to that possibility after Akihito’s speech was broadcast: “I think we have to thoroughly think what we can do to accommodate his concerns, taking into consideration the emperor’s age and the current burden of official duties,” Abe said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will the Japanese Emperor Eventually Step Down Over Health Concerns? appeared first on Law Street.

With its recent series of missile tests and blustery rhetoric, North Korea is cultivating an atmosphere of paranoia in the Pacific and prompting America to collaborate more closely with its Pacific allies. The nuclear nation’s latest provocation came at dawn on Wednesday, when two Rodong missiles launched from a province in the west toward the Sea of Japan in the east. One missile fizzled quickly and plunked down into the sea, while the other continued on for 620 miles, South Korean and Japanese officials said, making it one of the North’s furthest reaching missile tests yet. The most concerning element of Wednesday’s launch: the second missile landed within Japanese maritime territory, as it flew well within Japan’s 200-mile exclusive economic zone, or EEZ.

The latest round of missile tests comes at a tense time between North Korea and the U.S. North Korea took umbrage with the direct sanctions the U.S. recently placed on its Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un (they also targeted other high-ranking members in Un’s cabinet), as a former diplomatic corridor between the two nations was shuttered. The North Korean diplomat who used to head that channel said the U.S. sanctions amounted to a “declaration of war.” Heightening tensions between North Korea and the U.S., South Korea recently agreed to deploy the U.S.-built THAAD missile system–a truck mounted missile interceptor–that has also angered China.

Wednesday’s launch of two mid-range missiles–Pyongyang is thought to possess an arsenal including 300 Rodong missiles, which have a maximum range of 800 miles, far enough to strike mainland Japan–were condemned by government officials in Japan, South Korea, and the U.S. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan called the episode a “serious threat to Japan’s security” and an “unforgivable act of violence.” Japan recently released its annual defense report, which, according to South Korea media, refers to North Korea’s nuclear threat as “grave and urgent.”

Washington, which maintains strong economic and military ties with Japan and South Korea, also denounced the North’s most recent test. “This provocation only serves to increase the international community’s resolve to counter [North Korea’s] prohibited activities, including through implementing existing U.N. Security Council sanctions,” said Gary Ross, a Pentagon spokesman and naval commander.

In June, North Korea sent a series of Musudan missiles to an altitude higher than it had in the past, signaling its readiness to strike U.S. military bases in Japan, or its southern neighbor, South Korea. The North’s increased military flexing might be a pre-emptive response to joint military exercises set to take place between the U.S. and South Korea later this month, as it usually amps up its weapons testing in the months leading up to the annual military exercises. In an interview with The Associated Press, Han Song Ryol, the North Korean diplomat who said the U.S. had already declared war on Pyongyang with their sanctions, said if the August exercises go as planned, North Korea has a “self-defensive right and justifiable action to respond in a very hard way.”

And indicating just how serious this latest threat is being taken by the international community, the U.S. and Japan called an emergency meeting with the United Nations Security Council for Wednesday afternoon.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Korea Continues to Test Missiles; Emergency U.N. Meeting Called appeared first on Law Street.

Tucked away in one of Tokyo’s busiest districts is an uncommon structure in a city dominated by Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples: the powder blue domes and minaret of Japan’s largest mosque, Tokyo Camii. Japan, a nation of Shintoism–an ancient folk religion–and Buddhism, is home to roughly 15,000 Muslims and 50 or so mosques. Leaked police files from 2010 revealed an extensive, country-wide surveillance program that affected 89 percent of Japan’s Muslims, or 12,677 individuals. A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court dismissed a second appeal by 17 Japanese Muslims who were affected by the blanket policing program.

Japan’s policing of its Muslim community first came to light in 2010, when the leaked documents showed that police departments kept tabs on the vast majority of Japanese Muslims. Police recorded their names, a physical description, and personal relationships. Each profile also contained a section titled “suspicions.” Additionally, police around the country surveilled mosques, halal restaurants, and “Islam-related” organizations. A group of 17 Japanese Muslims took legal action after they found out the extent of the Japanese police’s grip on their lives. The first case was brought to the Tokyo District Court in 2014. The plaintiffs argued that the surveillance program infringed on their constitutional rights to privacy, equal treatment, and religious freedom.

The court initially ruled in favor of the government. But as a concession, and as a consequence of the leaked documents from 2010, the court offered the plaintiffs the equivalent of $880,000. And on May 31, Japan’s highest court shot down the plaintiffs’ second appeal, but agreed on the financial compensation. To Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who blew the cover off of America’s extensive surveillance program, Japan’s zealous supervision of its Muslims is born of fear.

“People of the Islamic faith are more likely to be targeted,” he said from Moscow, Russia, where he has lived since fleeing the U.S. in 2013. He spoke via a video feed at a symposium on government surveillance in Tokyo on June 4. He added: “Simply because people are afraid.” Snowden mentioned that in Japan, a place that is hardly ever mentioned as a target of terrorists, the origin of that fear should be scrutinized. After all, the country–one of the world’s safest–last saw a terrorist attack in 1995. In the spring of that year, Aum Shinrikyo, a fanatical doomsday cult, released sarin gas into the Tokyo subway system. 13 people died, and dozens more were injured.

So as the West and the Middle East are working out the best ways to repel very real terrorist threats, Japan is applying blanket surveillance techniques on nearly all of its Muslims. Junko Hayashi, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, worries how this will affect the next generation of Japanese Muslims. “It’s a really, really difficult thing to deal with, especially for the kids growing up here,” Hayashi said. “The police have been dealing with them as future terrorists.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Japan Keeps a Watchful Eye on Its Nearly 15,000 Muslims appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Unrest on Okinawa Island: Protesters Call For Removal of US Military Bases

Okinawa Islanders have had enough. After a 20 year-old Japanese woman was raped and killed at the hands of a US Marine, intensified protests sprung up Sunday to remove U.S. military bases from the island. This is largest demonstration against the U.S. since the rape of a 12 year-old girl by two American marines and a Navy sailor in 1995.

These crimes are not tolerated in the states so why are they committed by our servicemen overseas? The issue risks weakening ties between Japan and Washington, and has yet to be endorsed by Japanese lawmakers. Read the full story here.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 20, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

As a result of yet another incident involving U.S. military personnel harming Japanese civilians, the Navy announced on Monday a complete ban of alcohol on or off bases for American sailors stationed in Japan. The ban does not affect all soldiers who are stationed on the island, only those in the Navy. There are roughly 50,000 total U.S. military personnel in Japan, 18,600 of whom are sailors.

On Saturday, Petty Officer Second Class Aimee Mejia, 21, drove her car into oncoming traffic on a highway outside the Kadena Air Base in southern Okinawa. She crashed into two cars, injuring both drivers: a 30-year-old man and a 35-year-old woman. Mejia is in Kadena Police custody and has yet to be charged for the incident. According to the officers involved in the arrest, Mejia’s blood alcohol level was six times the legal limit.

Prior to Monday’s announcement, all U.S. military personnel–soldiers included–were restricted from consuming alcohol off base, in observance of a 30-day mourning period for the murder of a Japanese woman by a U.S. military civil contractor (and former Marine) in Okinawa a few weeks ago. Monday’s amendment restricts alcohol both on and off base. It also confines sailors to their homes or bases unless they are required to perform “essential” duties. No timetable for the new rules has been provided, but a press release said the ban will continue until “all personnel understand the impact of responsible behavior on the U.S.-Japan alliance.”

“We deeply regret this incident and express our heartfelt sympathies for the accident victims and their families,” said Lt. Gen. John L. Dolan, commander of U.S. forces in Japan.

The U.S.-Japan alliance has been fraught with contradictory episodes over the past few months, both testing and affirming America’s commitment to its strong partnership with Japan. On May 27, Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to visit Hiroshima, the tragic site where tens of thousands of Japanese were annihilated by the world’s first nuclear bomb in 1945. That historic trip was made amid deepening mistrust between civilians and military personnel on Japan’s southernmost prefectural island, Okinawa, where the majority of the U.S. military presence in Japan is located.

The U.S. presence on the island–nearly a quarter of Okinawa’s land is covered by a U.S. military site–has been a contentious issue since America occupied the island in 1972. Tensions have been renewed in recent months: An American sailor raped a 40-year-old woman at her hotel in Naha, the island’s largest city, in March. In May, a former Marine and civil contractor was charged with the rape and murder of a 20-year-old woman.

Following the latest incident, Japan’s Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida met with U.S. Ambassador Caroline Kennedy, imploring her to widen the scope of discipline on U.S. military personnel to ensure such incidents don’t happen again. In a press release on Monday, Rear Admiral Matthew Carter, commander of U.S. naval forces in Japan, offered his condolences and stressed the importance of the U.S.-Japan bond:

“For decades we have enjoyed a strong relationship with the people of Japan. It is imperative that each sailor understand how our actions affect that relationship and the U.S. Japan alliance as a whole.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Following Latest Incident, Navy Bans Alcohol For U.S. Sailors In Japan appeared first on Law Street.

Seventy-one years after the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima, Japan, leveling most of the city, killing 80,000 civilians and effectively winning the Pacific War, a sitting U.S. president will visit the city to commemorate the victims and highlight a future free from nuclear weapons.

After weeks of speculation, the White House released a statement yesterday detailing President Barack Obama’s May 21-28 trip to Vietnam and Japan, during which he will make his landmark visit to Hiroshima’s Peace Memorial Park. He will be accompanied by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Secretary of State John Kerry visited the same site last month, along with U.S. Ambassador to Japan Caroline Kennedy, in a trip that many assumed was a precursor to Obama’s visit. Some commentators criticized Kerry’s trip as an “apology tour,” and though today’s announcement was expected, similar denouncements aimed at the president are likely to be made in the coming days.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest defended the trip, which will also include the annual G-7 Summit, assuring doubters that it will not include an apology from Obama, though he did acknowledge the call for a “legitimate line of inquiry.”

But during an era of increased Japanese nationalism, as some experts claim Japan has been experiencing under the leadership of Abe, the visit could be perceived differently from the other side of the Pacific, at least by the Abe government.

In a written post on Medium on Tuesday, White House Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes sought to assuage doubters and clarify the motivation behind Obama’s visit. “He will not revisit the decision to use the atomic bomb at the end of World War II. Instead, he will offer a forward-looking vision focused on our shared future,” he wrote, adding that the visit will “symbolize how far the United States and Japan have come in building a deep and abiding alliance based on mutual interests, shared values, and an enduring spirit of friendship between our peoples.”

But it’s also important to note the trip holds different significance for other American politicians. For Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, a nuclear Japan might be necessary to combat a threat from North Korea. So as Obama looks to shine a light on the atrocities caused by nuclear weapons and look toward a world free of their destructive power, his potential successor could be in favor of proliferation.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nearly Seven Decades Later, A U.S. President to Visit Hiroshima appeared first on Law Street.

On December 28, 2015, South Korea and Japan entered into a monumental agreement as the countries addressed the injustices made against “comfort women“–approximately 200,000 South Korean women who were recruited into prostitution and servitude by the Imperial Japanese Army during World War II. Women, some as young as 11, were kidnapped during this time, forced into sexual bondage and servitude where they were raped, tortured, and subjected to extreme violence by Japanese soldiers in “comfort stations” found in Japanese military camps. To date, this barbaric and horrific behavior left an open, festering, and unaddressed wound causing heavy tensions between the two nations for several decades.

