Comment by Steve Schapiro

December 10, 2007 @ 12:34 pm

“Wars are wars. You’re going over there to kill people. And win a war.” Are you channeling George W. Bush there, Ken?

You guys can’t be serious, though. Sending ground troops into Afghanistan would be preferable to refueling ships in the Indian Ocean? If Japan can get by without putting their people in harm’s way, why would they do otherwise?

Comment by Ken Worsley

December 10, 2007 @ 8:02 pm

Steve, did you even listen to what I said? Our point - or mine at least - was that both options are stupid, and suggesting ground troops be put into Afganistan helps to show that support for actual war is untenable. Saying one is involved in the ‘war effort’ by supplying fuel is a sham.

Have you ever known a war that wasn’t about killing people? Isn’t that the whole problem with wars?

War existed a long, long time before George W. Bush, my friend. And unfortunately, they will exist for a long, long time after his fraudulent administration ends.

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

December 11, 2007 @ 9:31 am

Ken, I’ve got to say you did sound a bit like GWB when you said that; as in, your voice and rhythm sounded like his.

Steve, as Ken said, the point is that half-assed symbolic involvement doesn’t help much. If Japan decides to be involved in this war, they should get in in the most effective possible way. If Japan does not want to be in this war, it should not be. The country could very easily get by without putting any of its people in harm’s way by simply not getting involved. It is not and should not be a foregone conclusion that Japan is going to get involved, that being an ally of the US means following the US into every battle, or that the US’s wars in Iraq ad Afghanistan are necessarily in Japan’s interests.

Part of what both Ken and I have long called for is a more independent and assertive approach to foreign policy. Japan’s continued reliance on the US for both security and decision-making is untenable. Any change in stance, though, is going to be painful. We’re essentially looking at two generations without real diplomatic or foreign policy experience and perhaps three without a strong, independent, peacetime foreign policy. There will be mistakes along the way and it’ll take time to steer the gargantuan gaimusho in a new direction. It beats being dragged down with bad US foreign policy, though.

Comment by Y-Man

December 11, 2007 @ 1:29 pm

Why wouldn’t Fukua last four years? Why would he call elections before then?

Comment by Ken

December 11, 2007 @ 4:16 pm

Y-Man,

What is the four years from? LDP party presidnts can serve two three year terms.

Before Koizumi, which Prime Minister lasted 4 years? History says it’s unlikely.

If popular support cannot be won over on the MSDF bill, Fukuda might be forced to call an election if the DPJ passes a censure motion in the upper house. Of course he won’t want to, but the DPJ will push for it.

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

December 11, 2007 @ 5:17 pm

If Fukuda approached the three-year mark with popularity, I still don’t see much chance of the LDP amending its term-limit rule, as was done for Koizumi, because there’s still too much factional infighting, albeit not enough that it’s going to push the LDP out of power or anything.

If my guess is correct, Y-Man is referring to the maximum of four years than can pass between general elections, but is mistaking Fukuda’s ascension to the Prime Ministership for a general election victory. By my reckoning, the latest the next general election could be would be September 2009. Is that right?

Comment by Michael

December 14, 2007 @ 10:33 am

Regarding how long the Diet will last:

According to Morgan Stanley (JP):
http://www.morganstanley.com/views/gef/archive/2007/20071212-Wed.html#anchor5898

“…Specifically, we think that the Diet could be dissolved in January followed by a general election in February, or dissolved in March followed by an election in April. The former timetable would allow F3/09 budget proposals, including time-limited bills, to be formulated and debated under the next administration by the end of the current fiscal year. The latter timetable would be the outcome of horse-trading between the ruling parties (seeking to win approval for time-limited bills by the end of March) and opposition parties (pushing to bring forward the general election). In any event, come the start of next year the political authorities will be on the alert for a break-up of the Diet, and a major theme for asset markets in 2008 will be the political landscape to follow…”

Great program, I look forward to new episodes (as I’ve listened to everything you’ve posted so far).

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

December 14, 2007 @ 10:47 am

Thanks, Michael.

I’m going to make this me vs. Morgan Stanley. There is a very good chance of a censure vote in January, but I still don’t see why this would succeed in getting the LDP to call elections. Even the March/April time frame seems a bit early to me.

Fukuda doesn’t want to call elections until after July’s G8 Summit and there’s really no reason he’d have to. The DPJ needs some ordinary session achievements just as badly as the LDP, New Komeito agreed to the Diet session extension only with the condition that the LDP would not call elections during the ordinary Diet session.

I’m sticking with summertime.

Comment by Cal Hobbs

December 27, 2007 @ 5:26 am

So Garrett has next summer.
Morgan Stanley disagrees.

We all want to know what E.F. Hutton thinks.

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

December 27, 2007 @ 5:04 pm

If Morgan Stanley is right, I’ll let them manage my millions.

Comment by Ken Worsley

December 27, 2007 @ 5:19 pm

It’s hard to disagree with Takahiro Sato, since I think he’s pretty on concerning the course of Japan’s economy in 2007 and upcoming in 2008. On this point, though, I have to say I think I’m 60-40 towards what Garrett is saying, though I wouldn’t expect anything before Golden Week at the earliest. Even then, it seems Fukuda wants to wait until after the G8 summit. After this year’s super long session and drama, I don’t think anyone has the energy for an election in the next three months.