3
POPSJapan's Global Ambitions India & Japan are both vying for a permanent seat in the UNSC, with or without the coveted veto power. With the failure of a combined attempt by G-4 to effect Security Council reform, it appears that a nation going solo will find it easier to get the seat, rather than if it tried to get in with a group. In this situation India may lose out to Japan. Japan has everything going for it- money, influence , & most importantly US' support. Though China will most probably exercise its veto power to prevent Japan coming on board,this is no relief for India either, whose bid is far more likely to elicit the Chinese veto. However Japan's energetic attempts at bolstering its credentials may carry the day for them when the opurtunity arises.
2
POPSPostcard from NZ to Japan, saying "stop whaling!"
Hmm... this action is out of focus in these points; 1) Whaling is politically done. There are no private companies which capture whales but the government as a political actor. So talking directly this issue to the public doesn't have recognisable effect. It's like saying to people in America in this way about global warming; " Stop driving! America is a land of tradition. Driving is one of them, but please make it history ". It doesn't actually make sense, you see. 2) NGO don't have political power in Japan, if any. In Japanese politics, the preasure from any interest groups, even though it's working for the general sake of society like global warming, should be excluded. 3) No room for environmental issue to be discussed in the Diet. If you know well about Japanese politics, the discussed issues nowadays especially are social insurance, schooling, and social gaps. Of course environmental issue is argued, but it's at government department instead of the Diet.
2
POPSDispute at Wikipedia; political conflict between Japan and Korea This case clearly tells us wiki needs a government due to these conditions: 1) direct democracy Wiki is indeed "of the people, by the people, and for the people". But Lincoln definitely didn't mean the direct democracy should be established. The type of democracy is different between wiki and national governments. And the characteristics of wiki leads these two issues; 2) unclosed discussion; anyone may join the discussion suddenly, and also observers can interfere it. This often breaks a consensus if exist, and results in the instability of the wiki regime. 3) non-authority; unlike the international regime, who've written a page can be hardly specified. Anonymousness prevents the people from having their own visible/specifiable characteristics and authority. Therefore, 4) Impossibility of diplomacy; there's no room of negotiation. Direct democracy is indeed good at making each thoughts clear, but it isn't suitable to make a decision of the large community like wik
5
POPSBook: "Wall of Foolishness", it's what fundamentalists have Why cannot you have the correspond understand your ideas? It's due to the wall inside his/her mind. If the human beings hadn't this wall, the world could've been aufheben very well. Though the title is named in that way, including "Foolish", relative provoking the public, it comes from the circumstance this book isn't written for the scientists, academics, but for ordinary people, where the aim is to sell at maximum. The person who sits in the center of Japanese politics is undoubtedly Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. I'm not sure on what ground this writer claims this point. Also, the points of this book isn't whether foolishness is good or bad, or should be or not.
1
POPSImposing morality and ethics is 'imperialism': whaling conference Some of you think the same thing can go to the climate change regime, but actually it isn't. There are two points at least different from climate change regime; 1) the epistemic community doesn't work enough to give sufficient information which have both governments and NGOs like greenpeace and IFAW (Preservationists) and WWF (Conservationists) know about facts. Without sharing scientific knowledge, the issue cannot be addressed with effectiveness. 2) there are only a few countries like Japan, Norway, UK, US and so on that have connexions in terms of interests by either using the resource or not, and many of the states (ones doesn't have coastline) doesn't have the connexions with them. This means that a few actors play a part in either leading the regime or preventing it. The others doesn't make decision spontaneously. Mainly there decision is influenced from the public opinion or the political power outside of the country.
3
POPSThe democracy in Iran supporting nuke programm Maybe the bush admin will invade iran on the same ground as they did for iraq; based on a resolution of the Security Council, blaming the government for concealing nuke activities and nuclear weapon, whose information is completely false. And Japan will support the war of course.
2
POPSThe nature struck Japan snow festival Without the event the budget of Sapporo will be deficit. There is actually so great tourisitic effect on the event! This case shows you that tourism is connected with climate change, even if a little. If domestic economy relies on tourism like Kenya, Maldives and Sierra Leone, the effect must be tremendously huge! :o
0
POPSWhaling Regime is Breaking Down IWC aims to establish the sustainable use of whales. Ignoring both this point and also statistics (general knowledge) and planning to boycott the discussion, where both leading states and veto states can make consensus, the whaling regime is breaking down.
0
POPSShould you find out your own Tradition? No. "as long as our life is sound, our culture is healthy, and so is our tradition." Though Japanese throw away, kimono, tatami, and so on, their culture is healthy unless it isn't based on their demand of life.
0
POPSGreenpease to Confront Japanese Whalers The critics rarely know today's circumstance in Japan. I've eaten a piece of Whale mea only one time for twenty years, and in only a few restaurant whale is available. The clear thing is, whale meat is no longer eaten in everyday life. Come to Japan and you'll agree to this point. Anyway here we can see Greenpeace bases on "preservationism", not "conservationism". That is, whatever protocols around the whale use is and however the whale is used, they rationally disagree with killing whales itself. In this case, the interference of preservationist like NGO is thought to destabilise the whale regime, since this regime aims to establish the sustainable use of whale. Unlike Greenpeace, on the other hand, another NGO like WWF is thought to support this regime because they're conservationist. Same thing had been seen in CITES, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wiled Fauna and Flora, aka Washington Convention, especially from, I remember, COP8-9.
Newest Clips
see Newest Clips
Pops
Comments
Tags
4
Most Pops
Print
Save
Turn on live update