Just when the US-Japan relationship looks like it's on the rocks, along comes China to remind the partners that staying together is better than splitting up.
Every year, the Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan’s largest daily newspaper, and Gallup carry out a joint opinion survey in Japan and the United States of views toward each other.
The 2010 poll, released Dec. 22, was conducted Dec. 3-5 in Japan and Nov. 30-Dec. 6 in the United States. The latest poll shows that a year of friction between the US and Japan over alliance issues – most notably the inability to settle a long-standing argument over the relocation of a US Marine base in Okinawa – has taken its toll.
Whereas last year’s survey found a rising level of good feeling toward each other by Japanese and Americans, this year’s poll shows rapid erosion in positive Japanese views toward US-Japan relations. A record 40% of Japanese saw the bilateral relationship as being in bad shape, almost double last year’s figure, and only 33% felt positive about the current state of relations. Although Americans were more sanguine, 49% deeming bilateral ties to be in good shape, there has been erosion in positive perceptions in the US, too.
DPJ disappointing performance
The poll’s results may reflect the state of politics in Japan under the new ruling party. Since winning the Lower House election in August 2009, the Democratic Party of Japan has failed to show the Japanese electorate that it can run the country better than its predecessor, the Liberal Democratic Party.
The first DPJ administration under Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama ended in June 2010 when Hatoyama resigned for reneging on a campaign promise to relocate a US base out of Okinawa and for a personal money scandal. But his successor, Naoto Kan, has not done much better, having alienated the public over perceived domestic and foreign policy failures in the latter part of 2010.
Kan led the party to an ignominious defeat in the July election in which the DPJ lost its Upper House majority. In every opinion poll, Kan has followed in his predecessor’s footsteps, losing almost totally the support of the public -- he is at the lower 20% level now – for not delivering on key campaign promises to the electorate and mishandling key policy issues, including reviving a lackluster economy. Economic growth for next fiscal year is predicted to be a dismal 1%, and unemployment, particularly affecting young people, has remained high (for Japan) at over 5%.
True, the alliance with the US is firmer now than at the start of DPJ rule, but Kan gets no credit for this, since the deepening of US-Japan security ties are thanks to blustering moves by China and saber rattling by North Korea.
Futenma fly in the ointment
For the first time in the long history of the survey, negative views outweigh positive views on the question of whether bilateral ties are good or not. In Japan, only 33% of the public thought US-Japan relations were in good shape; 40% said it was not; and 21% were just not sure. The results are in stark contrast to the 2009 survey, in which 48% of Japanese said bilateral relations were in good shape (an impressive 14 point jump from 2008’s low of 34%), a sign of the spirit of “change” set off in Japan by the election of Barack Obama as US president. Only 26% saw the relationship as being in bad shape.
In the 2010 poll, although Americans were more upbeat about the bilateral relationship than Japanese, with 49% seeing it as being in good shape, and only 10% taking a negative view, there has been a slow deterioration in positive views since 2008 (53%). Somewhat disturbing, 37% of Americans in the 2010 poll said they could not tell one way or the other where relations were good or not. In the 2009 poll, 51% of Americans said that relations were good, and a mere 8% thought they were not. But here, too, on the question of whether relations were good or not, a significant 34% of Americans answered that they could not say, indicating confusion about the intentions toward the US of the new DPJ administration in Japan, a situation that seems to continue today.
Why have negative views returned? The controversy over the relocation of the Futenma Air Station, a US Marine base, to another site in Okinawa. The poll found 79% of the Japanese public feeling that this single issue had adversely affected US-Japan relations in 2010 (83% when the answers of the 40% who felt bilateral ties were in bad shape are disaggregated).
Asked about the future, only 15% of the Japanese public felt that US-Japan relations were likely to get better in the future. Still, only 11% said relations would worsen, and 71% thought things would not change – a sign at least of commitment to the status quo in alliance relations.
Americans were somewhat more optimistic, with 35% saying that relations would improve in the future. But Americans may not be savvy about the Okinawa base dispute since only 6% chose the USFJ realignment as a major issue between the two countries. The most chosen topic with 26% of Americans was trade and economic issues, even though 2010 was relatively free of such troubles.
