It is startling how little serious comment the western media (with the FT an honourable exception, naturally) has devoted to the appointment of Shinzo Abe as the new prime minister of Japan. It is not just that Japan is still the second biggest economy in the world. It is also that Abe’s appointment touches directly on a crucial strategic issue - the relationship between China and Japan. It is a cliché that the “rise of Asia” will be a dominant geopolitical theme for the next generation. But the shift of the power balance within Asia deserves more attention. China’s policy catch-phrase that it will have a “peaceful rise” has not re-assured the Japanese. They have been worried for some time by rising anti-Japanese sentiment in China and increasing Chinese military spending. The Chinese, for their part, often accuse the Japanese of resurgent nationalism and militarism. It could all get quite nasty - particularly since Mr Abe has stressed the need for a more assertive Japanese foreign policy and seems disinclined to take a softer line on Japanese war-guilt - an issue that particularly infuriates the Chinese. Abe’s first cabinet is said to include several Japanese nationalists. But in the FT, Victor Mallet points out that there are also some grounds for optimism. He reckons that Abe’s “impeccable nationalist credentials” might make him just the man to defuse the vexed issue of the Yasukuni shrine. However Martin Jacques in the Guardian takes a much darker view of modern Japan. He argues that: “Abe’s premiership is likely to presage growing tension between China and Japan over the latter’s conduct in the war, their respective roles in east Asia in the context of China’s ever growing influence, and the disputed Diaoyu (or, as Japan calls them, Senkaku) islands, whose territorial waters are believed to contain major supplies of oil and gas. His election will be viewed with considerable concern in Beijing, although that outcome has been fairly predictable for some time.”

I am in Manchester for Tony Blair’s last party conference as leader of the Labour Party. And praise the Lord to be able to say Manchester - rather than Blackpool, Brighton or Bournemouth. If Blair has done nothing more than break the iron grip that grotty British seaside resorts have over the party conference season, he will have performed a singular service to the nation. Why should it be that British political parties are always condemned to meet in small, seaside towns, while their American counterparts generally hold their conventions in big cities? (more…)

During the last Olympics, the then president of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, pointed out to journalists that if the European Union had competed as a bloc it would have come top of the medal table. Prodi’s political message was obvious. If European countries stand alone they will always be also-rans in the race for global power. But together, Europe could win. Prodi went on to suggest that European countries should carry the EU flag - as well as their own - during the Olympics’ opening ceremony. Like many European federalists, he was distressed by the way in which international sporting competitions tend to drive a wedge between European countries, instead of uniting them. (more…)

The acquittal of the Turkish novelist, Elif Shafak, on charges of “insulting Turkishness” is good news for free speech. But the very fact that Ms Shafak could face such a charge is damaging to Turkey’s international image and reveals the tensions within the country. Ms Shafak is a novelist - and one of the characters in her book, The Bastard of Istanbul, made a reference to the Armenian genocide. That was enough to land her in court. The case is an echo of another unsuccessful prosecution last year of Orhan Pamuk, Turkey’s most famous novelist. The sad irony is that distinguished novelists like Pamuk and Shafak should be huge assets in Turkey’s bid to win over European opinion. Shafak, who is feisty, good-looking and unveiled, is a standing refutation of the idea of the oppressed Muslim woman. But by allowing the prosecution of their best novelists, the Turkish authorities turn what should be a plus for their country’s image into a massive minus. Of course, many in the Turkish government know how stupid such prosecutions are. They also know that they have to repeal or change Article 301 of the penal code, which allows such cases to go forward. But the fact that they have been unable or unwilling to move, shows how frightened liberals in the government are of provoking a nationalist backlash. (more…)

The coup in Thailand will shake those who would like to believe that the world is on some sort of linear path towards freedom and democracy, driven by rising prosperity. The last successful military coup took place in Thailand in 1991. Since then there has been enormous economic growth. But the Thai political system appears to be no more mature than it was 15 years ago. In fact, the same old fractures and tensions are still there. There is a relatively rich urban middle-class based in Bangkok; but also a larger, much poorer rural population - “rice paddy” Thailand. There is a sophisticated international business class; but also a powerful military establishment. (more…)