The agreement reached required action on both sides as Japan admitted that it was “painfully aware of responsibilities from this perspective,” referring to the attack on the women of South Korea’s honor and dignity. Japan sincerely apologized–something it was not willing to do before as it questioned whether it was responsible for the development of “comfort women,” and additionally, it agreed to provide ¥1 billion ($8.3 million) in government funds to the South Korean women subjected to prostitution during WWII by the Japanese Army. In compliance with the agreement, South Korea agreed to accept the monetary compensation through a fund rather than a direct compensation to the women who had suffered so that the “money didn’t represent direct compensation for wrongdoing.” Critics of the agreement noted that the development of a fund rather than direct compensation was Japan’s way of avoiding the recognition that the women recruited into prostitution were done so “by the Japanese government and military systematically.”

Regardless of criticism, the landmark agreement reached between Japan and South Korea is a big deal for human rights. While forced prostitution, sex slaves, and human trafficking in Asia may not call for direct attention from the West, the trade is a massive violation of human rights and a booming business–as it is “the fastest growing industry in the world, and the second largest business after arms dealing in the 21st century.” Read on to learn more about “comfort women,” the wound left by the Imperial Japanese Army following WWII, and the attention that comfort women have brought to the human trafficking violations occurring today.

“Comfort Women” Beginnings

In August of 1910, Japan annexed the sovereign nation of what once was Korea and begun its 35-year-long imperial hold over the area and its people. In 1931, Japan launched what presumably would be noted as the start of WWII with its invasion of Manchuria, which ultimately led to its progression through China and Southeast Asia.

During this time, Japanese soldiers began to develop areas within their military camps dubbed “comfort stations” where they would be able unwind after long days of fighting and obtain sexual services. These stations were full of kidnapped and imprisoned women that were raped and forced to service soldiers dozens of times per day.

Japanese soldiers largely recruited women from Korean communities by luring them with promises of good jobs in big cities. Their dreams quickly came crashing down as they were locked up in three foot by five foot rooms in Japanese military bases and suffered the harshest of conditions–forced into sexual servitude, which at certain times could reach up to 60-70 encounters with soldiers per day. As war ensued, the Japanese military’s numbers increased and the soldiers began raiding villages and simply taking women as they pleased and killed anyone that stood in their way or protested against their behavior. The more need or desire that was expressed by the soldiers, the more brutal and barbaric the recruitment and treatment of comfort women became. Furthermore, women were cramped into tight spaces only separated by a tatami or a mat that did not reach the floor leaving the women exposed to others during rapes and beatings and allowing for sound to travel easily from cubicle to cubicle.

Accordingly, to ensure that a young woman was a virgin or of very immature sexual status and development, Japanese soldiers specifically targeted young women between the ages of 14-18. Women who tried to fight for themselves ended up dead or sterilized. Survivors of these horrendous crimes recounted the following:

We had to serve over 5,000 Japanese soldiers as sex slaves every day – up to 40 men per day. Each time I protested, they hit me or stuffed rags in my mouth. One held a matchstick to my private parts until I obeyed him. One Korean girl caught a venereal disease from being raped so often and, as a result, over 50 Japanese soldiers were infected. In order to stop the disease from spreading and to ’sterilize’ the Korean girl, they stuck a hot iron bar in her private parts. –Testimony of Chong Ok Sun

One day, a new girl was put in the compartment next to me. She tried to resist the men and bit one of them in his arm. She was then taken to the courtyard and in front of all of us, her head was cut off with a sword and her body was cut into small pieces. –Testimony of Hwang So Gyun

Venereal disease and fear of pregnancy plagued the women that were forced to service Japanese soldiers. One woman recollected that her son was born mentally handicapped because of the numerous diseases she had caught during her servitude. They were also expected to continue serving even through their menstrual cycle. The “Ten Day Report of the 21st Army Unit of the Japanese Army stationed at Kwandong, China, from 11 to 21 April 1939″ highlighted the fact that approximately 1,000 “comfort women” served 100,000 soldiers in that specified region during that time. Their service was required even in the harshest, most unacceptable of conditions, otherwise, these women met death.

Due to the lack of specific and official documentation, many of the injustices done to the young women kidnapped from their homes in Korea during WWII were not addressed. Very few documents throughout the course of history have directly been linked to the Imperial Japanese soldiers’ barbaric behaviors and actions. The substantive and now recognized facts pertaining to the recruitment and treatment of comfort women during this time was easily refuted post WWII as it was only recollected testimony from the victims and survivors themselves.

This is precisely why Japan long refused to acknowledge that it was responsible for the horrors done to comfort women. As decades passed and South Korean survivors demanded an apology without avail, Japan continued to ignore or defend its soldiers’ reprehensible acts. This emotional and dark past drove territorial disputes and in some cases caused the nations to work against each other on issues that threatened both due to geographical and geopolitical standing, such as “North Korean belligerence and Chinese assertiveness.” Japan and South Korea’s move to formulate an agreement and put the dark past behind them has allowed for some people of South Korea to feel as if justice was finally served and granted the two nations the ability to move forward in cooperation.

Modern Day Slavery: Sex and Labor Trafficking

It’s very difficult to estimate the exact number of modern-day human trafficking victims however, current data finds that approximately 36 million people are being trafficked, nearly 2/3 coming from Asia. While this industry is dark and dirty, it keeps growing because the revenue generated has totaled approximately $150 billion in profit. The international community has, to date, been unsuccessful in tackling human trafficking, both sex and labor trafficking, due to its inability to decipher the populations being affected, the geographical locations that face the most dire circumstances, how to properly define the issue, and how to enforce the agreements that have been in place but fail to be followed by local law enforcement of the regions suffering. The fact that it took Japan several decades to recognize its injustices and begin the reconciliation process with South Korea and its victims highlights the difficulty in showing harm done and getting all parties to listen for a meaningful resolution.

Weak national legislation and corrupt government conduct has contributed to the growing human trafficking problem in Asia. For example, all Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, are part of the “Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime,” which is a non-binding and voluntary forum created in 2002 that is co-chaired by the governments of Indonesia and Australia. Even with their involvement in such forums, and considering the fact there are only a few ASEAN nations that have yet to pass anti-trafficking laws, there is still a growing challenge in getting these countries to take practical action to combat human trafficking–funding for projects that are not a priority is next to impossible. Trying to find funding for such projects in nations where poverty levels are high and government funds depleted poses a significant challenge to victimized and suffering communities.

Human trafficking is not simply a problem to throw money at–it requires a plan with a solution, education of victims and law enforcement, and an adequately functioning government that will enforce the laws and procedures that it has agreed to regarding trafficking. The issue ultimately becomes local level enforcement, something that the international community has desperately failed to resolve.

Conclusion

While absolutely nothing will free these survivors of the grotesque crimes they endured, Japan’s recognition of the injustices done to South Korean women during WWII is a step forward in reconciling the deep and unapologetic wound left by Japanese soldiers, one that had thus far been denied altogether or swept under history’s rug. The agreement made between Japan and South Korea at the end of December not only sought to right the wrongs made at the hands of Japanese soldiers, but brought to light the horrors of human trafficking and modern day slavery that still largely exists in Asia.

Regardless of the difficulties that human trafficking presents for both survivors and advocates, it is clear that the agreement between South Korea and Japan has placed the horrors of sex trafficking and forced prostitution on a recognizable world stage, particularly by the West. It has worked to restore a sense of dignity and humility back into the lives of former comfort women that are still living today with the scars of a dark and unimaginable past and sought to provide funding to survivors in South Korea for the wrongs endured.

Resources

Primary

The Wall Street Journal: Full Text – Japan-South Korea Statement on “Comfort Women”

Additional

Yahoo! News: South Korea, Japan Agree to Irreversibly End “Comfort Women” Row

The Wall Street Journal: Japan, South Korea Agree to Aid for “Comfort Women”

The Huffington Post: The History of ‘Comfort Women’: A WWII Tragedy We Can’t Forget

 Vox: “Comfort Women”: Japan’s 70-Year Sex Slavery Controversy, Explained

United Nations: Economic and Social Council

 National Public Radio (NPR): Elise Goes East!: Revisiting a UN Report on ‘Comfort Women’ as Shinzo Abe Tours the US

Heritage: Combating Human Trafficking in Asia Requires U.S. Leadership

IRIN: Analysis: Southeast Asia’s Human Trafficking Conundrum

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Human Rights Justice Served as Japan and South Korea Address Violations Against “Comfort Women” appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been about a month since the Obama administration publicly announced that the negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) were completed, and just last week the full text of the agreement was released to the public. It will be the largest free-trade agreement in history, including 12 counties and roughly 40 percent of the global economy.

The umbrella agreement writes universal rules and standards for trade markets around the Pacific. Although all the countries involved still need to ratify the agreement, the release is an important step in that direction. In the United States, President Obama is now in the midst of securing Congressional consent, despite heavy criticism. This will likely be an uphill battle that comes down to one basic question: will the TPP benefit the U.S. economy and global markets? While the text of the 30-chapter deal was only recently made public, trade groups and labor unions are already entrenched in their support or opposition for the deal, which will become even more contentious in the coming months.

An Overview of the TPP

Who is involved?

In total, there are 12 countries involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, namely the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Vietnam, Chile, Brunei, Singapore, and New Zealand. Indonesia may also join in the future.

Why does the United States support the TPP?

According to the White House, the TPP will establish American leadership and influence in the Pacific. President Obama strongly supports the deal because he believes that it will strengthen the U.S. economy and national security. According to the U.S. Trade Representative, the deal is meant further U.S. interests and create an equal playing field for everyone “by requiring other countries to play by fair wage, safe workplace, and strong environmental rules that we help set.” The TPP will also cut over 18,000 taxes that countries have on American goods and services, which may help American companies gain additional access to global markets.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is intended to make the United States highly competitive in the Pacific while prioritizing American interests and values. According to the White House, the TPP does this by eliminating preferential treatment of state-owned enterprises over American businesses, protecting trade secrets, ensuring open internet access, and creating fair markets between the United States and foreign countries.

What’s Covered by the TPP?

In short, almost everything. The pact will affect 12 countries and over 40 percent of the world’s economy and a massive amount of goods and services. For example, tariffs will be removed on textiles and clothing and potentially eliminated for carmakers. Tariffs on American cars are as high as 70 percent in Vietnam, making their removal a major win for the U.S. auto industry. Currently, American poultry is taxed up to 40 percent in some countries and soybeans are taxed as highly as 35 percent. Other foods that may be affected include dairy, sugar, wine, rice, and seafood. Major food-exporting countries like New Zealand and Australia stand to benefit from the removal of these barriers.

Removing tariffs is not the only potential consequence of the TPP; there are also notable, but controversial, patent protection provisions. The TPP would allow pharmaceutical companies eight years of protection on new biotech drugs. Doing so ensures that pharmaceutical companies can profit from new groundbreaking drugs, but may also keep prices high as competitors have to wait longer to make generic versions. The TPP intends to removal global internet barriers as well. For example, Google will be able to sell products in foreign markets that are currently restricted. The intended reduction of global roaming charges could cause an increase in competition among Telecom heavyweights. For more information on the intellectual property implications of the TPP check out Sam Whitsell’s issues brief explainer.

The TPP also creates new labor standards for all countries involved. Each country must adhere to the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The TPP protects unions, prohibits child labor and forced labor, and standardizes minimum wage and work hours, along with a variety of other protections. The agreement also strengthens international environmental standards with new resource protections. The White House argues that these provisions will “level the playing field” between the United States and the other countries and President Obama has also called it the “most progressive trade deal in history.”

Where is China?

It’s called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, right? One could reasonably think that China’s massive economy would be involved–China is the largest exporter and second largest importer in the world. But China has, so far, not played a role in the negotiations and has no plans to join the agreement.

In fact, the White House argues that, “with the TPP, we can rewrite the rules of trade to benefit America’s middle class. Because if we don’t, competitors who don’t share our values, like China, will step in to fill that void.” The TPP specifically attempts to work around what some perceive to be obstructionism from China. Despite being part of the World Trade Organization (WTO), China has made free trade agreements more challenging to develop. The TPP ultimately allows for Chinese inclusion, but isn’t designed to “Chinese specifications” and cannot be vetoed by China. The agreement seeks to spread Western values to many of China’s important trading partners.