When Japanese were asked about the most serious challenges to US-Japan relations, 21% chose the issue of realigning US forces in Japan, stalled for years over the Futenma relocation dispute. Another 21% picked North Korea, and a significant 17% thought it was the development of trust relations between the leaders of the US and Japan. Interestingly, 11% of Americans chose the trust issue as a major challenge.
Good relationship based on trust
President Obama is held in high esteem by most Japanese and this factor would seem to be reflected in the answer this year to the poll’s question, “Do you trust the United States?” In the 2010 poll, 52% said that they did, while 37% said that they did not. The recovery of Japan’s confidence in America has been a striking new development since the 2009 Yomiuri-Gallup poll after a long period of decline in which distrust consistently outpaced trust. Those Japanese who said they trusted the US jumped from a mere 32% in 2008 to 49% in 2009. The reversal undoubtedly reflected a favorable reaction to the Obama administration’s management of ties with Japan during his first year in office.
Japanese trust in the US in Japan, going back to 2001, was a healthy 50.9%, with distrust at 35%. But the figure dropped to 48.8% in 2002, 41% in 2003, 37.8% in 2004, 36.6% in 2005, rose to 41% in 2006, and then dropped again in 2007 to 33.8%. It reached a record low in 2008 of 31.7%. Distrust in turn rose from 35% in 2001 to 39.1% in 2002, 45% in 2003, and 52.7% in 2004, leveled off at 52.5% in 2005, before sliding to 47% in 2006. It rose again in 2007 to 53.8% and reached a disturbing 59.5% in 2008.
Rising Japanese distrust of the US between 2001 and 2008 can be attributed to such factors as the unpopular Iraq war, contentious US base issues in Japan, including incidents involving US personnel and the relocation of Futenma Air Station in Okinawa. Perceptions of US unilateralism, such as the US rejection of the Kyoto Protocol also played a role in the erosion of Japanese confidence in America. The reversal of this trend since 2009 can only be explained by the effect on public opinion of President Obama and his policies.
For Americans in the 2010 poll, 64% felt trust toward Japan, and 33% said they did not. American trust in Japan has always remained higher than in Japan, with only slight slippage over time. In 2009, 66% of Americans expressed trust in Japan in the Gallup poll, about the same as in 2008’s 67%. The high point for American trust in Japan was reflected in the 2006 poll, when the figure was peaked at 76%. Japan‘s contributions to the war on terror, including the dispatch of troops to Iraq and the Indian Ocean, and the friendship between President Bush and Prime Minister Koizumi undoubtedly influenced Americans’ confidence in their ally. The figure plummeted 15 points in 2007 to 60.8%, a sure sign of unhappiness with Koizumi’s successor Abe, his handling of the relationship, and a perceived rise in nationalism in Japan.
Both looking for security
Another key question in the survey each year is whether respondents think the US-Japan Security Treaty contributes to security in the Asia-Pacific region. In Japan, an overwhelming 76% of Japanese answered "yes" this year, up one point from 2009. The figure was a distressing 59.7% in 2008.
There is a growing sense of urgency about the security in the region reflected in the survey. In the 2010 poll, 85% of Japanese felt that the because of the territorial dispute with China over the Senkakus, Japan should cooperate deeply with the US against such moves.
Asked similarly about the usefulness of the treaty, 72% of Americans saw it as positively contributing to regional security, up dramatically from the 60% figure in 2009, when Americans were unsure about Japan’s dedication to the alliance.
China: Three's a crowd
China appears high on the security agenda for most Japanese, with 79% considering that country a potential threat in the future. In contrast, 58% of Americans felt that way. North Korea was at the top of the list, not surprisingly, with 84% of Japanese and 79% of Americans.
Views toward China deteriorated rapidly in 2010 due to the Senkaku island incident and other disputes. Only 11% of Japanese felt relations with China were in good shape, 14% said they were fair, and 72% viewed them as in bad shape. Last year 43% of Japanese felt relations with China were then in good shape, 31% thought they were bad, and 21% could not say which. On the trust factor, no Japanese would say they trusted China, 8% said somewhat, and 87% said not at all or not very much.
Only 24% of Americans saw ties with China in good shape, down sharply from last year’s 34%. Another 57% views relations as fair, and 17% saw them as poor. The gap between the two countries on trust in China remains wide, since 34% of Americans trust China either fully (2%) or somewhat (32%). But distrust was still quite high, with 36% not trusting China very much and 29% saying not at all.