It looks like the Catholic Church’s efforts to douse the latest bout of Islamic outrage, caused by Pope Benedict’s speech, have not been entirely successful. The Pope has already made two attempts at an apology, and may feel that a third mea culpa is beyond the call of duty - whatever happened to papal infallibility? The attempts to keep fanning the flames of Islamic outrage seem to be most active in Iran. (more…)

What is it about the Swedish model that has always so fascinated journalists? Let us admit that many discussions of the subject involve a certain childish delight in double entendre. But there is clearly more to it than that. Reaction around the world to the Swedish election results - and the ousting of the Social Democratic government of Goran Persson, after ten years in office - has focussed on the sustainability of the Swedish economic and social model. (more…)

One country that is likely to suffer badly from rising anxiety about immigration in Europe is the place I’m in at the moment - Turkey. Turkey’s bid to join the European Union is already in trouble over issues like Cyprus. But the biggest anxiety in western Europe has always been that if this relatively poor country of 70m Muslims joins the EU, there will be mass emigration from Turkey to the rest of the EU - in particular to countries like Germany and the Netherlands, where there are already big Turkish communities. Officials in Brussels used to say that the record of all past enlargements was that - despite the provisions for complete free movement of labour within the EU - people tended to stay put. Spain and Portugal, for example, were much poorer than France when they joined the EU in the 1980s, but their citizens did not move en masse. But this soothing scenario has been blown away by the mass emigration from Poland and the rest of central Europe to the richer parts of the EU, in particular to Britain, that I discussed in my Tuesday FT column. Given the levels of anxiety about the integration of the current Muslim populations in western Europe, who is going to want to roll the dice when it comes to Turkey? (more…)

With so much else going on during the fifth anniversary of 9/11, it was easy to overlook the speech given by David Cameron, the leader of the British Conservatives. But Cameron’s address was significant. It marked the death of British neoconservatism. Cameron carefully and deliberately distanced himself from both the Bush administration and from the neocons. Although the speech was full of careful statements of loyalty to the special relationship, and denunciations of anti-Americanism, its political purpose was entirely clear. It may indeed be politically astute for Cameron to stiff President Bush, given the latter’s deep unpopularity in Britain. But it was incredibly dumb to choose to do this on 9/11 of all days. American diplomats are spitting at what they regard as a “cynical” move - and that is one of the kinder words employed. Some of Cameron’s supporters, like Danny Finkelstein of The Times, have tried to claim that this is - in fact - a neocon speech. But nobody in America is inclined to buy that, as a report in Finkelstein’s own paper makes clear. (more…)

Do not worry about Tony Blair. He is alive and well and has moved to Brussels. He has also changed his name to Jos Manuel Barroso and has acquired a tan, a Portuguese accent and an exciting new job as president of the European Commission. That, at least, was the impression I was left with when I attended the FT debate in Brussels yesterday, in which the president of the Commission gave a speech and answered questions from the audience. Some of his language sounded strangely familiar. And so it proved. Compare these quotes from Barroso yesterday with some speeches by Tony Blair: Barroso: “If we want to keep our values, we have to change and modernise our policies.” Blair: “Our policies may change, but our values remain the same.” (This particular quote comes from a speech Blair gave in Scotland in 2002, but he uses this formula all the time.) Barroso: “Some people in Europe would prefer to hide from globalisation, but we believe that we have to embrace it as an opportunity.” Blair: “The way for us to handle the challenge of globalisation is to compete better, more intelligently, more flexibly. We have to give our people confidence we can compete.” (Los Angeles, August 1 2006) Barroso: “The question is who wins the argument - the modernisers and reformers or those who want to see us as a declining continent, resisting globalisation.” Blair: “We will modernise Britain, as we modernised the Labour Party.” (1997) An early biography of Blair was actually called “The Moderniser”.