Some believe sidelining China is a mistake, even if the United States is trying to limit China’s control. Felipe Caro and Christopher Tang, business professors at UCLA, argue that the idea that China can be locked out of the agreement is naive, as China is the world’s leading trading nation. China has loaned money to and indebted a variety of countries, in an effort to spread its influence abroad. As of the end of 2014, China gave Bangladesh $3.8 billion and Pakistan $17.8 billion, which illustrates the power and influence that China has in many developing nations. Furthermore, China is aiming to create the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, an international bank that according to Caro and Tang “would help finance infrastructure projects across the Asia Pacific.” They further note that the bank has the support of “47 regional and 20 non­regional members, including TPP nations, such as Australia, Brunei, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam.”

China also has pre-established trade agreements with a number of TPP members. This could severely hinder the efficiency of the TPP in practice. China has a lot of leverage at its disposal and leaving China out of the negotiations may have unforeseen consequences.

TPP Lingo

While Congress has not yet decided on the Trans-Partnership itself, there have been a number of votes on related issues. Before we get into those, let’s go over some of the acronyms that get thrown around in discussions of the TPP.

The Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TTIP): A separate trade deal that the United States is negotiating with the European Union. According to the U.S. Trade Representative:

T-TIP will help unlock opportunity for American families, workers, businesses, farmers and ranchers through increased access to European markets for Made-in-America goods and services. This will help to promote U.S. international competitiveness, jobs and growth.

This agreement is related to the Trans-Pacific Partnership in that it will also utilize the Trade Promotion Authority that was recently passed by Congress–which brings us to our next definition.

Trade Promotion Authority (TPA): This simply means that Congress cannot amend or filibuster the TPP or TTIP. Congress must vote on each trade deal exactly as it is–yes or no. Trade Promotion Authority is what many refer to as the “fast track” method. It authorizes the president to formalize trade agreements with countries abroad, limiting Congress to simply voting to approve an agreement. In terms of Congressional oversite, TPA will give members of Congress access to read the negotiating text, receive briefings on negotiations, have time to review the deal, and outline objectives for the U.S. Trade Representative.

Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA): Initially created in the Trade Act of 1974, it offers compensation to workers and companies hurt by trade agreements, along with job search and training assistance. According to GovTrack, the current TAA would give states more control over job assistance and reduce healthcare costs to workers affected by the TPP. Historically, trade assistance has always been associated with Trade Promotion Authority because it appeases Democrats, who worry about the effect of trade agreements on blue collar workers. Although TAA initially failed in Congress after it was separated from TPA, it was eventually included in the Trade Preferences Extension Act, which passed several days later.

Criticism of the TPP

There are many TPP supporters who believe that the agreement will stimulate economic growth in all countries involved. President Obama wrote in a press release that “if we can get this agreement to my desk, then we can help our businesses sell more Made in America goods and services around the world, and we can help more American workers compete and win.” However, there are many loud critics of the partnership in the United States.

A major fear is that American jobs will be shipped overseas to developing countries. The 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the TPP’s predecessor, remains controversial in the United States. Although some claim NAFTA boosted small to medium sized American businesses, others argued that the agreement resulted in the loss of thousands of domestic jobs to foreign countries. Free trade agreements inspire competition between international labor forces, which can cause jobs to move to where businesses can save money. For example, with increased integration under the TPP, the American labor force could be forced to compete with workers in Vietnam where the hourly wage is $2.75 and labor laws are less strict.

Others also argue that the politics of other nations involved are equally delicate. For example, Australia has a major problem with the TPP’s potential consequences for the pharmaceutical industry, as it will extend the length of patents for drug companies. Critics claim that these extensions will result in decreased competition, leading to inflated prices for name brand drugs. Poorer countries could have even less access to life-saving medicines due to the influence of intellectual property protections on drug prices.

It is also interesting to note that Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton, a former supporter of the TPP as Secretary of State, recently came out against the deal after having supported it in the earlier stages of negotiations. When asked about her stance on the deal in the Democratic debate, Clinton responded:

It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn’t meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, ‘this will help raise your wages.’ And I concluded I could not.

She expanded on her position in an interview with PBS.

It seems that Democrats and Republicans alike have doubts on this agreement, despite its aggressive backing from the White House.

Conclusion

Although the text of the deal was only released recently, the fight behind it has become particularly heated over the past several months. As politicians, trade and labor groups, and the public continue to review the text it is likely that it will become even more controversial in the coming weeks. Congress will soon have to vote on the deal, which could have wide-ranging implications for the United States and other members of the protocol.

Resources

Primary

Medium: The Trans-Pacific Partnership

The White House: How the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Boosts Made in America Exports, Supports Higher-Paying American Jobs, and Protects American Workers

The White House: Statement by the President on the Trans-Pacific Partnership

The White House: The Trans-Pacific Partnership

Additional

BBC: TPP Trade Deal: Who are the Winners and Losers?

CNN Money: Why Everyone Hates Obama’s Signature Trade Deal

Fortune: Leaving China out of the TPP is a Terrible Mistake

The Atlantic: Why Americans Are Turning Against Free Trade

BBC: TPP: What is it and Why Does it matter?

Gov Track: How Congress Voted on Trade?

Politifact: What Hillary Clinton Really Said About TPP and the ‘Gold Standard’

USTR: Strategic Importance of the TPP

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Going on With the Trans-Pacific Partnership? appeared first on Law Street.

After 70 years of pacifism, the Japanese parliament recently voted to allow the use of military force under specific conditions, potentially moving the country away from a longstanding policy that guided it since the end of World War II. While this decision immediately drew an outcry of criticism from Japanese citizens, it was strongly supported by Japan’s conservative Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The new legislation will not completely do away with the country’s policy of pacifism, but it does allow for the use of military force under a set of narrow circumstances. After years of stagnant economic growth, this decision reflects the efforts of conservatives in the country’s parliament to expand its role in the region. Read on to see how Japan has currently defined itself and what that will mean for its future.

Japan’s Economy

The strength of Japan’s economy has been central to defining its place in the region. Japan was the first in Asia to modernize along European lines, starting at the end of the 19th century. Adopting a Prussian-style, government-dominated economy, Japan became a powerhouse up until WWII. Following the war, while Japanese industries struggled to recover, the nation was helped by a large surplus of young educated workers and free trade.

Then, starting in the 1960s, Japan began its economic miracle in which it relied on exports to make it a world power economically, second only to the United States. That miracle, however, came to an end in the early 1990s, as GDP growth leveled off. From 1992 onward, Japan’s GDP growth remained largely stagnant. Despite a brief period of growth in the 2000s, those gains were erased by the 2008 global recession.

Japan’s most recent effort to reverse this trend was the election of Shinzo Abe as prime minister in 2012. After three years and a large economic stimulus, there has been very little to show for it. But despite that stimulus, there have been brief periods of recession. Economic stimulus has also come with significant costs–the national debt in Japan is currently 240 percent of its GDP, the highest in the world.

Demographics

Part of Japan’s economic problem is the demographics of its workforce. On average, Japanese citizens have the longest life expectancy of any people on the planet. While that is certainly good for the people of Japan, when you couple that with the country’s extremely low birth rate it creates a significant issue for the Japanese workforce. Namely, while life expectancy is going up, the birth rate is going down. This means that there are fewer young workers to replace the older retirees. So, the younger workers must now support more retirees per person, along with themselves and their families. The best way to visualize it is as an inverted pyramid. This problem is only made worse by Japan’s relatively young, customary retirement age of 60. The video below details the issues plaguing Japan demographically:

Foreign Relations

China

Up until the end of the 19th century, Japan had been under the influence of China, even adopting its customs and language. However, beginning in the 1890s and continuing into WWII, the roles were reversed as Japan became the dominant power. Japan earned long lasting infamy and hatred among the Chinese when its army killed and raped hundreds of thousands of people.

Japan’s current relationship with China can be characterized as contentious, particularly in light of China’s growing military and economic power. In this case, Japan serves as the traditionally dominant power that it is being overtaken by the upstart China. The following video below shows the difficult relationship between the two nations:

North and South Korea

Many of the complications with Japan’s relationships with its neighbors stem from its deep history in the region. For thousands of years, there existed an exchange of ideas and customs between Korea and Japan. But in 1910, Japan annexed Korea, holding the territory as a colony until its defeat in World War II. This period involved particularly harsh rule and oppression from Japan, which is the source of strong resentment that still exists today. Despite Japan’s policy of pacifism adopted after World War II, resentment from past conflict continued to shape Japan’s relations with its neighbors.

Japan’s relationship with North Korea is also filled with wariness, much like the one with China. However, the reasons why Japan mistrusts North Korea are different. Unlike the Chinese, an economic and territorial rival, North Korea’s danger lies in its instability. Couple this instability with its nuclear capability and the repeated missile tests near Japan and it presents Japan with a very dangerous and unpredictable potential adversary close by. Recently Japan has been part of the six-party talks about North Korea’s nuclear program. As North Korea has proven committed to the program, Japan has employed sanctions, further distancing itself from North Korea.

Despite their similarities, Japan and South Korea have had a strained relationship since the early 1900s. Both countries have democratic market-based economies, causing them to share several interests in the region–both are wary of China’s growing role in the region and are close allies with the United States. Scholars argue that formal relations between the governments are largely shaped by public opinion. In their book, The Japan-South Korea Identity Clash, Brad Glosserman and Scott Snyder argue:

We conclude that the threat-based and alliance-based evaluations of conditions for Japan-ROK [Republic of Korea] cooperation cannot overcome the psychological and emotional gaps in perspective on Japan-ROK relations, chasms that are reflected in public opinion in both countries. For this reason, this study has chosen to utilize public opinion data as a way of getting into the heads of the publics on both sides and more deeply understanding the nature and parameters of identity-related issues that have inhibited development of the relationship.

United States

Prior to its defeat in World War II, Japan was a staunch rival of the United States. Japan’s imperial interests in Southeast Asia conflicted with the United States’ interests in the region and threatened the United States’ Open Door policy in China. But after the war, Japan developed on the United States’ terms and has since become one of the most important U.S. allies over the past several decades.

In an almost ironic twist, relations between the United States and Japan are as good, if not better than with any of its neighbors, which is significant given the legacy of WWII. Since the end of the war and American occupation, Japan has been a close ally–it now hosts a major U.S. military base on the island Okinawa. Japan is also a major market for U.S. goods and an important regional partner for diplomacy.

Japan’s Military

The Cost of War

Japan’s movement away from pacifism also has the potential to affect the nation’s bottom line. Although next year’s budget increase for military spending is not huge, about $41.7 billion or 2.2 percent, it matters quite a bit in the context of the country’s economy, as Japan is mired in extreme debt.

Along with rising costs of an expanded military, there are the effects on the weapons industry in Japan. Last year, the country allowed its weapons manufacturers to export military weapons for the first time. Prior to 2014, companies were only allowed to sell weapons to the Japanese military. But it remains unclear whether this move will actually benefit these companies, which are usually part of much larger corporations. This is because these manufacturers have never had to compete for business before. While exposure to more markets may seem like a good thing, removing the protections in place may not provide many short-term benefits.