It seems the US and Japan are stuck with each other, for better or for worse.
In November, France’s national rail company, SNCF, did what many European companies had already done--admitted its complicity in the Holocaust.
SNCF’s president apologized for “the use of SNCF’s equipment and staff to transport 76,000 French And other European Jews to Germany, where they were then sent on to the Nazi Death camps.” He also made “a long‐term commitment to transparency, education of younger generations, and acts of Remembrance.” He pledged that SNCF will continue its efforts supporting “Holocaust remembrance memorials, education programs and museums.”
As with Germany’s Foundation for Remembrance, Responsibility and Future (the German Future Fund) established in 2000, the SNCF committed itself to anchoring its role in the Holocaust “firmly in the European memory and communicating the life experience of the victims.”
By acknowledging its complex history, SNCF showed that was “eager to do whatever is necessary to ensure that the historical questions raised are examined through dialogue, historical research and remembrance.”
In contrast, how Japan will commit to acknowledging and telling the story of its war victims has yet to be resolved. The failure of both the Japanese state and its corporations to establish an ongoing program of reconciliation, outreach, and education continually manifests itself both in the misinformation appearing in the press and political platforms as well as in the government’s missteps in domestic and foreign policies.
Significant is that private French and German companies took responsibility for their actions and established the educational programs in Europe. Here again is a great contrast, as Japanese companies have great corporate wartime culpability, yet contemporary inaction. Over 60 major Japanese corporations—including Mitsui, Sumitomo, Mitsubishi, Kawasaki, Hitachi, Toshiba, Nippon Sharyo—used slave and forced labor of Prisoners of War, Chinese, and Koreans to support their war production. They have neither acknowledged nor apologized or offered any effort to preserve the memory of these unwilling laborers.
Earlier this month, an example of the need for such an educational effort on the War and, in particular, the brutal experience of the Prisoners of War held by Imperial Japan appeared in the popular Japanese magazine, Shukan Shincho.
An article notes that Japan was tricked in the Pacific War by the United States and attacks the well-documented memoir of Dr. Lester Tenney, a still-living, survivor of the Bataan Death March and a Mitsui coal mine. Like a Holocaust denier, the author distorts facts to sow doubt for a dubious political agenda.
The horror of the Death March has been recounted in hundreds of memoirs and histories. Japanese military’s use of torture has been outlined in captured manuals held in the National Archives, testimony at the war crimes trials across Asia, and in formal histories. And among the many distortions of fact, only the last 6 miles of the Death March were by train: 100 men standing per boxcar. Many died from suffocation and complications of the heat and their malnourished and sick bodies. Those that survived the boxcars were marched again for another 2-3 miles to Camp O’Donnell, which had been converted into a prison camp.
Asia Policy Point’s Senior Fellow William Brooks, formerly head of the Office of Translation a the US Embassy in Tokyo, coordinated the translation of this Shukan Shincho article so that it can be shared within the scholarly community that studies war and remembrance as well as among policy officials concerned with the US-Japan relationship. We post it below as part of our educational mission.
by Masayuki Takayama
Henken Jizai column in December 23, 2010 edition of Shukan Shincho
Some time back when I took a trip to Jerusalem, nearby the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, that is, the mount of Golgotha, a pink flower was blooming. When I asked its name, my guide, who was a former diplomat, replied it was the “Judas Tree.” He said that the face of Judas had turned red when Christ pointed out his betrayal during the Last Supper.
“And so that’s the color of this flower. Of course, that’s not the name the Jews call it,” he added, chuckling.
He said Jews have no interest in either the flower or the tree, but Japanese often like to ask about it, so guides hastily prepare for such questions, happy to be helpful with their knowledge.
Jewish people are assiduous and are never slack in their studies. Eli Cohen, Israel’s former ambassador to Japan, had this similar aura about him, and so formed our image of a Jew.
That is why I felt somewhat puzzled when I learned that Lester Tenney, author of My Hitch in Hell, is also Jewish.
His book talks about the so-called Bataan Death March. Needled on by the United States, Japan was eventually provoked into a war. Tenney’s story begins when his tank battalion was sent to the Philippines in preparation for this war.
Tenney arrived at the U.S. Army post at Clark Airfield on November 20, approximately two weeks before Pearl Harbor. It was obvious the U.S. had Japan in the palm of its hand.
