I am writing this on the eve of the crucial decision-taking by the IOC(International Olympic Committee) to choose one from among the three candidate cities, Istanbul, Madrid, Tokyo, as the venue of the 2020 Olympic Games. I will come back to it at the end.
The whole world is now discussing the possible military action against Syria. The US is in the forefront of the move. The Secretary of State John Kelly said in the public hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the world should 'stand up and act', waking up from 'armchair isolationism'. These words are very conveniently said if seen from Japan where the US military bases are always active.
One remarkable point is that neither Obama nor Kelly, or the resolution by the above Committee of 4 September, has referred to the UN, its Security Council, or even the UN Investigation Team which seems to be busy analyzing what they have collected in Syria. Is this not unilateralism, or 'isolationism'? The Permanent Members are split into two camps on this issue. Therefore the Security Council is immobile. The US goes to the UN only when it suits her?
At this hour of the UN crisis, although we can think of some precedents, it is the Secretary-General, Mr.Ban Ki-moon who has been warning against taking military measures without an explicit yes of the Council. Unless in self-defense or by an SC resolution a military action would be deemed as an aggression, and is not conducive to 'the political resolution of the conflict', he says. The authority of the UN is kept upright by him at the moment, as 'the political resolution of the conflict' is what the UN is for. I do appreciate his action. Obama says that the US needs no such sanctions by the UN, but these are misled words. It may well be his graveyard in the eyes of the international community, even the Americans at large.
There are a couple of questions I would like to ask on the chemical weapons. (1) Is not a part of the reason of the US preparedness this time the defense of Israel, as usual? (2) Was the US responsible for the chemical warfare Iraq unleashed against the Iranian army toward the end of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War?
I am skipping them over for now, and come to the IOC voting. I have no idea at all how the 100 or so of its members will vote tomorrow morning. What I strongly feel is that if Japan is keen on one or both of the following, Tokyo might get more votes than otherwise. (1) On the disposal of the contaminated water at the Fukushima nuclear plant. (2) On 'the political(as against the military) resolution of the conflict' in Syria.
The whole world is now discussing the possible military action against Syria. The US is in the forefront of the move. The Secretary of State John Kelly said in the public hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the world should 'stand up and act', waking up from 'armchair isolationism'. These words are very conveniently said if seen from Japan where the US military bases are always active.
One remarkable point is that neither Obama nor Kelly, or the resolution by the above Committee of 4 September, has referred to the UN, its Security Council, or even the UN Investigation Team which seems to be busy analyzing what they have collected in Syria. Is this not unilateralism, or 'isolationism'? The Permanent Members are split into two camps on this issue. Therefore the Security Council is immobile. The US goes to the UN only when it suits her?
At this hour of the UN crisis, although we can think of some precedents, it is the Secretary-General, Mr.Ban Ki-moon who has been warning against taking military measures without an explicit yes of the Council. Unless in self-defense or by an SC resolution a military action would be deemed as an aggression, and is not conducive to 'the political resolution of the conflict', he says. The authority of the UN is kept upright by him at the moment, as 'the political resolution of the conflict' is what the UN is for. I do appreciate his action. Obama says that the US needs no such sanctions by the UN, but these are misled words. It may well be his graveyard in the eyes of the international community, even the Americans at large.
There are a couple of questions I would like to ask on the chemical weapons. (1) Is not a part of the reason of the US preparedness this time the defense of Israel, as usual? (2) Was the US responsible for the chemical warfare Iraq unleashed against the Iranian army toward the end of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War?
I am skipping them over for now, and come to the IOC voting. I have no idea at all how the 100 or so of its members will vote tomorrow morning. What I strongly feel is that if Japan is keen on one or both of the following, Tokyo might get more votes than otherwise. (1) On the disposal of the contaminated water at the Fukushima nuclear plant. (2) On 'the political(as against the military) resolution of the conflict' in Syria.
