Why are Japanese policymakers intent on visiting Yasukuni Shrine, and why do they continue to hold China and South Korea solely responsible for the “politics of memory” in diplomatic relations? It is easy—and perhaps misleading—to suggest that Japan does not care about China or South Korea, and also to argue that Japan's memory of World War II is one of “glory” rather than “aggression.” Instead, I posit the idea that Japan's memory of the war is, indeed, traumatic, and that the postwar legacy of a “democratic and peaceful” nation makes it difficult for the policymakers to countenance Chinese/South Korean criticisms.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad began waging a war of words against the state of Israel several months after he won Iran's 2005 election. This article explores the motives for his fiery rhetoric. A series of explanations including ideological zeal, inexperience, international pressure, unifying regional regimes, and inciting a war with Israel are evaluated and critiqued. This article offers a new rationale that examines internal politics as a motive for the Iranian leader's speeches. The diversionary theory of conflict, which claims that leaders try to overcome domestic shortcomings with foreign distractions, is examined in this context. But while this theory has typically been associated with war and unifying the country's political structure, this article contends that President Ahmadinejad's plan may not be full‐scale war, but a verbal confrontation and subtle support for terror groups, which can be just as effective in achieving internal aims. Such a policy would also win converts among the rank‐and‐file Arabs. The resulting regional prestige is also designed to mask his domestic shortcomings in the political and economic arena. Blasting Israel and boosting groups such as Hizballah and Hamas, while receiving cheers from many Arab people for standing up to Israel, in other words, is designed to distract the Iranian people from the sinking economy and President Ahmadinejad's loss of power, blocked appointments, and criticism from even conservatives. In addition, rather than seeking support from the entire country, the president may be trying to outflank his conservative opponents, including many from the clergy, legislature, and ruling elite, who have become disenchanted with his anti‐corruption crusades, appointments, and policies. If successful, this plan would pit his country's conservative majority (including young people and the Revolutionary Guard) against the minority moderates and some disaffected conservatives. Finally, this article critiques other theories and suggested strategies responding to the crisis and offers its own diversionary theory, as well as ideas about how to handle President Ahmadinejad's oratories.
Territorial and maritime disputes are a visible part of the tapestry of Asia‐Pacific Region (APR) international relations. They have provoked frictions between states, militarized conflict, and even war. Some believe interstate economic ties or economic inducements have the potential to mitigate and resolve the APR's territorial and maritime controversies. In this article, I analyze, in two primary ways, the potential for economics to calm or resolve the APR's territorial and maritime disputes. One is a theoretical evaluation, while the other is an empirical examination. As for the latter, this article analyzes two specific quarrels: the China‐Japan controversy over the East China Sea and Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands and the Japanese‐Soviet/Russian conflict over the Northern Territories. In both cases, the economic optimist case is proved wanting. This article shows that researchers must pay attention to political factors, domestic and international, to identify the factors that facilitate/hinder a settlement of territorial and maritime disputes.
The emergence of major Chinese economic and political stakes in Africa is arguably the most important process to have emerged on the African continent since the end of the Cold War. China is now Africa's second most important trading partner, behind the United States but ahead of France and the United Kingdom. Relations are a continuation of Sino‐African historical ties, propelled by China's desire to obtain new sources of raw materials and energy for its ongoing economic growth and new export markets for China‐based producers on the one hand, and African elites' initiatives to find a non‐Western option/leverage on the other hand. However, various commentators have misunderstood the nature of this expansion. It is common for observers to talk of either Chinese “colonization” of Africa, or of “China Inc.'s” venture into Africa. Both views are wide of the mark and reflect an ignorance of the dynamics underpinning the developing relationships between Chinese and African actors.
This topic deals with the reasons for the civil conflicts in the Nile Basin Area in Africa. From the geographical point of view, these countries are suffering from the lack of demarcation of boundaries among them. From an economic point of view, they would fight over the abundant economic resources that were taken away wholly by the foreign companies, leaving the crumbs to be disputed over. Additionally, ethnic differences kindle ethnic and religious contradictions. This research will also ascertain some of these reasons, and then review examples of the civil conflicts in the area. Unless these contradictions can be rectified, or mitigated, they will continue to simmer and periodically re‐emerge as a full‐fledged civil war.