Nuclear Weapons

When we talk about a less-passive Japan, the topic of nuclear weapons may also come up. Most of this rhetoric comes from China, Japan’s chief rival, who suggests with Japan’s advanced nuclear energy knowledge, building a weapon would be very easy. The second part of the assertion is certainly true, as most experts believe that with their know-how and inventory of radioactive material, the Japanese could likely build a nuclear weapon in a matter of months. However, the idea that Japan would do so seems unlikely for several reasons. These reasons include a nuclear guarantee from the United States, a strict commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and the growing criticism of nuclear technology in Japan in general following the nuclear meltdown disaster in Fukushima. Finally, the historical significance of nuclear weapons still resonates with Japan after the nation was decimated in World War II. The following video gives a complete analysis of Japan ending its policy of pacifism:

Conclusion

Like its economy, Japan itself seems caught in a malaise which threatens to affect its role within the region. Japan’s economy remains in neutral despite the election of Shinzo Abe, who pledged to turn things around with government spending and other innovations. Diplomatically, relations with its Asian neighbor remain simmering, especially with China and the Koreas.

This may explain Japan’s recent decision to move away from its 70-year-old policy of pacifism. However, popularity and concern for spending certainly remain issues for the country, as the decision flies in the face of both. The decision also threatens to further aggravate tensions with Japan’s neighbors, who still carry memories and grudges from World War II.

Japan’s role in the region seems to be the same as that of many countries in their respective spheres, not as big as it thinks it is or should be. Perhaps becoming a more assertive military power is a way for Japan to bolster itself, especially in the face of a rising China. It may also just be a reaction to the arms races currently ongoing in Asia, set off by a rising China.

Resources

CNN: Assertive Japan Poised to Abandon 70 Years of Pacifism

BBC: China & Japan: Rival Giants

Stanford: Learning from the Japanese Economy

The National Interest: The Demographic Timebomb Crippling Japan’s Economy

The Heritage Foundation: Japan Needs Real Economic Reform

Wall Street Journal: Japan Military Spending in Cross Hairs

CNN: Pacifism bill: Why Japan Won’t Build a Nuclear Weapon Quickly

The ASAN Forum: North Korea in Japan’s Strategic Thinking

Department of State: U.S. Relations with Japan

Voice of America: American History: US-Japan Relations Before World War Two

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Defining Japan’s Place in the World appeared first on Law Street.

September 1 was just another day for most people around the world. For some students, it was the beginning of a new academic year. For others, it was just another Tuesday. In Japan, however, it marked a terrifying spike in suicides among young people. Seventeen-year-old Nanae Munemasa , who has struggled with bullying and resulting suicidal thoughts, credits this mysterious tragedy to the end of a jubilating summer break and a return to a school environment in which many students are emotionally and physically bullied.

In her interview with CNN, Munemasa revealed that this toxic academic environment resulted in her leaving school for almost a year, a decision that was supported by her mother, Mina. In her opinion, Japanese cultural “collective thought ” is prominent in schools, where students are encouraged to think and function in a unified manner. This dynamic results in the destruction of individualism, and promotes the ostracism of those who dare to march to the beat of their own drum.

Is this idea of “collective thought” detrimental to students? Although this cultural norm is found more dominantly in Eastern cultures, many aspects of Western educational systems include activities that embody and encourage an emphasis of the collective over the individual, like school sport teams, for example. As a member of a sports team, you are encouraged to replace your own individual needs with those of the collective team. You are encouraged and motivated by this sense of a team unit, a unit much bigger (and less important) than yourself. This concept is taken extremely seriously, especially within the United States where sports provide a chance to go to college for many American students. Other teams outside of sports and even group projects teach a similar mindset.

This isn’t the first noted case of “suicide clusters” in schools, nor is it unique to Japan. Over the last couple of years similar cases have popped up around the United States as well. In 2009, Palo Alto was hit with an unexpected curve ball when four teens jumped on the track of an oncoming train. Three years later a similar case was reported in Lake Forest, Illinois, catalyzed by the suicide of high school freshman Will Laskero-Teskoski. In both cases, psychologists and experts on teen suicides attribute this tragedy to teens looking at those who have successfully taken their own life and think that they can do it as well. They are inspired and influenced by others dealing with similar issues mostly caused by emotional and physical bullying.

Does this mean we are on our way to having a similar issue as Japan? How can educators preach the importance of working with others, while protecting the importance of the individual? The September 1 student suicides in Japan suggest a need for innovation in how to education future generations worldwide.

Kui Mwai

Kui Mwai is a junior at American University, studying Law and Literature. She is from Nairobi, Kenya. Contact Kui at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Suicide Clusters: Collectivism vs. Individualism in Education appeared first on Law Street.

The South and East China Seas conflicts are suddenly dominating the news. Multiple countries are claiming ownership over a number of islands in the South and East China Seas–and the debate has gone international, even involving the U.S. But why does the United States even care who owns these islands? Read on to learn about why these islands and territories are so important, and why we should all be paying attention to this conflict.

A History of Conflict

What is under dispute?

The islands under question are located in the East and South China seas. China claims about 90 percent of the South China Sea, including those islands. But along with China, the Philippines and Vietnam both claim the Paracels and Spratley Islands. China and the Philippines both claim the Scarborough Shoal. And Malaysia and Brunei also claim disputed maritime territory in the South China Sea as well.

The East China Sea Conflict revolves around a group of five inhabited islets named the Diaoyu Islands according to China or the Senkaku Islands according to Japan. Taiwan, along with China and Japan, also claims these islands in the East China Sea, although China also claims Taiwan.

South China Sea 

China’s claims in the South China Sea base from ancient times. China documents territorial rights from the Xia and Han dynasties. China uses a map with a nine-dash line to chart its territories that include 291 islands and reefs in the area. The nine-dash line was formulated in China by the nationalist Kuomintang party in 1947 and is still used in China’s maps today.

But other countries don’t agree. Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines all have a military presence on at least some of the islands in the region as well. But it is really in the last eighteen months that China’s massive construction has started to spark tensions higher than ever.

East China Sea

The beginning of the East China Sea Conflict can be dated back to the end of the first Sino-Japanese War in the 1890s, fought between China and Japan over Korea. In defeat, China ceded a number of territories to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki. China claims the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands were a part of this cession, although there is no mention of the islands specifically in the treaty. Japan claims to have had them all along, since it discovered and annexed the lands in 1895. In 1937, Japan invaded China and fortified its military strength. This time period really honed the bad blood between Japan and China, as the Chinese people suffered gravely. After WWII, China demanded the islands back, even though China never actually controlled the islands and they were now under U.S. control. When the United States finally left the islands in 1972, post WWII, the Japanese government resumed control. Whether the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands were ceded to Taiwan or considered part of Okinawa (remaining with Japan) remains a heated point of debate today.

What’s so special about these islands?

When it comes to the South China Sea, it all boils down to economics. The area is home to an abundance of natural resources, fertile fishing grounds, and “the world’s most dynamic economies.” The South China Sea holds vital global trade routes, especially for oil. The dominant country in the region, China, could control trade shipments from all over East and Southeast Asia and control foreign military access. The South China Sea conducts $5.3 trillion in total trade each year. There are 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic of feet of natural gas in the South China Sea. If that isn’t enough, 90 percent of Middle Eastern fossil fuel exports are expected to pass through Asia by 2035.

The conflict over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands is a little more complicated. Presumed oil and gas reserves are important factors. But the conflict is also a bit more symbolic–China is now the big man on campus, and wants to show its strength. Nationalism and honor play big parts on this side of the maritime conflicts. Old wounds are not forgotten. “Maritime disputes suggest that China’s rise is not going to be without its frictions,” says Council on Foreign Relations Director for Asia Studies Elizabeth Economy, “That is many instances China feels that its economic throw weight really does give it a greater stance and a greater ability to assert its interests, in some cases to reform norms, and in some cases to upend them.”

Recent Developments

In recent news, the conflicts are heating up due to China’s major building. In the last eighteen months, China has created more “new island surface” than all the other countries involved combined, amassing to about 2,000 acres. Although China already started land reclamation in controversial areas close to the Spratly Islands last year, this recent action is on a whole other scale. China has placed military equipment such as military airfields and motorized artillery pieces on the man-made islands and plans to continue that action in the future.

China isn’t the only one building however. Similar actions have been taken by Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia on much smaller scales. For example, in 2008, Taiwan completed a 3,900 foot land strip on the Itu Aba, part of the Spratley Islands, fit for search and rescue missions and military aircrafts. In a more recent example, Malaysian Defense Minister Hishamuddin Hussein announced a plan in 2013 to place a marine corps on a yet to be created naval base on Bintulu in Sarawak.

U.S. Involvement

The major concern for Americans is a conflict between the U.S. and China. Conflict amongst the Asia-Pacific countries can easily bring in the U.S. We have a stake in the trade markets and no interest in allowing China to control the region and our allies like Japan.

This month Secretary of State John Kerry met with China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, in Malaysia. Kerry pressed for China to immediately halt “problematic actions” and expressed concern for the “militarization of features there.” After the meeting, Kerry was optimistic to other diplomats and called the conversation a “good meeting.” Kerry stated, “We want to ensure the security of critical sea lanes and fishing grounds, and we want to see that disputes in the area are managed peacefully and on the basis of international law.” Still points of contention remained. Although Wang promised to stop land reclamation, he did not promise China would vacate current projects .

This previous May, a U.S. surveillance plane flew over some of the contested waters. The flight was conducted in order to apparently “make clear the U.S. does not recognize China’s territorial claims.” The Chinese sent eight warning against the aircraft from an island over 600 miles away from the Chinese coast. The warning made clear that China considers the area its jurisdiction.

Kerry and Wang were in Malaysia for a meeting held by ASEAN, a 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations. China and ASEAN previously agreed to negotiate a “code of conduct” regarding the disputed regions. But ASEAN secretary general, Le Luong Minh, is not happy with the progress. ASEAN calls for an earlier resolve of the “code of conduct” and for China to stop all building.

Conclusion

We haven’t seen the last of the arguments over the islands in the East and South China Seas. While the conflict may have served as a show of strength between the United States and China, it also involved many other nations that continue to have influence in the region. Moreover, given other extenuating factors like the Trans-Pacific Partnership debacle, the Chinese-American relationship may definitely be heading toward icy waters. Whether or not that will affect the disputes in the East and South China Sea will have to be seen.

Resources

CFR: China’s Maritime Disputes

Associated Press: ASEAN wants China to stop work in disputed sea

CNN: China Warns U.S. Surveillance Plane

The Economist: Who really owns the Senkaku islands? 

The New York Times: Kerry Urges Beijing to Halt Actions in South China Sea

Reuters: Everything you need to know about the South China Sea conflict

The Wall Street Journal: China to Build Military Facilities on South China Sea Islets

The Washington Post: China is not the only country reclaiming land in South China Sea

The Washington Post: Tension with China loom larger as Obama prepares to welcome Xi Jinping

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The South and East China Seas: Conflict Continues appeared first on Law Street.

Votes swinging based on bribes, secret deals made in backrooms, corruption at the highest levels. No, this is not about the next presidential election–not yet anyway. Instead this is how the last few World Cups have allegedly been awarded. To many jaded sports fans familiar with the International Olympic Committee or NCAA, this is not surprising. Even for the naïve, allegations of corruption in FIFA are not startling. What was unexpected though was that the powerful people at FIFA would actually be caught. With the recent arrests, the narrative of the story has shifted from if the tree is rotten to how far up that rot goes. Read on to learn about the scandal rocking FIFA and what it means for the future of the World Cup and its decisionmakers.

FIFA

To understand the FIFA scandal, it is first necessary to understand the organization itself, and its former leader, Sepp Blatter.

What is FIFA?

FIFA–the Federation Internationale de Football Association–was founded in May 1904 by the international football associations of seven countries. The organization continued to grow, but remained entirely European until 1909 when South Africa joined and the United States followed in 1912. FIFA went through hard times during WWI and nearly fell apart altogether, however it endured and began expanding anew.

