This being the beginning of a new year, and also the end of a fiscal one(April to March) for Japan, a series of latest figures on her economy has been out recently. Let us pick up some of them.
Japan's GDP for October to December 2011 registered a decline of 2.3% on an annual basis. This is due to the decline of export by 11.9%, while the domestic demand increased by 0.2%. Japan is not such a trade-dependent country. Her import-export ratio is 30%, compared to, for instance, Germany's 70%. With the Yen appreciation and the world-wide economic difficulties, it would be all the more desirable to depend more on the domestic market than before. For this purpose, it would be imperative to boost the household economy which accounts for 60% of the GDP, and also to protect the small and medium-scale industrial and commercial sector which accounts for 70% of the employment.
But the reality is that take-home income has decreased. In the 20 years from 1990 to 2010, now known as the lost two decades, the per household annual disposable income, and the actual consumption expenditure, have declined, from 529 to 504, and from 398 to 370, respectively(Yen 10,000). If those figures give the impression that the decline was not much, it is because both of them kept rising until they reached the peak figures of 596 and 429, respectively, in 1997, and then started dropping. So the drop since then has been quite sharp. One important reason for the drop, particularly for the latter, was the raising of the consumption tax(Vat) from 3 to 5%in '97. It was a shattering blow on the recovering economy then.
We will look into the important disparities among the working population. In 2011, non-regular workers accounted for 35.2% of the total employees, the highest so far, and still on the increase. 19.9% of male employees and 54.7% female employees belong to this category. Their working status is unstable and their wages are low compared to the regular employees. There are wage disparities between women and men. Not only that. Their presence in such a large number, as something of an industrial reserve army, makes the position of the regular employees unstable and their wages low.
The government wants to hike the consumption tax, first to 8%, and then to 10% in the near future. It would be destructive to the economy. As the result of the previous hike in '97, all the other tax revenues put together went down as much as by 25% from '96 to 2010, though you cannot say it is all due to this hike. Still some experts do anticipate a fall in the total taxation. Besides the government has decided to cut the salaries of their employees by 8%. It would be better if the government raise the income tax on the highest bracket, from the present 40% to 75%that used to be before, thus making it more progressive, which is how it should be. If some such people-friendly measures are taken, we can safely talk of doing away with the consumption tax altogether. Also we may talk of coping with the high cost in medical insurance, treatment, aging people care, or education.
Finally, I am worried that our farmland is slowly going into disuse, thereby making ourselves more dependent on imported food. I would like to see Japan play some positive role whenever there is danger of mass starvation on this earth. Japan has that capacity as she can produce much more rice than the domestic demand. But the TPP is casting a dark shadow over the future of our entire agriculture.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Sunday, February 26, 2012
The Veto Power Reconsidered
The fate of the Syrian peace resolution at the Security Council has called the attention of many observers once again to the legitimacy of the veto power. I also would like to make some comments.
When the UN Charter was decided upon, in 1945, it was signed by only 51 member nations. The Second World War was not yet over. The name UN itself meant the allied nations fighting the 'Axis' powers. The British and the French empires were fighting the war in order to survive as empires, with Winston Churchill saying, for instance, that he did not become the Prime Minister to preside over the liquidation of the British empire.
Let us examine why the original 51 has expanded to the present 187.
First and foremost, almost all of the African nations, with the possible exception of the former Spanish Sahara, have joined the UN afterwards, whereas there were only two at the time.
Similarly, 13 Caribbean countries have become independent, largely under the impact of the Cuban revolution.
The same is true for most of the ASEAN ten, Pakistan and Bangladesh both of which have bifurcated from India, and some in the Middle East and the Central or South Pacific.
There are other categories also. Japan, the united Germany and Italy are members, making the name 'the United Nations' sounding rather odd. The simultaneous admission of the two Koreas in 1991, after the end of the Cold War, was a great dividend of peace, although not followed up since then.
Then there was the dismemberment of the USSR, also in 1991, increasing the member countries by 12 at a stroke. It is difficult to understand why Russia has inherited the veto power, as the USSR and Russia are two different entities. Yugoslavia also has been dismembered, making one into six, at least as of now.
Other cases are mostly bifurcation of countries like Ethiopia, Czechoslovakia and Sudan.
