Intractable
By Couple of points of interest:
1. I had a deeply frustrating twitter conversation with Ed McClelland yesterday. Favorite part:
@drfarls Professor, you spend a lot of time trying to prove you’re smarter than writers for better-known blogs.
— Edward McClelland (@TedMcClelland) April 16, 2013
See Travis Waldron for a more effective demolition of McClelland’s argument, scoring with this:
Arguing that the reserve clause was a good thing that might need to make a comeback isn’t just the ultimate #slatepitch, it also undermines everything McClelland seems to be in favor of in the labor-business dynamic.
2. Over at the Diplomat I give a little bit of thought to the Kuril Island dispute:
Russia has actually displayed a greater degree of flexibility regarding the Kurils than either Korea or China have with respect to their own claims, despite the fact that parts of the disputed Russia-Japan territory are populated, fortifiable, and strategically important. This last characteristic is particularly relevant given that the Russian Pacific Fleet’s need for easy access to the Arctic is only likely to grow in the future.
Perhaps the lesson is that genuine, consequential, strategic issues are more tractable than the sort of symbolic questions that govern the disputes over the Diaoyous/Senkakus and Dokdos? Because Russia needs access to the Pacific, and because (with the future opening of the Arctic) it may need this access even more in the future, it also feels the need to maintain tolerable relations with Japan. Tokyo, which has less at stake strategically, can feel free to concentrate on symbolic issues.