And so as scheduled, war broke out. Yet on the very first day, Clark air base was completely destroyed, the result of the height of incompetence of its commanding officer, MacArthur. When the Japanese landed at Lingayen Gulf, he decided to retreat to Bataan Peninsula.
Tenney’s tank battalion also was aiming for the same peninsula, along the way firing on anything that moved, strafing and slaughtering whole villages. “We could not distinguish a Filipino from a Japanese,” Tenney wrote.
Records of a hearing by the U.S. Senate show that when Americans had made the Philippines into a colony forty years earlier, they massacred 200,000 people. We can imagine this was how it was being done once again.
Sequestering themselves in Bataan, the U.S. troops soon exhausted their food supplies. This was the only place where U.S. forces suffered from starvation during the war [WWII]."
Then they surrendered. Tenney was ordered to dispose of the dollar bills stored by the military, and so he hid them in the hole of a tree. Out of spite, all the trucks were destroyed so the “Japs” couldn’t use them.
What they didn’t destroy, they rode to the prison camps, without having to walk on the death march. Up to this point, the author’s tale does have some force of truth to it, but from then on, it becomes sheer nonsense.
The Death March was a total of 120 kilometers long, and half that distance they were transported by rail. The fact of the matter is, they walked the rest of the way in three days.
Since it was not known which part of the march was “death,” Tenney wrote, “An officer on horseback was cutting off the heads of the marching prisoners.” I’ve never heard of anything like that.
The Defense Budget and American Power. 12/22, 10:00-11:30, Washington, DC. Sponsor: Brookings Institution. Speakers: Martin Indyk, vice president and director of foreign policy at Brookings; Robert Kagan, senior fellow in foreign policy at the Center on the United States and Europe; Michael O'Hanlon, director of research and senior fellow in foreign policy at the 21st Century Defense Initiative; and Alive Rivlin, senior fellow in economic studies at Brookings.
South Asia 2010: A Year in Review. 12/22, 10:00-11:30, Washington, DC. Sponsor: Atlantic Council. Speakers: Gilles Dorronsoro, visiting scholar at Carnegie Endowment; C. Christine Fair, assistant professor at the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service; and Ikram Sehgal, defense and strategic analyst in Pakistan.
12/24 - The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) opens its Track Santa Operation Center to monitor the progress of Santa Claus on Christmas Eve. The website will "stream videos, captured by NORAD 'Santa Cams' from numerous cities along Santa's journey."
Creeping back into the American economic discussion is the issue of “competitiveness.” This was a hot idea in the mid-1980s. Then, like now, cheap foreign labor and products combined with Asian and European industrial policies were gutting American industry and displacing jobs. Today’s emphasis is on diminishing innovation and scientific and engineering excellence. In both approaches, the objective is to save American manufacturing.
Back in 1983, then-President Ronald Reagan appointed a Commission on Industrial Competitiveness, chaired by John Young of Hewlett-Packard. It issued its report* in 1985. The commission defined competitiveness as “the degree to which a nation can, under free and fair market conditions, produce goods and services that meet the test of international markets while at the same time maintaining or expanding the real incomes of its citizens.” Its key findings were:
1. There is compelling evidence that this nation’s ability to compete has declined over the past 20 years. We see its effects both in our domestic markets and in our ability to sell abroad;
2. We must be able to compete if we are going to meet our national goals of a rising standard of living and strong national security for our people;
3. Decision makers in both the public and private sectors must make improved competitiveness a priority on their agendas. As a nation, we can no longer afford to ignore the competitive consequences of our actions—or our inaction.
This report, however, made a bigger impression upon America’s foreign competitors than on U.S. policymakers. The proposals cited were taken far more seriously in Tokyo than New York or Silicon Valley. Except for the Washington Post, which did two major articles, the 1985 Young Commission report was limited to small stories buried on the business pages of the major newspapers. It got all of one-day US media coverage.
The Commission's conclusions were dismissed as industrial policy and unnecessary in free market America. Yet, the emphasis was that US competitiveness is not an end in itself but important for its effect on US living standards. Manufacturing matters for national economic health.
