“Opec accuses Bush of threatening energy security”

So reads a headline in the Financial Times. One might (wrongly) expect the story to be about the latest barrage of criticism of Bush’s foreign policy in the Middle East. So if it’s not about Iraq, Afghanistan or the Palestinians, what the heck is Opec so upset about?

The Opec oil cartel on Tuesday hit back at President George W. Bush, criticising the US and other consuming countries for pursuing energy policies that threatened energy security and the global economy.

Energy policies that threatened energy security, what?

Here’s an excerpt from the actual Opec statement:

“Alas, uncertainties are compounded by consumer government policies aimed at moving away from oil – moreover, oil from specific global regions – principally, as expressed by such consumers, for security of supply reasons.”

The group argues that the only way to ensure security of supply is by ensuring security of demand.

Is your head spinning yet?

They do have a point. Less demand leads to falling prices and falling revenues for producers, which means there’s less money to invest in new exploration or extraction activities.

Fair enough, but do these people honestly think that more money in the pockets of a few rich oil magnates is going to increase the security of the region? They’ve had plenty of time (during which demand has been rather high, one might add) to stabilze things and the only thing many have managed to accomplish is to worsen domestic inequalities by poorly managing massive oil revenues.

Foreign Minister Taro Aso, who has no problem offending Koreans and Chinese on a regular basis, apparently doesn’t like to offend Muslims.

Aso criticized some European publications Monday for printing contentious cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, calling such action “shallow.”

“Even people like us who are not Muslims know the fact that idolatry is absolutely impossible (in Islam),” Aso told a Diet committee. “If someone familiar with that kind of thing did so, I say, from my personal feelings, it could have been shallow.”

Now I’m imagining the Saturday Night Live version of Chris Matthews interviewing Aso on “Hardball.”

MATTHEWS: This is great! Say something even more contradictory!
ASO: The U.S. government should stop glorifying war by building monuments to dead soldiers.
MATTHEWS: Keep it coming!
ASO: Asia should open up its markets to Japanese rice exports.
MATTHEWS: Wow! You’re unstoppable!
ASO: And the UK should give up its royal family…
MATTHEWS: (head explodes)

Ah, if only he weren’t #6 in the post-Koizumi opinion polling, he would make one hilarious Prime Minister.

Commenter Jim Moore of the blog “Moore Than This” suggested that Japan is taking an extremely irresponsible stance on Iran’s nuclear ambitions based on an editorial he picked up from the Asahi Shimbun’s English edition:

Iran’s publicly stated intention to advance its nuclear technology threatens a key element of Japan’s energy strategy—development of the Azadegan oil field … If Tehran does not alter its position, Japan could lose its rights to the field.

The article is indeed impactful, but the Asahi English edition seems to have taken it out of context a bit. The original Japanese piece was a part of the regular column “Reading the Economy” which focuses on economic aspects of current events.　It runs in the back pages and is not intended to serve as the crux of the newspaper’s editorial position.

One advantage that newspapers have over online news sources is their effective allocation of space to individual news stories/editorials. For people like me who only have occasionaly access to Japanese newspaper, this can be a problem. Asahi’s English site, for example, gives the paper’s editorials equal space next to background pieces like the one described. The Japanese site separates the op-ed section by column. Note to Asahi: PLEASE edit your English Op-ed section to make it less confusing!

For a better idea of what the Asahi really thinks of the Iran crisis, check this Asahi editorial, which puts them much closer to mainstream opinion:

That means Tehran should stop enriching uranium on its soil. It should allow the process to be done in Russia. That will provide the much-needed proof that it does indeed seek to build nuclear power plants as it claims. Once it becomes clear that Iran has no intention of developing nuclear weapons, Tehran will receive international support for its nuclear program.

While denouncing the IAEA resolution, Iran has shown a willingness to accept routine inspections by the IAEA. That seems to be a ploy to shake international unity on the issue through a combination of hard-line and soft-line tactics. It may also be aimed at prodding China and Russia, which have taken a more conciliatory stance toward Iran, into avoiding any sanctions against Iran. For that, the roles of China and Russia in persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions are very important. Time is limited. The international community should work out a formula to ensure a diplomatic solution to the crisis before resorting to forceful means, such as sanctions.

And indeed, MOFA’s official position on the issue is even clearer:
Read the rest of this entry »

Saw a great headline this morning:

Monday, February 27, 2006

Aso Urges Iran To Halt Uranium Enrichment, Iran Says No

TOKYO (Kyodo)—Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on Monday said his country will not suspend its uranium enrichment, rejecting a request from his Japanese counterpart Taro Aso at their meeting in Tokyo, a Japanese Foreign Ministry official said.

Mottaki was quoted by the official as telling Aso that Iran is currently engaged in ‘’research activities’’ and that halting such resumption of uranium enrichment operations is ‘’impossible.’‘

Nice try, Japan! It’s unlikely that the international community will hold this diplomatic exercise in futility against you, so no worries! Aso gets an “A” for effort:

[February 04, 2006]

Japan viewed most positively in world poll, Iran most negatively

(Japan Economic Newswire Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge)WASHINGTON, Feb. 4_(Kyodo) _ Japan was most widely viewed as having a positive influence in the world, while Iran displaced the United States as the nation with the most negative rating, according to a BBC World Service survey released Friday.

Or to phrase it as another SAT analogy: Israel is to Iran as Norway is to Japan.

I just wrote a post last week, largely about Japan’s illegal whaling, in which I pointed out the absurdity of Japan having voluntarily signed an anti-whaling treaty they had no intention of following and opened up themselves to international criticism, while Norway, who simply never signed the treaty, is perfectly content carrying out their own whaling activities.

For the other half of the analogy, look at this quote from the other day’s NYT:

The resolution was passed after the United States agreed late Friday to a clause indirectly criticizing Israel’s secret nuclear weapons status. Initially Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had rejected any compromise, arguing that Iran would use the clause for propaganda purposes to criticize Israel, which unlike Iran is not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and suffers no consequences as a nuclear power, diplomats in Vienna and American officials said.

Of course the real reason that Israel can get away with having nuclear weapons and Iran can’t is not because of the treaty, but because the USA and Europe are willing to tolerate Israel’s possession of such weapons, but it does raise the question of why Iran bothered to sign the treaty in the first place. I’m sure there are plenty of other examples of countries that signed up for treaties that they then turned around and violated without a second thought, but I found this parallel particularly apt, despite the vast difference in scale of importance.

Maybe people would still be protesting Japan’s whaling activities even if they hadn’t entered into the treaty, and Iran would definitely still be under diplomatic pressure to curtail their nuclear research, but why in both cases did they only make it easier for their opponents by breaking rules that they never had to agree to be bound by in the first place?