Japan took a side of the US and the EU

After the Malaysian airplane crash, the US and the EU took further economic sanctions on Russia. As a result, Russia now has started to switch the direction from Europe to some Asian countries, especially China and Japan.

In order to export its products to Asia, Putin was supposed to visit Japan this autumn; however, the Japanese government announced today that it will carry out economic sanctions on Russia and Ukraine, which makes unclear whether Putin will really visit or not.

In my opinion, there is no doubt that Russia will either have better relations with China or suffer from the severe sanctions imposed by the Western countries. And I do think that Japan took the better choice:going against Russia, but at the same time, the Japanese government has to be aware that it should not impose too restrictive penalties to Russia.

Japan imports abundant natural gas from Russia and still has territory issues of islands with the country. Therefore, in my opinion, keeping as much neutral  position between Russia and the Western countries as possible will be the primary task for Japan.

Free Hugs for Korea-Japan Peace

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXqWJNOAX8M

     Japan and Korea have had conflicts regarding the understanding of our history. I can see, even living in Vietnam, that diplomacy between Korea and Japan is getting worse even though people in general do not know each other in persons.

         While thiking this, I found this video whose link is attached above this post. His courage should be appreciated by all, regardless where you are from. This video reminded me of importance of "real friendships" and of possibility that "WE" can overcome the hatred that has been created over the centuries.

         Perhaps, his actions might not be as influential as diplomatic actions, but I believe that these small pieces will add up to a magnificent relationship, which our governments could not establish for a long time.

Changes in Brand Images of Fast Food Restaurants in Developing Countries.

Nowadays, I see many fast food restaurants in Hanoi such as Burger King and Baskin Robbins. For people like me from developed countries, a fast food restaurant has been a business which provides cheap and quick food.

However, as living in Vietnam, I can see that that their brand images have changed here. Each burger costs about 5 USD at the Burger King in Vietnam, which seems same price for most of the Burger King restaurants in Japan. However, what would happen if people here can buy great street food with 2 USD? This is what is exactly happening here in Vietnam.

Fast food restaurants such as Burger King have started to expand their chains throughout the world;however, they are no longer recognized as cheap restaurants in such developing countries where people get cheper food easily. Instead, they are more recognized as expensive Western restaurants.

Brand is a business`s valuable asset, which requires long time to be built up;therefore those fast food businesses need more time and efforts if they want to keep their original brand images:cheap and quick restaurants.

Me and a Homeless Guy in Barcelona

For most of Western countries, seeing homeless people is not rare;however, it is uncommon in Japan and Vietnam, in which I have lived.

So giving something to those people on streets is somehow scary for most of us in my country,but I have realized that sharing our wealth to those without anything is never unethical.

My family and I went to Barcelona during this summer break and I saw many street people begging for a penny.

Today, I accidentally kicked the homeless person's cup filled with with a few coins. So I put them back and added some coins from my wallet as a means of the apology.

The homeless guy gave a smile to me, shook my hand, and said "Gracias!". At that moment, I felt as if I did a something extremely benefitial for him.

I used to have some offensive perspectives on those without proper home, but I have realized that helping someone even a little bit is a huge benefit to them.

The UN Has Started the Action

Israel strikes hit Gaza security HQ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28281880

In a previous post, I talked about the UN's failure in the Rwandan Genocide; these days, Israel's attack toward the Hama militants in Gaza has been intensified.

Yesterday, the Israel strikes hit Gaza security HQ. Even though the Israel tends to attack the Hama militants, over 70 % of the victims are innocent civilians.

Now the UN has started to call for a ceasefire. Needless to say, I do hope the UN's action for a ceasefire will contribute the half of the intensity between Gaza and Israel.

However, I do sometimes wonder whether Israel will listen to the UN's suggestion. Israel, as we know, has some historical backgrounds in which it ignored the UN such as sovereignty of Jerusalem.

So, it will be interesting to see how the UN will react to those countries which ignore its requests.

Reactions to the Japanese Government's Decision to Allow Selectively Collective-Self Defence.

NYTimes: Japanese Foreign Minister Speaks Out Against Chinese Newspaper Graphic http://nyti.ms/1rMcElA

Because I think the newspaper has freedom to release its expressions, I do not criticize the picture uploaded to this article.

However, what I do criticize is some people's reactions to the collective-self defence in Japan. Once hearing Mr.Abe's announcement,  some anti-government Japanese, China and Korea assume that Japan will have a war in near future.

It seems like they could not hear the term"selectively" even though the Prime Minister emphasized. How could "selectively collective self-defence" directly lead to a war?

To me, their reactions sound like a country thinks to attack Japan or the US;therefore, that country disagrees with the idea in which both of Japan and the US will give a military response, as a means of collective self-defence, all of which are very unlikey to happen.

It is too idealistic that having no military prevents a war. Like Switzerland, a country should have military or something(to some extent) that acts as a deterrent to a war.

Is Democracy Always a Right Way to Make a Decision? The United Nations and the Rwandan Genocide

Two days ago, I finished my extended essay regarding the UN's
peacekeeping operations in the Rwandan Genocide.

As most of us know, the UN literally failed to halt this atrocity.
Many factors cause the failure;one of them was democracy in the UN.

In modern politics, democracy is considered the best way to decide something; however, is it really true in a decision making that requires a quick action?
This dillemna exactly happened in the Rwandan Genocide.

The genocide lasted only 4 months, in which 800,000 people became victims.
In such short term period, the UN would not have enough time to discuss every single step with the Member States.

Even the United States, traditionally following the concept of decentralization, followed more autocratic styles in World War ll which required the government to give immediate actions.

In my opinion, even in the world of politics, democracy is not always an apprpopriate way to decide something. The most important thing is that we have to apply the most effective leadership style to achieve the goal- which was to halt the genocide in the UN's case.