The conclusion of these reports is simple: “U.S. advantages in the marketplace and in science and technology have begun to erode. A comprehensive and coordinated federal effort is urgently needed to bolster U.S. competitiveness and pre-eminence in these areas so that the nation will consistently gain from the opportunities offered by rapid globalization.” Committee chair Norman R. Augustine said, "America must act now to preserve its strategic and economic security by capitalizing on its knowledge-based resources, particularly in S&T, and maintaining the most fertile environment for new and revitalized industries that create well-paying jobs. The building blocks of our economic leadership are wearing away. The challenges that America faces are immense."
In September, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs held a hearing entitled, “Made in the USA:Manufacturing Policy, the Defense Industrial Base, and U.S. National Security.” This hearing examined the national security implications of US manufacturing policy, with a focus on the security challenges posed by a shrinking defense industrial base and domestic supply chain. Witnesses warned of the dangers of a growing share of military components coming from abroad.
On December 9th, AEI held a program Can the United States Double Exports by 2015? The keynote was given by Jim McNerney, Chair of the President’s National Export Council, and chairman, president, and CEO of the Boeing Company. His talk echoed the concerns raised by the Gathering Storm report as well as congressional hearing. He worried about American education and declining math and science test scores. He lamented the “shrinking American industrial base,” which he said was “historically one of the United States’ greatest strategic assets.” And at its heart was aerospace and defense technology and the “critical” encouragement of the Department of Defense.
His solution was “a national industrial strategy that focused on national technical leadership.” He was delighted that the US Senate had finally ratified treaties with the UK and Australia to streamline military sales by eliminating most export licenses. And commended the President for his efforts to streamline the export control process. In sum, the Boeing Chairman advocated defense technology sales as the engine for technological excellence and export growth.
As Mr. McNerney told an incredulous Washington Post reporter, there is a “strong connection between economic and military power." Foreign military sales were the remaining option to shelter American manufacturing. Unsaid was that defense technology is a highly protected, regulated, and government-funded industry. Weapons are not a free trade commodity. They represent an industry Washington can protect as carefully as other countries protect their consumer product manufacturers.
N.B.: On December 16, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Vice President Biden present five US 2009 Baldridge Awards, the nation's highest honor for organizational performance excellence and innovation. The award promotes excellence in organizational performance, recognizes the achievements and results of US organizations, and publicizes successful performance strategies. You can watch the ceremony live at 3:00pm.
CHINA’S IMPACT IN AFRICA: HOW DOES CHINA’S ROLE IN DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA COMPARE WITH THE WEST’S? 12/16, 12:30-2:00pm, Lunch, Washington, DC. Sponsor: Society for International Development. Speakers: Ezra Suruma, Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution; Former Minister of Finance, Planning, and Economic Development in Uganda; Derek Scissors, Research Fellow at the Asian Studies Center and the Heritage Foundation, Adjunct Professor at George Washington University, and author of Where China Invests, And Why It Matters; Uche Igwe, Civil Society Liaison Officer, Nigerian Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative; Visiting Scholar at the Africa Studies Program, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University.
CHINA'S UNBALANCED GROWTH: VICE OR VIRTUE? 12/16, 9:00-11:00am, Washington, DC. Sponsor: Carnegie Endowment. Speakers: Myron Brilliant, senior vice president of international affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Yukon Huang, senior fellow at CEIP's Asia Program; Michael Pettis, senior associate at CEIP's Asia Program; and Douglas Paal, vice president of studies at CEIP.
LEVERAGING TECHNOLOGY TO RECLAIM AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP. 12/16, 8:30am-12:30pm, Washington, DC. Sponsor: Brookings. Speakers: Darrell West, Vice President and Director, Governance Studies; Aneesh Chopra, US Chief Technology Officer, Office of Science and Technology Policy, White House; Roberto Rodriguez, Special Assistant to President Obama for Education, Domestic Policy Council, White House; Phil Weiser, Senior Advisor for Technology and Innovation to the National Economic Council Director, White House; James H. Shelton III, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement, US Department of Education; Karen Cator, Director, Office of Educational Technology, US Department of Education; Tom Kalil, Deputy Director for Policy, Office of Science and Technology Policy, White House; Terry Moe, Member, Koret Task Force on K–12 Education, Hoover Institution; William Bennett, Munro Professor of Political Science, Stanford University; Stacey Childress, Deputy Director of Education, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Dan Kaufman, Director, Information Processing Techniques Office, DARPA; Brett Pelham, Program Director, Head of Cyber-learning, National Science Foundation; Bror Saxberg, Chief Learning Officer, Kaplan, Inc; Ed Fish, CEO, ePals.com; Peter Levin, Chief Technology Officer, US Department of Veterans Affairs; Paul Peterson, Director of, Program on Education Policy and Governance, Harvard University; Marilyn Reznick, Executive Director, AT&T Foundation; Bob Wise, Former Governor (D-WV), Co-chair, Digital Learning Council.