Looked at this way, we will notice that the UN today is substantially different from what it was at its inception. But by far the largest number of nations have no means of participating in the crucial decision-making process of the Security Council. True, the number of the non-permanent members increased by an amendment of the Charter. But the permanent members are the same five. The democratization has not proceeded in the international relations at all.
Besides it is difficult to conclude from the past history of the UN that those five have cooperated for promoting peace. They have tended to use the veto power to defend their own interests. They are the only legally sanctioned nuclear powers, having turned vast areas into barren ones by repeated nuclear experiments. None of them has been faithful to the Article 2(4) of the Charter, prohibiting members 'the threat or use of force'. And they are the major exporters of weapons in the world.
Can it be overcome by increasing the number of the permanent members? It will take years to agree on who. The countries which are opposed to by their immediate neighbours will automatically be disqualified. Japan is one such example. The inclusion of Japan would simply mean another vote for the US. It is extremely difficult for her to speak with her own voice under the present military alliance with the US.
The majority countries have been endeavouring to overcome the impasse by some other means. At the Middle East war over the Suez in 1956 the General Assembly virtually took over the function of the Security Council. The resolution passed by the GA this time may be looked at in a similar light. There may be other ways out. 'Necessity is the mother of invention'.
As for the present five with veto power, the sooner they disown it the better for the cause of peace.
When the UN Charter was decided upon, in 1945, it was signed by only 51 member nations. The Second World War was not yet over. The name UN itself meant the allied nations fighting the 'Axis' powers. The British and the French empires were fighting the war in order to survive as empires, with Winston Churchill saying, for instance, that he did not become the Prime Minister to preside over the liquidation of the British empire.
Let us examine why the original 51 has expanded to the present 187.
First and foremost, almost all of the African nations, with the possible exception of the former Spanish Sahara, have joined the UN afterwards, whereas there were only two at the time.
Similarly, 13 Caribbean countries have become independent, largely under the impact of the Cuban revolution.
The same is true for most of the ASEAN ten, Pakistan and Bangladesh both of which have bifurcated from India, and some in the Middle East and the Central or South Pacific.
There are other categories also. Japan, the united Germany and Italy are members, making the name 'the United Nations' sounding rather odd. The simultaneous admission of the two Koreas in 1991, after the end of the Cold War, was a great dividend of peace, although not followed up since then.
Then there was the dismemberment of the USSR, also in 1991, increasing the member countries by 12 at a stroke. It is difficult to understand why Russia has inherited the veto power, as the USSR and Russia are two different entities. Yugoslavia also has been dismembered, making one into six, at least as of now.
Other cases are mostly bifurcation of countries like Ethiopia, Czechoslovakia and Sudan.
Looked at this way, we will notice that the UN today is substantially different from what it was at its inception. But by far the largest number of nations have no means of participating in the crucial decision-making process of the Security Council. True, the number of the non-permanent members increased by an amendment of the Charter. But the permanent members are the same five. The democratization has not proceeded in the international relations at all.
Besides it is difficult to conclude from the past history of the UN that those five have cooperated for promoting peace. They have tended to use the veto power to defend their own interests. They are the only legally sanctioned nuclear powers, having turned vast areas into barren ones by repeated nuclear experiments. None of them has been faithful to the Article 2(4) of the Charter, prohibiting members 'the threat or use of force'. And they are the major exporters of weapons in the world.
Can it be overcome by increasing the number of the permanent members? It will take years to agree on who. The countries which are opposed to by their immediate neighbours will automatically be disqualified. Japan is one such example. The inclusion of Japan would simply mean another vote for the US. It is extremely difficult for her to speak with her own voice under the present military alliance with the US.
The majority countries have been endeavouring to overcome the impasse by some other means. At the Middle East war over the Suez in 1956 the General Assembly virtually took over the function of the Security Council. The resolution passed by the GA this time may be looked at in a similar light. There may be other ways out. 'Necessity is the mother of invention'.
As for the present five with veto power, the sooner they disown it the better for the cause of peace.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Peace in Syria Vetoed
On 3 February 1982, the Syrian government forces were engaged in killing their own citizens ordered by the then President Asad, the present one's father. Friday last week was the 30th anniversary of the massacre. But it was the day when the son President was about to get a license to kill, when Russia and China vetoed the Arab League-initiated resolution before the Security Council.
