...to delude yourself with misunderstandings. A favorite comparison has been with the “bubble economy” of Japan and its aftermath from 1990 onward. And with that we are in the presence of blind men who have been told that they are examining an elephant, but who in fact are blindly fumbling a rhinoceros. In one among plenty of examples I just came across, two specialists working for the IMF talk about lax financial regulation in their first line. But Japanese banks are not “regulated” in the common understanding of the term, they operate under signals of the finance ministry. It was through these signals that they had changed their lending practices, which brought about the bubble. The authors picture a government struggling with orderly deleveraging while limiting moral hazard. But moral hazard implies a consciousness of risk and the conviction that someone else will bear it. Japan’s banks never acted as if they were at risk (at least not until much later in the mid 1990’s), and the ministry did not want them to act as if they were at risk. The IMF document speaks of a Japanese strategy in the aftermath of the bubble, but the officials did not know...

...peace, stability and respect for human rights in the country". This could have been a quote from remarks made this week in The Hague at a special conference on Afghanistan in which 72 countries participated, along with the United Nations. But the line is from a preamble to the Petersberg Accord signed on December 5th 2001 at the Petersberg conference site along the Rhine river. It did not take long to become clear that the route chosen in Petersberg, paved with good intentions, led the Afghan people straight to hell. On the ground everything changed into its opposite. No conciliation, no peace, no stability, no human rights. Although the Taleban was pushed to the background for a while, the culprits behind the attacks in New York and Washington, which some months earlier had made several thousand victims, disappeared in the caves and tunnels of the Tora Bora mountain range that straddles the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. They have remained untraceable since then. The original aim of the American invasion, apprehending Osama bin Laden and his henchmen “dead or alive”, melted into the haze of the Central Asian underworld roughly at the same time the Petersberg conference offered its results....

...and gradually consolidated in the warmer, more hospitable setting of detente with the Soviet Union. It became the fundamental reality for any government with an eye for international affairs. For all its defects, this world order came closer to a tolerably stable society of states than anything that the world has seen for at least three centuries. The United States was recognized as its main architect, and few doubted that its dominance was crucial to sustaining that order. China, Russia and indeed all major countries had felt relatively comfortable within this geopolitical system. There had been no signs that any of them would prefer its demise, fantasies about rogue states notwithstanding. After the upheavals of the first half of the twentieth century this geopolitical system had greatly reduced fear and made good neighborliness an international norm. In spite of cynical governance and tyranny dotted around the world, and much local slaughter, notions of democracy and human rights had gradually seeped into governing bodies, opposition groups and media systems in countries which previously had lacked even the terminology with which to formulate them. This widespread acceptance of American hegemony was predicated both on a belief in American strength and on trust...

The April 26 acquittal of Japan’s most important politician on charges connected with delayed reporting of a financial transfer is greatly significant for Japan and possibly its neighbors as well. Ichiro Ozawa has for almost two decades been considered as the one Japanese politician with the organizational skills; the understanding of the career officials who in practice run the country; the political network building capacity and, above all, a thorough grasp of what causes the notorious weakness at the center, to have the best chance of reforming the governing system in line with what the electorate and political specialists outside the realms of vested interests have long believed to be desirable. In 1993 he gave the crucial start signal for the reformist movement by leaving the LDP, which had been the mainstay of Japan’s de-facto one-party system since 1955, and which ruled in name only, leaving actual policy making in the hands of a dominant (and uncommonly skillfull) group of administrators within the bureaucracy. He had laid down his credo in a book advocating for Japan to become “a normal country” (with a center of political accountability), and eventually brought the various groups of reformist minded politicians together in the...

...vigorous. By withdrawing troops from Iraq more manpower will become available for Afghanistan. With money and fine words the local warlords and clan leaders must be seduced to choose the side of the invader. But the actual American presence ‘on the ground’ is at least as important in the thinking of the generals as are the good intentions of the new planners. If need be the allies can simply stay home is the audible complaint among those wearing stars. How serious matters have become is illustrated by remarks made by the commander of the US Central command – of which Afghanistan is a part. Gen David Petraeus, architect of the ‘surge’, the temporary reinforcement of American troops in Iraq in 2007 (which according to prevailing propaganda has delivered results) has declared: “We do believe we can achieve progress [in Afghanistan], but it’s going to get worse before it gets better. When you go into the enemy’s sanctuaries, they will fight you for it. There will be tough months ahead, without question.” He also had a recipe for overcoming the huge dilemma with which the Americans are confronted – how to fight a motivated and well trained opponent in the midst...

...Strike initiative that intends to provide the US with the capability to strike anywhere on earth within 60 minutes; is working to destabilize the government in Iran, with military attack still on the table as an option; supports America’s new military African Command; intends to encircle Russia with US bases in former constituent parts of the Soviet Union”. And he reminds us that the NATO serves as a pool of “mercenaries in US wars of aggression”. On this subject see also Jan Sampiemon’s new column on the NATO Zombies in their Afghan vicious circle. This will come come across as overly harsh for the majority of the European elites Roberts wishes to reach, because their denial is nurtured by continuous propaganda about Russia, Iran, Venezuela, or for that matter China; propaganda that has been mistaken for analysis. They have not bothered to look in the kitchens of American think tanks where much of it is produced. What will also come acrosss as exaggerated is Roberts’ alert against the grand sounding concepts of “self-determination and the sovereignty of the people” used by the Obama administration as “useful platitudes with which to mask the hegemonic interests of the US government. US money...