I sincerely doubt that Roger would grudge you bandwidth (Lord knows I’ve used more than a fair share of it). You provide an opportunity to gain insight that’s not exactly thick on the ground over here and I appreciate your comments. Roger doesn’t extend posting privileges very often but Joe Katzman at Winds of Change does on a regular basis. Alternatively, it takes 10 minutes to set up a blog with Blogspot and should you choose to do so I can assure you of at least one faithful reader. I hope that you will give this some consideration.

Though continuing with this line of thinking is a fool’s journey, and I hate to keep disagreeing with Rick and now Richard, I am not a big fan of the Meiji Restoration, and I think the too easily said but difficult to explain (at least to me)–this oft turned phrase, or something like it, namely: “the imposition of Western sensibilities over Japanese culture and tradition,” is a corrupt understanding of what came before Meiji, and more importantly what came well, well before Meiji, and what has transpired since. I also don’t agree that the Restoration created the conditions for Japan’s “fullest vigor,” much to the contrary, I view it like the occupation and like the late twenties and early thirties as a corruption of something potentially much better, borne through a basic “Western” misunderstanding of Japan and for that matter a misunderstanding of Japan of itself; though Meiji does spell the beginning (not strictly speaking) of Japan being recognized, in various degrees and by various agendas, by the so-called “West.” But that is hardly the proper condition for judging the merits and power of a nation and culture through its long, long history. It seems a bit self-fulfilling, the West had eyes to finally see Japan, and Japan was judged at its best for having finally been seen. I’m one to believe, if no one hears a tree growing in the forest, it nevertheless still grew. Or was that one-hand clapping? Or, a tree falling? Promise to lay of the coffee and the metaphors from here on in. Thanks for your patience.

Rick,

Never any need to apology. I also think you were very clear. As was Richard. And more than likely correct, as was Richard. But I do think we are coming at things from very different angles. Which is interesting. However, it makes the next step all but impossible. Best to take a break and wait for a better opportunity to arise. It’ll save our good host, Roger, some bandwidth too.

My apologies for lack of clarity. I fully acknowledge that you did not propose anything other than an ad hoc groupage for a specific situation. I believe that you read much more into my comment concerning the imposition of English common law than I had ever intended. I simply found it interesting that those four countries had each shared the imposition.

I would never consider English common law as causative. It is protective in nature and prevents the strong from unduly depriving the weak of the rights enumerated. I don’t believe that you will find anything in my comment that implies that Japan is an economic and social success because of the Declaration or because of English common law. The recognition of the inherent principles by the Japanese may very well predate the Declaration, although my admittedly limited knowledge of Imperial and Shogunate Japan predisposes me to think that Emperor and peasant may not have been equal before the law. If, in fact, a peasant could not be deprived of life, liberty or property except by due process then I am sadly deficient in my understanding.

Again, my apologies for lack of clarity. I shall be more careful in the future.

“The four countries Yama named – India, Japan, Australia and the US all share the distinction of having had English common law imposed upon them for varying periods of time.”

You keep mentioning that I mentioned these four countries and I am sure I did somewhere, most likely as a way to push the ad hoc coalition theme, but not in the way you seem to be implying I mentioned them. To the best of my hazy memory. In any case let the record show…

As far as you basic premise, stated in your last comment, regarding the imposition of English common law and adherence to the principles in the Declaration of Independence as being the overriding reasons for Japan’s success, I think that escapes the noble realm of idealism and enters pure unadulterated fantasy. You mistake, at least in Japan’s case, jewelry and make-up, for blood, bone and sinew, undergarments and clothing, i.e., the real causes of things we should applaud and support. I don’t buy your line of thinking and I think it lacks historical understanding and worse–imagination. To continue my pathetic use of metaphor, there is more than one way to skin a cat and all roads to good governance and decency don’t necessarily lead through Blackstone’s backyard and Jefferson’s meadow. I agree the two things you mentioned are good things, and thus there was never any need for them to be imposed. In time their adoption in some form within some context were a given here. Indeed, perhaps they are but feint echoes of things already pronounced and honored a long, long time ago.

Whatever good the UN has done through the years, whatever accomplishments it can claim, it long ago outlived its usefulness and it’s past time to pull the plug (forgive the allusion, but I have a very bitter taste in my mouth this sad morning). No, Kofi Annan is not evil, but at best he’s exceedingly incompetent, laughably self-aggrandizing and quite possibly corrupt (and he’s damn lucky that he’s not the CEO of a large US multi-national with ties to the Bush administration). I still think that he will not survive to the end of his term. And I hope that the demise of the UN itself follows in his departing wake. It was a noble experiment but also a failed one and now it’s time to start again from scratch.

Thank you again, Roger, for your yeoman’s work on this story.

I’m getting a warm fuzzy feeling from being considered an idealist. I’m sure it will pass quickly.

I have absolutely zero (that’s 0) hope for any international organization actually “solving” much of anything. I believe that setting up an organization that competes with the UN while being based upon proven principles rather than utopianism may provide an alternative method of advancing freedom throughout the world.

The four countries Yama named – India, Japan, Australia and the US all share the distinction of having had English common law imposed upon them for varying periods of time. They all made the same decision to retain certain core elements while modifying certain structural components to better deal with cultural realities that existed prior to the imposition. They are all “success” stories to the extent that the basic principles that were pronounced inherent within the US Declaration have been preserved.

Btw – I would leave “diplomacy” within the UN. The functions performed by the departments charged with dispersing “aid” are those best administered by a competitive organization.

In reality I donít see any reason for an organization like the UN, no matter whatís its structure. I think it is a romantic notion to believe that somehow sitting at the table and simply debating with your enemies will bring lasting political solutions. Negotiations, bilateral or multilateral are also old as hills. If it were all that was required for mutual peace and understanding then having an embassy with semi-competent stuff in every country would have been sufficient. The unfortunate lesson of the League of Nations should be already enough to realize the impotence of such organizations.

We tried to do it ìbetterî with the UN and all we got was tax burden for us and fat Swiss bank accounts for the UN bureaucrats, plus some occasional child-rape and massacre. And of course lots of satisfying rhetoric. The desire to create another multi-national organization, even such as Council of Democracies is nothing than a victory of collective wishful thinking over experience. I foresee all sorts of corruption and inefficiencies there. Think the US government.

Unfortunately, humans are not quite the rational players some economist think, so I am afraid that a UN-type of body is inevitable. So, I would try to set as high standard for admittance as possible, including transparent finances and exernal audit. Then we can sit back and make bets on how quickly the new stringent rules will relax.

I’m sure diplomacy has changed in the internet-centric environment that we have entered. It seems clear that the press barons are no longer able to influence world events like previous times.

People do not need professional diplomats like they once did. Look at the democratic revolutions popping out like new spring flowers. The world is embracing the thawing of relations between people at a blog/personal level. Dictators-diplomats can’t control that. They may be able to slow it up some, but the writing is on the wall (aka Iran, North Korea, China to name a few examples).

There is no inherent value in taking an issue to the UN. No intelligent leader will trust their nation’s issue to an out-moded model of conflict resolution.

Let’s see what replaces the UN. There will be no reformation. God has left the building. The Anti-Christ is still in charge.