In 1930, FIFA staged its first World Cup, an event it had been building up to ever since soccer was first played at the Olympics in 1908. In the ensuing years, the organization and its membership grew while also dealing with issues such as travel causing many of best teams to not participate in the first few World Cups. By the 1970s FIFA had really emerged on the world stage incorporating members from Europe and South America in growing numbers as well as many new members from former colonial holdings. Under the much-maligned supervision of Sepp Blatter, FIFA has grown into a powerful global entity with 209 members worldwide, divided into six regional confederations, and with unquestioned clout.

Who is Sepp Blatter?

Sepp Blatter first became part of FIFA in 1975, after leaving his job at a Swiss watchmaker. He spent the next 40 years serving in a variety of roles since his start, namely as secretary general for 17 years and then president of the organization since 1998. Under his leadership FIFA’s crowning tournament has been played on two new continents, Asia and Africa, and become a multi-billion dollar tournament.

Despite his role in dramatically growing the game’s presence worldwide, Blatter is known as much for controversy. In the past he has made numerous inappropriate comments and been repeatedly accused of corruption in the court of public opinion. The awarding of the 2018 World Cup to Russia and the 2022 contest to Qatar seemed to be the ultimate examples of his duplicitousness.

Still, even with this reputation and after the recent arrests of senior FIFA members, Blatter was able to avoid indictment and was actually elected to a fifth term as FIFA president. However, following persistent criticism of himself and FIFA as a whole, Blatter finally relented and resigned his post in 2015. Nonetheless, Blatter will remain in his position until a new election takes place either later this year or early next, meaning the reign of Sepp Blatter at FIFA is not over just yet.

A History of Bribery, Corruption, and Kickbacks

While allegations of corruption and bribery have long haunted Blatter and by extension FIFA, this has had little or no effect on the all-important bottom line. In the last four years alone, FIFA has generated $6 billion in revenue; however, how the money is used has come under greater question. While this money was earmarked for soccer development worldwide, it was instead used for FIFA’s leaders’ own ambitions.

Acting on all the rumor and speculation concerning FIFA’s backroom dealings, the U.S. Justice Department indicted nine of the organization’s leaders for bribery amounting to $150 million. The arrests were part of a larger joint raid made along with Swiss authorities that also saw five corporate executives arrested and charged with racketeering, conspiracy, and corruption. The British are also considering filing their own charges.  The video below explains the FIFA scandal and arrests in detail.

Picking a World Cup

The World Cup is easily the most popular sporting event across the world. In 2010 for example, 200 million people tuned in for the draw or group selection process, not even an actual game. For comparison’s sake, the amount of people who watched the Super Bowl in 2015, a record for the event, maxed out at approximately 121 million people.

How the Process Works

Until 2002, every World Cup was played in either Europe, North America, or South America. However, this finally changed when Japan and Korea co-hosted the event. This also led to a major change in how the hosting country is selected. In 2006, FIFA instituted a system in which the tournament would be rotated among its six regional confederations.

While this was scrapped in 2007, a similar rule was put into place that same year stating that all countries in a particular regional confederation would be ineligible to host two World Cups following the event hosted by a neighboring country. In other words, if the U.S. hosted the 2018 World Cup, other countries in its region, such as Mexico, would not be eligible to host a World Cup until 2030 at the earliest.

The voting process itself is the responsibility of the executive committee, which is made up of 24 people. These include the president and vice president of FIFA, as well as seven other vice presidents representing each continental soccer federation and one from one of the home nations of the United Kingdom. To clarify, there are actually only six continental confederations–Antarctica is left out in the cold, thus the need for the seventh member. Lastly are 15 members elected from the 209 member countries, who are appointed to four-year terms.

These members are in charge of who gets the right to host the World Cup. The voting process involves each country interested in hosting the event giving a presentation on television before the committee. Once all the prospective hosts have presented their cases, the executive committee votes by secret ballot until a winner is declared. In the case of a tie, it is up to the president of FIFA to cast the deciding vote.

Corruption at Every Turn

As can be expected from a process of this nature, corruption is rampant. Of the many accusations, members selling votes is most common. In the most recent World Cup bid process, actual evidence of this phenomenon emerged. Two undercover British journalists were approached and offered votes in exchange for bribes. The notion of corruption however, should not be a surprise, in fact the way FIFA is constructed basically lends itself to this.

While not every country votes on who will host the World Cup, each has a say in another important way. Every member votes for the organization’s president. This is a system that can encourage small countries that are more dependent on FIFA stipends to be more likely to sell their vote in exchange for more support. This is the case because the amount of support each country receives has nothing to do with its size. Thus, for example, a massive country like China can receive less money from FIFA than a small country such as Bermuda.

In addition, aside from money, small countries can also expect other benefits for supporting certain people or countries’ bids. This comes in the form of recognition, namely FIFA along with having a poorly defined system for allocating funds also has an unclear definition of what makes a nation. For example Gibraltar, a small rock governed by the U.K. but claimed by Spain, nearly won recognition as its own nation despite only having a population of 29,000 people. The following video highlights the most recent FIFA presidential election.

Trouble With the Machine

The controversial decisions to award Russia the World Cup in 2018 and Qatar the event in 2022 are hardly the first incidents with picking a host country. In 2002 when Japan and South Korea co-hosted the event there were minor issues with the travel required between the venues causing the organizers to never again hold a multi-country event.

The controversy only ratcheted up for the next World Cup in 2006, when allegations concerning bribery surfaced when Germany won an upset bid for the tournament over supposedly favored South Africa. Recently, details have emerged of specifically what this bribery entailed; in this case it far exceeded the norm. In 2006 Germany is alleged to have temporarily lifted an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia and to have shipped the country weapons in exchange for its vote. It is also accused of using the lure of investment from German companies such as Volkswagen, to get Thailand and South Korea to also support its candidacy.

Controversy continued when the tournament moved to Africa. In 2010 South Africa finally succeeded in its bid for the World Cup. According to a recent report, Morocco actually received more votes but, through a series of bribes, South Africa was declared the winner. At the center of this scandal was former FIFA Vice President Jack Warner, who reportedly took bribes from both countries for the votes he controlled, he may also have taken money from Egypt who was also bidding for the tournament that year.

Like a perpetual storm cloud, problems followed the World Cup when it arrived in soccer mecca Brazil. The issues evolved far beyond just bribery and affected society as whole. Just a few of the major problems included the forced eviction of thousands of poor residents, social unrest, police brutality, unfinished infrastructure projects, unused stadiums, worker deaths, and lasting social inequality that was actually exacerbated by the tournament.

Russia and Qatar

ll these issues bring us back around to the next two proposed hosts for the World Cup: Russia and Qatar. Russia was awarded the tournament despite continued human rights abuses as well as its flagrant invasions of Ukraine and Georgia. Additionally, like Brazil before it, while Russia agrees to host the lavish tournament, people at home will be feeling the cost. Russia plans to spend at least $20 billion–a new record–despite the Ruble losing half its value in the last year and U.S.-led sanctions taking their toll on the Russian economy, as well.

Then there is Qatar, whose selection to hold the 2022 tournament was so preposterous that it played a huge role in authorities finally stepping in to clean up FIFA’s corruption. Qatar plans to spend $220 billion on the tournament, which will make that record-breaking Russian figure look minuscule. Also, in an effort to avoid the average 106 degree temperature there, the World Cup in Qatar will be moved to winter. On a human level, most of the work is being done by migrants who are working in slave-like conditions and dying in droves. This does not even take into account the laws against things such as drinking alcohol or homosexuality.  The following video explains many of the negative issues as a result of the World Cup in Qatar.

With this as the backdrop and with the still-simmering scandal, it comes as little surprise then that bidding for the 2026 tournament has been put on hold. Additionally, despite FIFA saying there is no legal ground on which to take hosting duties for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups away from Russia and Qatar, many are eager to explore that option as well.

Conclusion

The FIFA scandal far exceeds the traditional borders of sport. The organization is so powerful that it has the ability, directly or indirectly, to boost an unpopular leader and even legitimize states. It also has sponsorships from some the world’s most powerful corporations and is the most popular sport globally. With this in mind then, the recent arrests of FIFA’s top leaders were surprising only in the fact that they actually happened. These men and this organization have been basically untouchable for decades.

Thus, while the U.S. and Swiss indict leaders and promise further action, it is hard to believe any of it will actually happen, or at the very least stick. Even the resignation of Sepp Blatter, despite the ardent support of Vladimir Putin, comes with a caveat. Blatter was elected in a landslide right before his resignation and was allowed to leave on his own terms instead of in hand cuffs, as many feel should be the case.

While its leaders fall like dominoes, FIFA will likely survive this scandal as it survived two world wars, membership issues, and a host of other problems along the way. The real question in the wake of this scandal is, will any of these arrests, indictments, or resignations make this seminal organization less corrupt and more honest? Based on the system in place and its recent elections the answer looks like no.

Resources

Top End Sports: Host Country Selection

MLS Soccer: What is FIFA, Who is Sepp Blatter, and What is All the Fuss About?

Goal: World Cup Bidding Process Explained

FIFA: History of FIFA

Time: These Are the Five Facts That Explain the FIFA Scandal

Five Thirty Eight: How FIFA’s Structure Lends Itself to Corruption

Reuters: Germany Sold Arms to Saudi Arabia to Secure Its Vote for 2006 World Cup

Sports Illustrated: Morocco Beat South Africa in Vote For 2010 World Cup

World.Mic: Seven Big Problems the World Cup Left Behind in Brazil

LA Times: So Many Things Wrong With Qatar World Cup 2022

CNN: FIFA to Suspend Bidding For 2026 World Cup Amid Corruption Scandal

BBC: Vladimir Putin Expresses Support for Blatter

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FIFA Scandal is No Surprise if You’ve Been Paying Attention appeared first on Law Street.

“And then one day…an eruption of liquid rock occurred…It threw forth the same kind of rock, with the same violence, and through the same vents in the earth’s core. But this time what was thrown forth reached the surface of the sea. There was a tremendous explosion as the liquid rock struck water and air together. Clouds of steam rose miles into the air. Ash fell hissing upon the heaving waves. Detonations shattered the air for a moment and then echoed away in the immensity of the empty wastes.”

Legendary author James Michener’s eloquent words describe the formation of the islands of Hawaii–the powerful volcanic activity that over the course of millions of years sent a column of rock from the seabed to the open air. Now, off the coast of Japan, it occurs once more.

In November 2013 a small speck of material breached the surface of the Western Pacific Ocean. In the last year and a half, it has widened to nearly 0.95 square miles and the volcanic cone stands several hundred feet tall. The size of the island is expected to slow and be limited, not by the amount of lava that spews forth, but by sea activity; there are already signs of erosion and formation of beaches at the edges of the island. As it stands, this is impressive enough: a modern, visible manifestation of the geological cycle, as some islands and sections of continents erode and disappear, and other brand new ones form right before our eyes.

But there are many more impressive processes that are about to occur on this island–Nishinoshima–that are of major scientific value. As it stands, the island is barren rock. Much of it is still steaming, as the volcano continues to erupt. But once it settles down and begins to cool, it will serve as a good spot for birds to rest. When they do, they will inevitably deposit feces, feathers, vomit, and material that they have unconsciously carried from elsewhere. This can include seeds and fertile soils. Some seeds are specifically designed to float on the wind or surface of the water and may arrive there on their own as well. Therefore, scientists intend to closely monitor the island as it hosts and begins to produce life of its own. The initial sparks and subsequent development of an ecosystem is something rarely observed and studied.

It is important to scientists that anyone who goes to the island is cautious not to accidentally carry with them any kind of outside material or life that could influence the early evolutionary process. Evolutionary biologists have raised this concern, as the first people to set foot on the island are likely to be geologists and vulcanologists, who do not have the same foci and concerns. Obviously at this point and for the foreseeable future the island is off limits to civilians and tourists.

Birds are vital to the development of island life. Courtesy of Ville Miettinen via Flickr.