CASH ATTACK: POLITICAL ADVERTISING IN A POST-CITIZENS UNITED WORLD. 12/13, 8:45am-12:15pm, Washington, DC. Sponsor: FactCheck, Annenberg Public Policy Center. Speakers: Brooks Jackson, FactCheck.org; Ilyse Hogue, director of political advocacy and communications, MoveOn.org; Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer, California Labor Federation; Khalid Pitts, director of strategic campaigns, Service Employees International Union; Carl Forti, political director, American Crossroads; Brad Todd, media consultant and top advisor to the NRCC; Rob Collins, president, American Action Network; Dr. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director, Annenberg Public Policy Center.
A CRITIQUE OF US POLICY IN AFGHANISTAN AND SOUTH ASIA. 12/13, 10:00-11:30am, Washington, DC. Sponsor: South Asia Center, Atlantic Council. Speaker: Derek Leebaert, MAP AG, author, To Dare and to Conquer: Special Operations and the Destiny of Nations from Achilles to Al Qaeda (2006).
SHADOW FINANCIAL REGULATORY COMMITTEE BRIEFING.12/13, 12:30-1:30pm, Luncheon, Washington, DC. Sponsor: AEI. Speakers: Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee members: Co-Chairman George Kaufman, Loyola University Chicago; Co-Chairman Richard Herring, University of Pennsylvania; Marshall Blume, University of Pennsylvania; Charles Calomiris, AEI, Columbia University; Kenneth Dam, University of Chicago; Robert Eisenbeis, Cumberland Advisors; Edward Kane, Boston College; Christian Leuz, University of Chicago; Robert Litan, Brookings Institution; Kenneth Scott, Stanford University; Chester Spatt, Carnegie Mellon University.
MORE THAN MONEY: IMPACT INVESTING FOR DEVELOPMENT. 12/13, 4:00- 5:30pm, Washington, DC. Sponsor: Center for Global Development (CGD). Speakers: John Simon, Visiting Fellow, Center for Global Development; Wendy Abt, Deputy Assistant Administrator, USAID Bureau of Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade; Randall Kempner, Director, Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs.
It is the dollar that is vastly overvalued not only against the Yuan,
but also the yen, the won, and the Taiwanese dollar.
With Eamonn Fingleton
Friday, December 10, 2010, 9:00-10:15 AM
Free, Reservations Required, Coffee
Eamonn Fingleton is a former editor for Forbes and the Financial Times, who has been monitoring East Asian economics since he moved to Tokyo in 1985. The following year he met China’s supreme leader Deng Xiaoping as a member of an American delegation led by New York Stock Exchange chairman John J. Phelan, Jr. In September 1987 he issued the first of several predictions of the Tokyo banking crash and went on in Blindside, a controversial 1995 analysis that was praised by J.K. Galbraith and Bill Clinton, to show that a heedless America was fast losing its formerly vaunted leadership in advanced manufacturing to Japan.
His 1999 book, In Praise of Hard Industries: Why Manufacturing, Not the Information Economy Is the Key to Future Prosperity, anticipated the American Internet stock crash of 2000.
In his 2008 book, In the Jaws of the Dragon: America’s Fate in the Coming Era of Chinese Hegemony, he issued a strong challenge to the conventional view among Washington policy-makers and think tank analysts that China is converging to Western economic and political forms and attitudes. Sandcastle Empire is Mr. Fingleton's blog.
Program Location 1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1200
(Blake Real Estate
JAPAN & KOREA: DOMESTIC REFORM & GEOPOLITICAL SHIFTS.12/8, 6:00-8:00pm, New York, NY. Sponsor: Japan Society New York. Speakers: William Overholt, Senior Research Fellow, Harvard University Kennedy School of Government; Robert Fallon, Adjunct Professor, Columbia Business School; Director, Japan Society & Korea Society.
APP is a Washington research center studying the U.S. policy relationship with Asia. We provide factual context and informed insight on Asian science, finance, politics, security, history, and public policy.