...conceptual cage? What is happening at the moment to the organization of that part of our material world linked to money is so dramatic that a way must be found out of that intellectual dead end through conceptual jumps. A few economists appear capable of accomplishing this. Fortunately. James Galbraith just showed us how make several such jumps. Supported by tight analyses in his The Predator State, he argues convincingly that American conservative business elites and linked interest groups do not want to do away with the state, as is commonly assumed to be their wish, but that the most powerful among them have managed to capture the state for their own purposes of long-term enrichment and greater power. After going through Galbraith’s intellectual tour-de-force, with its priceless passages on what, in practice, that sacred entity known as the market comes down to, it is unlikely that you will conceive of state and market in the way you have until now. A comparison of the predator state with the dirigiste economic system of Japan could offer a wealth of insights on incentive structures, and, who knows, perhaps how to bend these for finding a way out of our current dilemmas....

Between the previous jotting and the one before that more than a year had gone by. I will try not to let that happen again. I had not stopped writing, and hereunder are links to a couple of articles on developments in Japan, and the relationship between Japan and the United States, which I believe has relevance to more than these two countries. I have also finished two books. The Character Assassination of Ozawa Ichiro, which is mainly of interest to Japanese readers. I am happy to say that it has sold very well in the first ten days of its published existence before Japan’s calamity understandably directed political attention to more urgent matters. The other one, America’s Tragedy and the Blind Free World, appeared in Japanese last autumn. It is awaiting publication in the rest of the world. These jottings are not about my personal life, but as George Orwell (and many others) reminded us, general rules are to be broken when the need seems to arise. The lives of my wife and me have been very much enriched by the birth of our son, Sebastian van Wolferen. As any author with children will probably agree, such an experience...

...between samurai and common people and by militarizing school children. In 1890 he came up with a law that permitted only generals and admirals on active duty to serve in the military positions of the cabinet. Setting the stage for events that gained Japan its notoriety in the first half of the twentieth century, Yamagata established a general staff that could command independently from the cabinet. Civilian interference in military affairs had thereby become impossible. He then managed to move from the military to the civilian bureaucracy, without losing his dominant influence among the generals and admirals. That placed him in position to design Japan’s modern bureaucracy; re-arranging several government agencies, especially the hugely powerful Naimusho and the police, in such a way that they became mostly tools for his purposes. Through thinking up regulations that eventually became the famous ‘Imperial Rescript to Soldiers and Sailors’ issued in 1882 – a code of national ethics hammered into the national consciousness – Yamagata also made a huge contribution to the kokutai ideology, which set up the country and its Emperor as objects of religious devotion. Most importantly, Yamagata remained obsessed, throughout his career, with fear that politicians might gain actual power....

...and on the following days when most people could not concentrate on other subjects and found it difficult to stay away from TV screens, one of the major questions was discussed only in closed circles: can “the most powerful man on the planet” cope with this? Not ever asked explicitly on screen, it was foremost in the heads of millions. When after a great delay Bush finally showed his face on TV he gave the impression of being confused and frightened. He could not build his sentences coherently and intone them with a sense of genuine conviction, and sometimes gave the impression that he did not fully understood the words he used. In their neutral and often dead-pan reporting the American media are giving the story away as they focus on whether or not it came from the heart when Bush said this, that or the other, or whether it was prepared by his coaches. I must have read that “his tears were real” in at least half a dozen places. It is openly acknowledged that he is an “intensely scripted” president, which means that most of the words you hear him say are put in his mouth by other...

...to gain American favor, has been politically unproductive, to say the least. At the moment we can see textbook examples of both tendencies in Afghanistan: The Netherlands as the faithful vassal contrasting with standoffish reluctant Germany. What should the European contribution look like? It should, to begin with, be concerned with things closer to home, and not serve American daydreams with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan. It goes without saying that developments in the Near and Middle East are matters of vital importance for Europe. But as long as the relationship with Russia remains poisoned by old prejudice Europe cannot achieve adulthood and independence. The recent conflict about natural gas between Moscow and Kiev illustrated this. It took much needed attention away from Israel’s disproportionate violence in Gaza. A difference of opinion between neighboring countries was explained, in ways reminiscent of the Cold War, as an attempt to intimidate millions. You see, so the cynics would have it, Ivan has not changed! Something comparable took place at the time of the war in Georgia last August. Imagine the situation if that country had been a member of NATO. In such a case, and if the alliance had invoked article 5...

...and prosperity. These challenges demand global partnership, and that partnership will be stronger if Russia occupies its rightful place as a great power.” Incontestable opinion: In spite of all the pious words have devoted to the future of his young audience, Obama demonstrated a conspicuous lack of any willingness to take Russian sensitivities into account. A major concern centers on the American plans to establish a missile shield in Eastern Europe. For a short while before his inauguration there had been talk that Obama would scrap those plans as they dated from the Bush era, but in Moscow he brushed aside the Russian objections: “I know Russia opposes the planned configuration for missile defense in Europe. And my administration is reviewing these plans to enhance the security of America, Europe and the world. And I’ve made it clear that this system is directed at preventing a potential attack from Iran. It has nothing to do with Russia.” Obama added that if the threat from Iran were removed “the driving force for missile defense in Europe will be eliminated, and that is in our mutual interests.” As if Iran would ever contemplate attacking the heavily nuclear armed powers of the United...