A 'license to kill' is no exaggeration. Look at the indiscriminate bombardment, by artillery if not by bombers, on the small city of Homs which has been continuing for six days now, and which Mr.Ban Ki-Moon called an 'appalling brutality'. They are annihilating the whole population there.
But why did those two powers torpedo the resolution?
Both of them would like to see the present Syrian government to be sitting there for more time to come. Russia has the right to send its warships to a Syrian seaport on the Mediterranean, which would give an enormous maneuverability to her Black Sea Fleet. At this moment her small fleet is there signalling her support to the regime. Russia has been selling enormous amount of weapons, especially tanks and fighter planes, to this comparatively small country to militarize her.
China, on the other hand, is on the alert against any possible downfall of a dictatorship, a 'regime change'. She may also have found it fit to go together with
Russia for now. She ranks 174th in the ranking of the presence of the freedom of reporting, and it may be difficult to get any trustworthy opinion from within on this point. China's veto was a veto to her own people's demand for freedom.
Russia, however, enjoys more freedom. There was a 'huge' anti-Putin demonstration there last week. Was there any slogan, in the form of a banner or just anything, connecting the main internal issue with supporting the brutal regimes externally? The old 'internationalism' has left no legacy of its own?
When vetoing at the UN, the Russian Foreign Minister said that the Security Council was not the only diplomatic channel. An astonishing disregard by a Permanent Member of the UN. And his subsequent visit to Syria has, so it seems, been utterly futile.
But why is the Syrian regime able, so far, to repress its people? Asad's regime is based on the Alawite Muslim minority, about 11% of its 23 million population. Therefore if the things are allowed to go their own course, the alternatives would be either the majority will be silenced, or the dominating Alawites will be defeated and squeezed out of the country, whichever comes first. Historians will be advised to look more closely at the inter-World War years in Syria to see whether the Mandatory Power France's policies did not contribute to the division of the people on the religious basis. Syria at present resembles Iraq in recent years, and also India on the eve of her division into India and Pakistan in 1947, with, of course, significant dissimilarities.
Under the circumstances it is not easy to see how the formula by Gene Sharp for dislodging a dictatorship could be applied here. But the world is deeply impressed that the people on the whole have chosen the way of non-violent struggle against the blood-thirsty regime. The fact itself might show Sharp and Gandhi and King's instructions being put in action.
There is one lesson which is difficult to escape the eye of the observer sympathetic to the Syrian people. It has become clear on 4 February 2012, as if under the broad daylight, that the veto power, as is stated in the UN Charter, is a thing of the past.
A 'license to kill' is no exaggeration. Look at the indiscriminate bombardment, by artillery if not by bombers, on the small city of Homs which has been continuing for six days now, and which Mr.Ban Ki-Moon called an 'appalling brutality'. They are annihilating the whole population there.
But why did those two powers torpedo the resolution?
Both of them would like to see the present Syrian government to be sitting there for more time to come. Russia has the right to send its warships to a Syrian seaport on the Mediterranean, which would give an enormous maneuverability to her Black Sea Fleet. At this moment her small fleet is there signalling her support to the regime. Russia has been selling enormous amount of weapons, especially tanks and fighter planes, to this comparatively small country to militarize her.
China, on the other hand, is on the alert against any possible downfall of a dictatorship, a 'regime change'. She may also have found it fit to go together with
Russia for now. She ranks 174th in the ranking of the presence of the freedom of reporting, and it may be difficult to get any trustworthy opinion from within on this point. China's veto was a veto to her own people's demand for freedom.
Russia, however, enjoys more freedom. There was a 'huge' anti-Putin demonstration there last week. Was there any slogan, in the form of a banner or just anything, connecting the main internal issue with supporting the brutal regimes externally? The old 'internationalism' has left no legacy of its own?
When vetoing at the UN, the Russian Foreign Minister said that the Security Council was not the only diplomatic channel. An astonishing disregard by a Permanent Member of the UN. And his subsequent visit to Syria has, so it seems, been utterly futile.