The island chain of which Nishinoshima is a part is already known for a variegated and fascinating ecosystem. The Ogasawara Islands are a UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural) World Heritage Site. Nishinoshima is therefore on track to be protected and preserved for the sake of humanity’s heritage. This in and of itself, in addition to the fact that it may be absolutely beautiful there in due time, could result in a vibrant tourism industry. Economic interests aside, in the meantime it will be fascinating and moving simply to watch the island develop and flourish, a tangible indication that the Earth around us is active and alive.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A New, Beautiful Island Has Formed in the Pacific appeared first on Law Street.

The devastating 7.8 earthquake that recently struck Nepal caused untold damage to buildings and has killed thousands of people, with many more missing. Following the devastation, the usual influx of aid began, as did finger pointing over who was to blame for the devastation. However, what this catastrophe has revealed most clearly is the disparate ways in which countries respond to disasters. Read on to learn about the response to the Nepalese earthquake, and the various global responses to disasters.

Responding to a Disaster

Emergency Management

Disasters, natural and man made, have been around since the beginning of time. However, the response to these disasters has not always been the same, and methods have varied as widely as the civilizations that have suffered them.

In the United States for example, we have FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency). FEMA was founded in 1979 when five separate agencies that dealt with disasters consolidated into one. Although it perhaps best known now for its poor handling of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, it has served as the point agency for every natural disaster the United States has dealt with since its inception.

Emergency Management Cycle

While the methods for emergency management vary, one of the commonly accepted tools is the emergency management cycle. The cycle’s origins go back to the 1930s when phases were first used to describe the ideal response to a disaster. The cycle gained its central place in the emergency management lexicon in 1979 when FEMA was created by President Jimmy Carter following recommendations from the National Governors Association, and versions have now expanded to other nations. This cycle is generally broken into three or four parts, although newer variations can include more steps. Usually the four steps are mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. You can see an example here.

The first two phases, mitigation and preparedness, actually occur before the potential disaster strikes. In the preparedness and mitigation phases a country plans for a potential disaster through steps such as developing evacuation plans, raising awareness and improving current infrastructure.

Once the disaster actually strikes, there’s a response section of the cycle. During this time, emergency management workers attempt to rescue people, provide basic services, and prevent any further damage. The final phase is recovery. In this final stage, once the disaster has passed, authorities go to work returning basic services to full operational capabilities. Additionally, infrastructure and other institutions that were damaged during the devastation are rebuilt.

While these distinctions seem clear, steps often overlap and become blurred, further complicating the process. In addition, it’s important to remember that these steps apply equally to both man-made and natural disasters. However, maintaining an appropriate balance of preparedness for the two types is important, otherwise one can become neglected at the expense of the other. A chilling example is the focus on defending against terrorism in the United States that left other shortcomings unnoticed. Critics claim this led to an underfunding of the levee system in New Orleans, which ultimately failed during Hurricane Katrina and had devastating results.

The Finger Pointers and the 20/20 Crowd

Unfortunately not every country has such a system or even a plan in place, including Nepal. These programs are very expensive. For example, in 2015 FEMA’s requested budget was $10.4 billion. To put that into context, Nepal’s entire GDP for 2013, the most recent year available from the World Bank, was only $19.3 billion. While no one expects Nepal to have an agency or program on the scale of FEMA given the lower population and wealth gap between it and U.S., in the wake of this disaster, concerns have arisen that the nation was unprepared.

These considerations did not stop the criticism from pouring about the failure of the Nepalese government. These criticisms have come from several high profile sources, including numerous relief agencies, namely the United Nations. Criticisms range from insufficient infrastructure to the difficulty aid groups have delivering supplies to those who need them. Despite the disaster, many protective tariffs are still in place, making it difficult to distribute goods. There are also concerns over widespread corruption and the reported looting of supply convoys by authorities who want to disperse the aid along ethnic lines.

These criticisms should not be entirely surprising given Nepal’s governmental history. The country only just began recovering from a civil war in 2006, which had lasted ten years. That conflict pitted the newly established democratic government against Maoist insurgents. Since the end of the civil war, there have been a succession of ineffectual governments who have been unable to create any sort of a unified front. For example, in January 2015, the current government was unable to agree on changes to its constitution because of political infighting.  The video below depicts many of the issues facing Nepal’s relief efforts:

International Community

When countries such as Nepal and others suffer a horrendous disaster, the international community usually steps up to aid them in their suffering. While variations of aid can be separated into many different branches, the two clearest distinctions are financial and direct intervention.

Financial Assistance

While not every country has an emergency response team to spare to help in a disaster zone, many can offer another valuable commodity: money. As of April 28^th 60 million dollars in financial assistance had already been pledged to the earthquake ravaged area. This type of giving is not surprising, especially following natural disasters such as earthquakes. In fact two other examples, the deadly 2013 typhoon in the Philippines, and the 2008 cyclone in Myanmar (Burma) illustrate that in circumstances such as these, it is not uncommon for the aid a country receives to as much as quintuple from one year to the next.

Although this is good news for Nepal, it may not be enough. While financial pledges can be easily won in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, the ability to continue to elicit them tends to fade as the story does from the headlines. Costs to repair the damage in Nepal have been estimated to be as much as five billion dollars. This massive undertaking is especially difficult for a nation like Nepal whose GDP, as previously mentioned, is only around 20 billion total each year, with a significant portion of that coming from now-lost tourist revenue.

In addition to these considerations, a working paper on the political economy of disaster preparedness by Charles Cohen and Eric Werker of the Harvard Business School also raises additional considerations. While money is useful in dealing with a disaster, giving away large sums reduces the incentive of a government to be adequately prepared in the first place. According to the study, rich countries as well as poor would be better off if more aid was provided for preparedness than response–it’s smarter to be proactive than reactive.

Concerns also abound over a dishonest government stealing aid money. In some cases, leaders want to reward their constituents first in order to maintain their good graces. Thus, it is also imperative in these types of situations to have a decentralized aid distribution system as much as possible. The video below provides some dos and don’ts in regards to helping following a disaster:

Physical Intervention

Another means to assist an ailing nation is through direct assistance by countries and private organizations. In the case of Nepal, this aid can be divided into three sub-categories. First, countries such as Japan and Australia sent experts and aid teams to help recovery. Relief organizations such as the Red Cross provided money and experts to help, basically serving as microcosms of the nations they represent. Lastly corporations such as Coca-Cola and Kellogg provided bottled water and food to satiate survivors whose access to basic goods may have vanished in the wake of the disaster.

Like financial assistance, direct intervention can also have drawbacks. An example of this comes from the 2010 Haitian earthquake. In that case, relief efforts were hampered and stagnated due to an inefficient infrastructure in place. The United States took full control of the response efforts, at one point legally taking possession of the main airport in the capital Port-au-Prince during the relief efforts. However, subsequent American prioritizing of its own relief planes over other nations’ led to an international row that threatened to divert focus from the main crisis as hand. The accompanying video depicts the controversy:

The Wealth of Nations

Additionally the acceptance of aid either through financial aid or direct intervention can also be influenced by the existing wealth of a nation. For example, while Nepal is basically dependent on other countries for assistance, richer nations who are less beholden may refuse aid when it is offered. A prime example is the United States, which politely declined nearly one billion dollars in aid from allies following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. While part of this was due to government inefficiency in distributing assistance, most offers were simply declined out of hand.

The U.S. declined most of the aid because, while it was adept at distributing aid to other countries, it was less skilled at dispensing aid within its own.  Thus rather than accept more aid that would often spoil or remain unclaimed, it instead declined many offers.  While this stagnation is criticized in other countries as a result of underdeveloped agencies, in the U.S. it was accepted because the U.S. is perceived as being a more capable nation due to its relative wealth.

Conclusion

Although countries such as Nepal and Haiti may serve as examples of how not to handle a disaster, there is no telling how any nation will respond once it actually experiences one. The prime example here is the United States. Even with its large bureaucracy dedicated to disaster relief and readiness, with an equally large budget, the U.S. has repeatedly been accused of being unprepared.

There are numerous examples of these failings, perhaps the two most glaring in recent memory are Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy. Hurricane Katrina essentially wiped out one of the most historic cities in the US, New Orleans, while also killing over a 1000 people and causing over $135 billion dollars in damage. Hurricane Sandy saw a lower fatality count, approximately 100 dead, but saw major parts of eastern states such as New York and New Jersey effected to the point of $50 billion dollars in damages.

Disasters, whether they are man made or natural, can strike anywhere, anytime. While some nations, either through financial means or previous experience are more prepared than others, ultimately no nation is ever ready for something as deadly as Nepal’s earthquake or a massive hurricane. This is a global issue, and one that has no easy answer.

Resources

Primary

FEMA: The Four Phases of Emergency Management

World Bank: Nepal

Ottawa County Sheriffs’ Office: Four Phases of Emergency Management

Central Intelligence Agency: World Factbook Nepal

Additional

Time: These are the Five Facts That Explain Nepal’s Devastating Earthquake

Brookings: Counter-Terrorism and Emergency Management Keeping a Proper Balance

MNMK: Disaster Management – A Theoretical Approach

VOA: Nepal Officials Slammed Over Aid Response

Fierce Homeland Security: 2015 Budget Request

Harvard Business School: The Political Economy of Natural Disasters

CNN Money: Nepal Earthquake Donations, Who’s Sending What

Vanderbilt Center for Transportation Research: The Phases of Emergency Management

Guardian: US Accused of Annexing Airport as Squabbling Hinders Aid Effort in Haiti

Washington Post: Most Katrina Aid from Overseas went Unclaimed

The Data Center: Fact for Features Katrina Impact

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Do Nations Respond When Disaster Strikes? appeared first on Law Street.

On a chilly morning in early 1848, a member of a surveying team stands ankle deep in a small stream in Upper California. Noticing some shiny specks at his feet, he picks one up and stares as it glitters yellow in the sunlight. In the world famous gold rush that followed, prospectors early to arrive were able to literally pick up handfuls of gold from the riverbanks. As 49ers swarmed the West Coast, they eventually had to resort to sifting, and by the end of the rush the only gold that remained had to be mined and blasted out of the mountains using heavy machinery and corporate funding. Now some projections suggest that a global scale version of this phenomenon is drawing near, as the Earth is running out of gold and other metals and minerals so highly prized by our society.

Goldman Sachs suggests that there are only twenty more years worth of mineable gold, diamonds, and zinc, and forty years of platinum, copper, and nickel. The quality of the metals and the yields per ore discovery have also declined significantly in the last half century. So what might some consequences be? The gold mining industry will be hard pressed to maintain its profit margins if there is less and less to find, and there may be increased competition to find what does remain. Naturally, the prices of gold could rise exorbitantly.

The United States economy has been off the gold standard for quite some time. Gold crowns in our teeth can be substituted with other materials. There are many other uses for gold, including medicine, aeronautics, and electronics. But it is not the only material that can serve these purposes; it is replaceable for almost any desire except for aesthetics. The aesthetic value is really the only reason that we keep it around.

Gold is only valuable because we say so. Whether it regards the gift (or curse) of King Midas, huge piles of gold bars stashed in a hidden cave in the desert, or a pirate’s chest overflowing with coins, we have been producing imagery glorifying gold and telling ourselves stories about it for millennia. A perceptive episode of The Twilight Zone, “The Rip Van Winkle Caper,” tells the story of a group of bandits who put themselves in suspended animation for one hundred years under the assumption that upon reawakening, the value of their recently stolen mounds of gold will have increased by a tremendous amount, allowing them to live like kings. As characteristic of the show, twists ensue that demonstrate how the value we place on gold is a cultural construct rooted in time and place.

