World of opinion
On the International Criminal Court: With so many “days” to mark during the year, it’s easy to lose track. But July 17 was World Day for International Justice, marking the 12th anniversary of the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court, and there is a new reason to celebrate it.
In June, states that are members of the court agreed on a framework for prosecuting military and political leaders of countries that make war on others. This expands the court’s scope from war crimes and genocide charges to include “aggression.”
World War II’s Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals did prosecute aggression as a crime. But for years it was considered too politically explosive to revisit. Although aggression, expressed through deadly warfare, is at the root of other heinous crimes in the jurisdiction of the ICC, the court could not prosecute it until a definition was found that was acceptable to its 111 member countries.
Canada, one of the architects of the international court, helped to forge a compromise that allowed the new resolution to pass. It would give the UN Security Council primary responsibility to call for investigation of aggressive wars that violate the UN Charter. But the court itself, and individual member states, could also initiate probes.
Some critics felt the compromise gave the veto-bearing five permanent members of the Security Council, including the U.S., Russia and China, too much power to decide who was, or was not, an aggressor. Others were disappointed that the agreement won’t come into force until after January 2017, if it wins final approval from the court’s members, and ratification by at least 30 countries.
In the meantime its very existence may have a chilling effect on bellicose leaders, who already have reason to fear indictment on war crimes charges. Canada, and its allies who believe in the court, should continue their efforts until the resolution is put into effect.
Toronto Star
On increasing Chinese-Japanese business mergers:
Chinese companies are increasingly eyeing mergers and acquisitions with Japanese companies. High-end clothing maker Renown Inc. becoming an affiliate of a large Chinese textiles company is but one example. These moves symbolize the coming of an era of increased business management fusion between China and Japan. …
Previously, it was a one-way street with Japanese companies buying Chinese businesses. The collapse of Lehman Brothers in fall 2008 changed the tide. Chinese enterprises, which continue to grow, have begun buying Japanese companies even though they have particular skills and business know-how. More management fusion between Japan and China via M&As should occur.
Some people fear there will be an outflow of Japanese technology. But if this is in a specific area that Japan simply cannot let go, then there are ways to prevent a skills drain, with the cooperation of business partners and, if necessary, government support.
Rather, in order to open up a path whereby Japanese companies can better utilize their accumulated skills and know-how, perhaps they should approach M&A proposals more aggressively.
To help blend into the Chinese market, Japanese companies should consider how to get more people in China to understand Japanese business practices. M&As are one way of removing national barriers within management. It would be the quickest way to enhance Chinese appreciation of Japanese technology and tastes and demonstrate that these qualities will work to increase China’s prosperity. …
In the Chinese classic “Yi Jing,” there is a passage that goes as follows: “When hard-pressed, things will change; when things change, a path will open; when a path opens, it will last.” Thus, in order to adapt to change and open up a vision for the future, it is important to pursue the path of fusion that utilizes each other’s strong points.
The Asahi Shimbun, Tokyo
On IMF lending resources:
The International Monetary Fund has a spring in its step. Two months after coming to the rescue of Greece with its share of $142 billion of EU-IMF loans, the Fund has hatched a plan to boost its lending resources from $750 billion to $1 trillion.
The institution’s latest bid for pre-eminence in the new global economic order has the support of South Korea, which hopes to unveil the plan formally at November’s Group of 20 summit in Seoul.
The centerpiece of the plan is a “global stabilization mechanism” extending prearranged sovereign credit lines. The countries with the soundest finances would enjoy access to “flexible” credit lines with few strings attached. Riskier states would be forced to rely on “precautionary” credit lines, access to which would be contingent on strict fiscal conditions.
Some will dismiss the plan as political grandstanding by a South Korean administration keen to impress the international community at the first G20 summit to take place in Asia.
Others will view it as vanity on the part of the Fund’s ambitious managing director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. They will point to the fact that it was scarcely 12 months ago that the G20 agreed to triple the IMF’s resources from $250 billion. …
To allow the Fund to be an effective guardian of stability in sovereign debt markets – a role that it has recently shown itself capable of playing – the G20 should give it the resources it needs.
Financial Times, London