But why is the Syrian regime able, so far, to repress its people? Asad's regime is based on the Alawite Muslim minority, about 11% of its 23 million population. Therefore if the things are allowed to go their own course, the alternatives would be either the majority will be silenced, or the dominating Alawites will be defeated and squeezed out of the country, whichever comes first. Historians will be advised to look more closely at the inter-World War years in Syria to see whether the Mandatory Power France's policies did not contribute to the division of the people on the religious basis. Syria at present resembles Iraq in recent years, and also India on the eve of her division into India and Pakistan in 1947, with, of course, significant dissimilarities.
Under the circumstances it is not easy to see how the formula by Gene Sharp for dislodging a dictatorship could be applied here. But the world is deeply impressed that the people on the whole have chosen the way of non-violent struggle against the blood-thirsty regime. The fact itself might show Sharp and Gandhi and King's instructions being put in action.
There is one lesson which is difficult to escape the eye of the observer sympathetic to the Syrian people. It has become clear on 4 February 2012, as if under the broad daylight, that the veto power, as is stated in the UN Charter, is a thing of the past.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Gene Sharp Speaks
I have discussed Prof.Gene Sharp's ideas and their influence on the 'Arab Spring' in my column of 28 August, 2011. Recently he appeared for BBC's HardTalk and expressed himself for half an hour. The following is some of my impressions.
First he said that his now well-known book was originally written at the request of one of the Burmese whom he was occasionally meeting within and outside Burma. He, however, does not know exactly how the book came to influence the event elsewhere.
He naturally emphasized the value of non-violent struggle, as his whole book was on that. Very interestingly, however, he said that a reason why the violent course should not be chosen was that a government agent, or the political police, will get into the movement, and it will turn counter-revolutionary.
In this connection he referred to the example of a general of Caddafi's Army, who surrendered to the rebels but was later killed by them. He has a suspicion that the General was Caddafi's man.
At the same time he warns the non-violent movement as well. Any defiance is risky. They should know the weaknesses of the regime they are fighting. Otherwise their plan won't work. This means that they should have a grand strategy. Clear thinking is called for, instead of mere sweeping generalization.
Also interesting was his view on the merit of negotiating with the regime. It is unwise to do so. It was a mistake to have negotiated with the then President Mubarak of Egypt. The people's side had to agree to Mubarak's condition that the power should be transferred to the Army. Such is the danger of negotiating. Dictators do not negotiate themselves out of power, and there are no such examples.
Talking of Egypt, the revolution is incomplete, and only the first half is over. Incidentally I am writing this while listening to the news of the tragedy at the Football Stadium at Port Said.
Towards the end Prof.Sharp said that if democratization takes place in one country it sends a message to another, but one must use his head, and plan carefully.
On the current hot spot, Syria, unfortunately, there was no dialogue.
First he said that his now well-known book was originally written at the request of one of the Burmese whom he was occasionally meeting within and outside Burma. He, however, does not know exactly how the book came to influence the event elsewhere.
He naturally emphasized the value of non-violent struggle, as his whole book was on that. Very interestingly, however, he said that a reason why the violent course should not be chosen was that a government agent, or the political police, will get into the movement, and it will turn counter-revolutionary.
In this connection he referred to the example of a general of Caddafi's Army, who surrendered to the rebels but was later killed by them. He has a suspicion that the General was Caddafi's man.
At the same time he warns the non-violent movement as well. Any defiance is risky. They should know the weaknesses of the regime they are fighting. Otherwise their plan won't work. This means that they should have a grand strategy. Clear thinking is called for, instead of mere sweeping generalization.
Also interesting was his view on the merit of negotiating with the regime. It is unwise to do so. It was a mistake to have negotiated with the then President Mubarak of Egypt. The people's side had to agree to Mubarak's condition that the power should be transferred to the Army. Such is the danger of negotiating. Dictators do not negotiate themselves out of power, and there are no such examples.
Talking of Egypt, the revolution is incomplete, and only the first half is over. Incidentally I am writing this while listening to the news of the tragedy at the Football Stadium at Port Said.
Towards the end Prof.Sharp said that if democratization takes place in one country it sends a message to another, but one must use his head, and plan carefully.
On the current hot spot, Syria, unfortunately, there was no dialogue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)