The striking death mask of the legendary King Tut. Courtesy of Bjorn Christian Torrissen via Wikipedia

Diamonds are also among the most highly coveted objects on Earth. In this case, the global cache is actually quite far from drying up. Rather, this industry is dominated by corporate control and its imposition of artificial scarcity. Several particularly large and powerful diamond companies have corked the bottleneck where diamonds enter the distribution channels. By opening and closing the gates as they see fit, they control the amount of diamonds that enter the market, enabling them to drastically increase the going rates for the stone; the rarity that consumers perceive is fabricated. Because of this concept, arguments that diamonds are running low are relative.

Though it has been an ever improving process for over two decades now, the man-made manufacture of diamonds is a growing industry and controversy. They are literally grown in ovenlike contraptions. This is not comparable to costume jewelry, which is fake. These are real diamonds produced under artificial circumstances. This is the second reason why diamonds are not necessarily running out. Yet the process has met much criticism, suggesting they are still not real diamonds because they did not come out of the Earth itself. They are not the “stuff of stars”; the remnants of the dense cores that blew out into the Universe in a fantastic supernova. They lack the mystique that makes a diamond truly valuable and beautiful.

A man-made diamond. Image courtesy of Steve Jurvetson via Flickr. 

On the other hand, we have heard a lot about “blood diamonds” and the extreme violence and poverty in Africa and elsewhere that results from the diamond mining process. Horrific slave-like conditions exist where people are forced at gunpoint to spent a prodigious amount of time, after being poorly fed and sleeping in insufficient facilities, to dig and sift through the muck. They are beaten and harassed, and have no way out or future to look forward to. If they are lucky enough to find a piece of the rock, they receive a pathetically small payment, especially when compared to what it will eventually sell for. This industry often purchases weapons and fuels gruesome civil wars in turbulent African nations. Even when restrictions on blood diamonds are made clear, smuggling of the product from unregulated countries across the border into the more heavily monitored ones occurs relatively openly. Presumably the industry is simply too profitable to effectively curtail in the name of human rights. Flooding the market with those synthetically produced, or, “cultured” diamonds, could in part serve as a means of addressing this series of problems.

Once more, as with gold, our interest in diamonds is largely a cultural construction. A pair of striking tales from recent history highlight how entire societies can be sucked in. The mammoth diamond corporation De Beers went on a media and marketing frenzy in the United States in the 1930s, introducing the diamond ring as the central element of an engagement and a symbol of the relationship, sexuality, and commitment. Now most people would agree that a proposal is incomplete without one. The diamond trend even caught on in Japan, where there had previously been very little cultural significance given to diamonds.

Image courtesy Jonathan Khoo via Flickr

Gold, diamonds, and other shiny things that we like may or may not become more difficult to come by in the near future. Purchasing these items are based on the ways we think about ourselves, our societies, and our environments. For better or worse we ascribe aesthetic or monetary value to things that might not deserve it, and then we must pay the price.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the World Running Out of Precious Metals and Gems? appeared first on Law Street.

In a country where even the name is a contentious issue, Burma, or Myanmar as it has more recently been known, is home once again to a brewing conflict. There are many competing sides in this struggle, including the much-criticized government, the victimized Muslim population, and Buddhist monks who are advocating a nationalist message. The violence has already led to mass displacement, reprisal attacks and questions about Myanmar and its democratic reforms. A shaky government is gearing up for the 2015 elections, but the outcome of this conflict is anything but certain.  Read on to learn about the history of Myanmar, the current conflict, and the prognosis.

What is Myanmar?

Myanmar, or Burma as it was known prior to 1989, is a country located in Southeast Asia. Its population of approximately 55 million people is comprised primarily of Burmese Buddhists, but there are also sizable minority groups residing there as well. For most of its history, Myanmar was home to independent Burmese kingdoms, until it was conquered and made a British colony from the nineteenth to twentieth centuries.

In 1937, Myanmar was finally separated from the British colony of India, and in 1948 gained full independence; however, independence did not exactly open the country to opportunity. Instead, for the next 60 or so years it was ruled by one military dictatorship after another. Finally, in 2011, a new quasi-civilian government was elected under the leadership of a man named Thein Sein and long-awaited reforms began. These reforms included releasing long-held political prisoners, agreeing to peace with minority groups, and opening up the press and the rest of society. The video below provides a description of the country’s road from independence to the present.

While the country stills struggles with violence and implementing reforms, its name also remains something of a quagmire. Although it officially changed the name from Burma to Myanmar following a brutal government crackdown in 1989, the world has been slow to accept it. The United States for example, while hopeful of Myanmar’s democratic aspirations, still officially uses the name Burma so as not to appear to sanction human rights violations there; however, during a historic visit in 2012, President Obama did refer to the nation as Myanmar instead of Burma. For the duration of this article, I will use Myanmar so as to avoid confusion.

A History of Conflict

Long before the invasion of colonizing British, Myanmar was home to extensive conflict. Much of the conflict was centered in a region called Rakhine, inhabited by the Rakhine people. The region has been repeatedly invaded by multiple forces. One of those forces is the minority Rohingya Muslim population, who clashed with the Buddhist Rakhine people. Rakhine has also been invaded by the Buddhist Burmese, who they are ethnically different from, mostly for political and historical reasons. Rakhine is a powder keg region that has consistently been a center of conflict in Myanmar.

There have also consistently been tensions between the Rohingya Muslims and the Buddhists (both Burmese and Rakhine). Some of it may stem from WWII, when Rohingya Muslims remained loyal to the British, while the Buddhists supported Japan in hopes of achieving independence. This was compounded after WWII when the Rohingya attempted to rise up and carve out an area of autonomy for themselves and were initially successful; however, over time they were defeated and have since been politically oppressed.

The Current Conflict

Rohingya Muslims

The Rohingya are a Muslim minority group in western Myanmar. The group are victims of an official government policy that has been called ethnic cleansing by some; their people are segregated into isolated camps and villages where basic services are not available. The situation is bad enough that the Rohingya are considered some of the world’s most persecuted people by the United Nations. In a recent national census the group was not even counted among the country’s citizens. In fact, a 1982 law forbids the Rohingya from becoming citizens of the country. The group is discriminated against both because of its religion and also its traditionally darker complexion.

The Rohingya originated from a part of what was once a region called Bengal and is now part of Bangladesh. While the Rakhine are the overall majority in the region, in the areas bordering Bangladesh, the Rohingya are actually the majority. It is still unclear exactly how the group came to the region, with some saying they have existed there for hundreds of years and others claiming they are relative newcomers from just this past century. Either way, the Rohingya are viewed with great hostility in Myanmar. This distinction also excludes them from indigenous status within the country’s constitution.

Rakhine Buddhists

The other group is the Rakhine Buddhist nationalists. Somewhat surprisingly, many of those involved in the conflict are also Buddhist monks. This movement has become known as the 969 movement.

The number 969 is a reference to Buddha and some of his teachings. The figurehead of this movement is Ashin Wirathu, who has risen to fame by delivering fierce speeches that include unsubstantiated claims about Muslims, calls to boycott Muslim businesses, and demands for laws that prevent interfaith marriage.

Nevertheless, while the Rakhine are the majority in the region, they are yet another minority within it. Unlike the Rohingya, who are generally viewed as newcomers, the Rakhine are a much older group there. In fact, they once had their own empire in what is now Bangladesh and Myanmar, before they were invaded by the Burmese. To the Rakhine and much of the rest of the population, the Rohingya therefore are an illegal immigrant group and are treated as such.

The Flashpoint

The current conflict was set off by the rape and murder of a Buddhist woman by a Muslim man in May 2012. This led to a wave of violence perpetrated primarily against Rohingya by Buddhist nationalists. A second wave of attacks took place that October. These were different from the first in two ways: first they were much more coordinated; second they were directed at Muslims in general and not just the Rohingya.

Following the attacks, the government took two steps. First it created an interfaith commission to provide a report on exactly what had led to the violence. While portions of the report were valuable, other parts that called for Rohingya family planning cast doubt on its goals. Second, as the focus of attacks grew from the Rohingya to Muslims in general, the government made an effort to protect Muslim populations by sending in police; however, far from being useful, police sometimes stood by or even engaged in violence against Muslims along with Buddhist nationalist crowds. The government also sent the army into areas and they have proven more effective because they have less Rakhine Buddhists among their ranks.

This conflict has led to terrible living conditions for the Rohingya, with many being forced to flee into Bangladesh where they are living in refugee camps. It has also led to a mass exodus as Muslim citizens of Myanmar seek safety in other countries. It has further led to several reprisal bombings and attacks on Buddhist holy sites and Myanmar government offices by Muslims who claim to be acting on behalf of the Rohingya. Domestically, it has increased scrutiny on a government seemingly unable to stop the violence. It has also opened the door to leadership for a the popular opposition candidate named Aung San Suu Kyi. The video below explains the conflict in depth.

The Future For Myanmar

Going forward, three groups of people are likely to have the biggest impact, not only on this conflict but on the country as a whole. These are the Myanmar government, politician Aung San Suu Kyi, and the Buddhist monk Ashin Wirathu

Myanmar Government

Aside from the Rakhine debacle, the government has several other things to worry about. According to international watchdog organization Human Rights Watch, the government has been backsliding on many of the promised reforms from 2011, namely granting freedom to the media. On top of this is the increasingly evident control still held by the military, which threatens to make the widely anticipated elections later this year into a farce that do nothing to change the status quo.

Unfortunately for the people of Myanmar the status quo is not that pretty either. The economy is one of the least advanced in the world. It is also plagued by sanctions from places like the U.S. and E.U. These conditions are only exacerbated by fighting and the perception of ethnic cleansing, which prevents new investments and global support.

Aung San Suu Kyi

Aside from the government’s inability to maintain control, it is also feeling heat from Aung San Suu Kyi. Kyi has been arrested a number of times for denouncing the military regimes that have ruled Myanmar over the course of the last 30 years. Her efforts even garnered her a Nobel Peace Prize in 1991.

Despite her record of denouncing injustice, however, she has declined to speak out in defense of the Rohingya. Many speculate this is her acting politically, as not only might she aspire to the presidency, but some of her strongest backers are the same Buddhist monks attacking Muslims. Furthermore it is unclear how much her voice could really alter things in Rakhine, especially considering the recent refusal by the government to allow her to run for the presidency. Still, it seems that as someone who champions civil rights she would stick up for a targeted minority even if it was unpopular, for the sake of country as a whole. Regardless of her relationship with the government, she is often viewed as a strong and respected voice in Myanmar. The video below chronicles Kyi and her viewpoints.

Ashin Wirathu

At the heart of Buddhist nationalist rhetoric is an embattled monk. Practically unknown before, he began to make a name for himself in 2001 during an earlier uprising against Muslims as part of the 969 group. His actions earned him 25 years in prison, but he was released as a political prisoner in 2010.

While he does not enjoy universal support, he has a large following because of his strong nationalist message and his denunciation of the Rohingya Muslims who are not liked by any segment of the population. Wirathu has also increased his audience by broadcasting on YouTube.

What gives him the most clout though is inaction. His fellow monks and the government have refused to discipline him. This has led some to believe he is preaching a message with which the government implicitly agrees. One of the few groups to oppose his teachings however, are certain women’s groups, which feel he labels the country with a bad image and is attempting to infringe on their rights by restricting who they can marry.

The following video details Wirathu and what he is preaching.

While these three actors are not the only ones at play in Myanmar, they are at the heart of the current conflict. They are also three agents who can affect change for good or for bad across the country itself.

Conclusion

The conflict in Myanmar threatens not just the Rohingya, but all minority groups. This is especially true in the wake of nationalist sermons preached by Buddhist Monks. Unfortunately not much is likely to be done about the situation. Although elections loom, the most promising candidate, Aung San Suu Kyi, is barred from participating. Unchecked and unresolved violence is only likely to simmer and burst out again; however, if the government can make real in-roads to reform and put on a legitimate election then the opportunity to rewrite Myanmar’s  story still exists.

 Resources

Primary

World Factbook: Myanmar

Additional

NPR: In Buddhist-Majority Myanmar, Muslim Minority Gets Pushed to the Margins

Washington Post: Why it’s Such a Big Deal That Obama Said ‘Myanmar’ Rather Than Burma

Al Jazeera America: Myanmar’s Buddhist Terrorism Problem

BBC: Why is There Communal Violence in Myanmar?

Human Rights Watch: Burma: Rights Heading in Wrong Direction

BBC: Myanmar Profile

BBC News: Ashin Wirathu: Myanmar and Its Vitriolic Monk

International Crisis Group: The Dark Side of Transition: Violence Against Muslims in Myanmar

Quartz: Aung San Suu Kyi Has Gone Silent on a Major Human-Rights Crisis in Myanmar

Guardian: Burma Rules Out Lifting Ban on Aung San Suu Kyi Presidency Before Election

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Myanmar or Burma: Conflict in a Country With Two Names appeared first on Law Street.

The 72-hour deadline for Japan to pay Islamic terror organization ISIS $200 million in exchange for two Japanese hostages has come and passed. The impending fate of the two men is unknown.

The video below was posted Tuesday on militant websites showing a masked man with a knife threatening to execute kneeling freelance journalist Kenji Goto and security contractor Haruna Yukawa, if Japan refused to pay their hefty ransom in time. This hostage situation comes in response to ISIS allegations that the Japanese government is financially supporting U.S.-led air strikes on ISIS installations in Syria and Iraq, even though they have vehemently denied these claims.

While the world waits to see what will happen to the two captives, some experts are questioning the validity of the video itself. Evidence suggests that the ISIS video may have been filmed indoors using a green screen. The video is said to have been filmed in the same location as videos showing American hostages James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and Peter Kassig, and British captives David Haines and Alan Henning.

Veryan Khan, editorial director for the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium, told the Associated Press that the light source on the men in the latest videos appears to be coming from two different directions as opposed to one bright sun. If the video was made outdoors in natural light, the shadows behind them should be going in one direction. Instead, they converge. Khan goes on to say that “the hostages are visibly bothered by the bright light.”

So how do we explain the noticeable breeze in the video blowing around both hostages’ orange jumpsuits? According to Khan it’s the result of a fan:

Wind in the desert would be noisy and affect the sound quality of the statements being made by the knife-wielding man. It would also kick up dust, and none seems apparent.

Many are wondering why the captors chose to use the green screen in the video. Some believe it is indicative of ISIS captors being less able to move around the Islamic State than initially believed, the green screen tactic being more for intimidation and concealment purposes than production value.

While the condemnation of two captors is almost certain, Japanese citizens are responding to the video with their own visual manipulation. A mocking hashtag translating loosely to “ISIS Crappy Photoshop Grand Prix” has been mentioned more than 75,000 times on Twitter. It features extravagant yet insensitive memes of the hostages and their masked captor. The memes may come in poor taste due to the likely fate of the hostages, but for some humor is their weapon against terror.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ISIS Video Validity Questioned After Ransom Deadline Passes appeared first on Law Street.

At the recent Zhuhai Air Show, China unveiled a new stealth fighter jet that one day has the potential to rival the United States’ own F-35. This came just days before President Obama was to travel to China to meet with its leaders as part of the larger APEC summit. While the significance of the timing of this display is debatable, it unquestionably shows China is determined to steadily improve and modernize its military arsenal. The question that remains is why? Is China’s path aimed at some future point at which it will surpass the United States as the world’s pre-eminent world power, both economically and militarily? If the answer to this question is yes–or even if it is no–does this then make China a military threat to the United States?

China and the U.S.: Positions in the Global Hierarchy

It’s the Economy

To begin to answer this question it is necessary to start by looking at these countries’ economies and in particular their economic growth. There are an infinite number of economic measures available to argue which economy in the world is the strongest; however, one of the most traditional and commonly accepted is Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In this regard, America has enjoyed dominance for decades going all the way back to the end of World War II. Today even in a supposedly more multipolar world, the GDP of the US economy, nearly $17 trillion in 2013, dwarfs that of any other nation and almost doubles the second place country, China.

Nonetheless, while the United States enjoys the largest GDP its rate of growth is much smaller than China’s. Since 1978, when it moved from a centrally planned to a market based economy, China’s yearly GDP growth has averaged nearly 10 percent. The United States during this time has experienced annual growth rates of 2 to 3 percent.

This figure excludes many factors, notably the fact that as a larger economy it is harder for the U.S. to grow at a rate equal to that of China. This issue has actually started to affect China as well as its recent growth has slipped to the 7 to 8 percent range as it seeks to curb several glaring social issues. Moreover, while China’s economy is growing faster and one day may pass the U.S. economy based strictly on total GDP, the average GDP per person is much lower in China than the United States. Regardless of the metrics though, why is economic might so important in determining whether China is a military threat to the United States?

China and U.S.: Military Spending

The United States Spends More (A Lot More)

A successful economy often goes hand in hand with a powerful military. Such is the case in the United States. As has been well documented, military spending by the United States far surpasses that of any other country. In fact, the edge in military spending by the United States far outstrips its edge economically by any measure. In 2013 for example, the United States spent an estimated $619 billion on military expenditures. This is more than three times what the second-place country spent in that same time period.

That second country on the list is–you guessed it–China again. In 2013 China spent $171.4 billion itself on military expenditures. While the United States again is overwhelmingly outspending China, it is critical to look at the growth rates, not just the overall total. As China’s economy continues to grow, so does its potential military capability.

China is Spending More Lately

In 2013, the U.S. actually saw a significant decline in military spending as a result of not only the ending of its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also due to the sequester. In contrast, China actually increased its budget in the same year between 7.4 and 10.7 percent. In 2014, it is reported that China will increase its budget again by an additional 12.2 percent. While this still does not make China equal to the United States, it suggests a desire by China to project its power further beyond its borders. The video below provides a more in-depth explanation.

China and U.S.: Their Relationship

Long and Intricate 

While China’s military capability is increasing this does not automatically make it a threat to the United States, instead it is also important to consider the relationship between the two nations. Historically this could be characterized best as complicated. The video below highlights the complex connection.

The United States has long had a relationship with China, almost from its inception. China was an important market following the Revolutionary War when it was shut out of many other places due to animosity emanating from England. American missionaries also flocked to China and Chinese immigrants came in waves to the United States and were instrumental in constructing the railway network, among other things. Things started going downhill, however, near the end of the nineteenth century during the rise of Imperialism worldwide. In 1882 the U.S. passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was aimed at curbing Chinese immigration.

Additionally, in 1899 the U.S. provided men and weapons to help put down the Boxer Rebellion in which Chinese citizens attempted to expel foreigners who they viewed as exploitative of their country. The United States did advocate the Open Door Policy, initiated in the late nineteenth century, that prevented the literal break-up of China; however, the motive for that can be seen as greed as much as humanitarianism in that the U.S. wanted to keep China as an open market to which it had access.

The relationship improved again during the lead up to and for the duration of World War II as the United States provided supplies and men to China in its fight against Imperial Japan. Later during the conflict China also served as a launching point for American attacks against Japan. The bond the countries had hammered out during the war seemed to be set in stone when the United States worked to get China to become one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Once again however, the relationship frayed with the communist takeover of China and with Chinese soldiers actually engaging U.S. troops during the Korean War. At one point the situation was so bad that nuclear war seemed to be a possibility. Relations stayed frozen until President Nixon famously opened up dialogue between the two countries in the 1970s.

Since Nixon’s thawing the two nations have maintained a strong economic relationship. In 2014, China was the United States’ second most valuable trading partner and the United States was China’s top partner. The two sides also recently agreed for the first time to a major environmental pact that is scheduled to cap China’s emissions in 2030 and cut US emissions by 25 percent by 2025. Still though while the U.S. and China are working in concert, many issues remain between the two nations that could potentially lead to conflict, namely human rights abuses and continued Chinese attempts to steal American technological secrets.

Other Considerations

The Price of Friendship

While the complicated relationship between China and the United States may not make China a military threat, the relationship China has with its neighbors in Asia certainly has that potential. Currently China is attempting to exert its newfound power throughout the region. This has led to two separate crises in two separate seas. The one problem in both cases, with Japan in the East China Sea and several Asian countries in the South China Sea, is over control of the seas. Specifically it is over who controls the resources under those seas, particularly the large amount of oil. The video below gives a glimpse of what exactly the issue is.

The reason why all this could lead to China becoming a military threat is because the United States has defensive military treaties with both Taiwan and Japan. Thus if these two nations or others that also have military commitments from the United States were to come into direct physical conflict with China, the United States would be required to come to their aid militarily. The United States could always refuse to honor these obligations, but then that would lead to a loss of credibility.

End of the Pax Americana 

Such a loss of credibility may actually already have occurred. Specifically by failing to honor the security commitment to Ukraine and the failure to punish Syria for crossing Obama’s Red line against the use of chemical weapons, hostile countries may now have their doubts concerning American power, or at the very least its commitment.

Not only has this seemingly emboldened countries like Russia, it may also lead other countries with differing political goals such as China to determine the time is ripe for them to assert their own power as well, without the former fear of American retaliation. This may also signal the end of an unofficial era, defined as the Pax Americana or American Peace. During this period dating from the end of World War II, the United States was able to assert its global ambitions due to its military strength.

To Russia With Love

Another potential challenge to the system, crafted by the United States, comes in the form of China’s growing economic relationship with Russia, which has been both a long term and recent nemesis of the United States. While the U.S. and its European allies sanction Russia for its involvement in the unrest in Ukraine, China was agreeing to a $400 billion energy deal that could undermine the sanctions already in place.

China’s Nuclear Card

Even if China were not emboldened by a perceived American decline, it still has the potential to be a threat to the United States or any other state on this planet because of its nuclear stockpile. While China has long maintained its policy of no First Use concerning nuclear weapons, recent improvements in its arsenal may signal its intent to shrink the nuclear capability gap between the United States and itself.

Conclusion

Fool Me Once Shame on You, Fool Me Twice…

Aside from all the spending and rhetoric, good and bad, many still believe that China cannot be a threat to the United States militarily for one major reason: China and the U.S. are each other’s most important trading partners. But this argument has been made before. In one such case it was argued that Germany and France, which prior to WWI were economically independent, would not go to war. This was proven wrong of course and the two sides soon engaged in one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history.

Thus in time China could very possibly become a military threat to the United States with its quickly growing economy and military budget; however, the amount of dialogue and trade between the two countries could just as easily lead to a peaceful and prosperous relationship well into the future. For now only time will tell.

Resources

Primary

World Bank: Gross Domestic Product 2013

World Bank: China Overview

Census: Foreign Trade

Additional

Heritage Foundation: The Complicated History of US Relations with China

Trading Economics: Countries Spending the Most on the Military

CNN: Just How Good is China’s New Stealth Fighter

Council on Foreign Relations: Trends in US Military Spending

The New York Times: China Announces 12.2 % Increase in Military Budget

China Daily: Top 10 Trading Partners of the Chinese Mainland

Guardian: US and China Strike Deal on Carbon Cuts in Push For Global Climate Change Pact

World Affairs Journal: Conflicting Claims: China, Japan, Taiwan on Edge

Atlantic: The End of Pax Americana: How Western Decline Became Inevitable

National Interest: West Concerned about Russia and China Economic Ties

Diplomat: Could China’s Nuclear Strategy Evolve?

National Interest: Should America Fear China’s Nuclear Weapons

UCSD: Trading on Preconceptions

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post China as a Military Threat: What Does It Mean for the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.