#but a 20 year old is definitely capable of being a terrorist | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

aelaer · 4 years

Note

☕ I AM totally cooking you up in this ask on how much you know about the Accords and the way they relate to the US's federal law 👀👀👀

Ahhh, yeah, I was due an ask like this. It took a while to get to, so hopefully you eventually see it, md. Note that all regulations are directly from the Wiki, which drew from the canon of Agents of SHIELD, which had huge plot points around the Accords. Possibly the other old Marvel TV shows too, I’m not sure. And without this expansion, we’d know literally nothing about them, but they fit a lot of what was in the comics so I’m cool as accepting them as canon. Your Mileage May Vary.

This is super long so I put it under a cut.

Any enhanced individuals who agree to sign must register with the United Nations and provide biometric data such as fingerprints and DNA samples.

Nothing breaking current US law. You’re expected to get fingerprinted if you do certain things for the state in certain states in the US. For instance, when I took a tutoring job for underprivileged children in my early college years, I was fingerprinted. I wouldn’t be surprised if higher-security jobs also require something similar.

However, to my knowledge these are all state or nationwide databases, not international. There may be some argument to be made about which officials from which country have access to your fingerprints, as it is with the Accords.

In this fictional universe, DNA samples may be more of an issue due to how meta-humans may have altered DNA and we alllll know that of those 117 countries that signed, at least a dozen of them would try to weaponize it in some capacity. If I were a meta-human in the MCU, this would be my largest concern.

Any enhanced individuals who sign are prohibited from taking action in any country other than their own unless they are first given clearance by either that country's government or by a United Nations subcommittee.

This makes complete sense and should have been established long ago. If it wasn’t already established, then the world governments of the MCU are... well, just as slow and dumb as the real world’s.

Any enhanced individuals who do not sign will not be allowed to take part in any police, military, or espionage activities, or to otherwise participate in any national or international conflict, even in their own country.

The UN does not have the authority to dictate what an individual country does or does not allow their population to do, for better or worse. The atrocities carried out across the world by various world governments against their people is the best evidence of that.

That said, in this case, I don’t think it’s any of their business to dictate this. If France wants meta-humans in their police force regardless as to whether they’ve signed the Accords or not, that’s France’s business. If Japan wants to bolster their army with meta-humans who didn’t sign, that’s Japan’s business. The rest of the world may not be happy with that, but the UN is not an elected ruling body and just doesn’t have the authority to make regulations like that. A lot of countries will play nice with sweeping calls such as that and go along with them, but they’re under no obligation to follow them (and certainly not with US law - the UN’s rulings have zero legal ramifications here until they’re passed in state or federal legislatures).

Any enhanced individuals who use their powers to break the law (including those who take part in extralegal vigilante activities), or are otherwise deemed to be a threat to the safety of the general public, may be detained indefinitely without trial.

Hahaahahhahahahahah. No. Breaks the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which is a part of the Constitution (which equals the backbone of American law -- things that go to the Supreme Court are there to basically see if something is constitutional or not. It’s a lot more complicated than it sounds, though).

Unfortunately this is a real situation that’s being dealt with now with specific people of the “aiding terrorists” category throughout the last 20 or so years of presidency (both the left and right with politicians signing it, and both the left and right with American activists opposing it, according to my brief study on the issue - you can look up indefinite detention if you want to read more).

Regardless, super super breaks the Fifth Amendment. While the amendments were written for specifically American citizens or folks on American soil, I personally think it’s important it’s a value that is upheld with everyone, no matter what they’ve been accused of. But that’s all I’ll say on that real world topic. This UN mandate hits very close to home - kudos to the writer who put that in for that touch of reality.

The use of technology to bestow individuals with innate superhuman capabilities is strictly regulated, as is the use and distribution of highly advanced technology (such as Asgardian and Chitauri weaponry).

Doesn’t break any known laws to my knowledge. Regulation of dangerous things is pretty common.

The Avengers will no longer be a private organization and will operate under the supervision of the United Nations.

I don’t think the UN has the legal ability to do that. The US government would need to do this as this is a private organization operating within the US on US soil. The US government has acquired private organizations in real life (like GM during the financial crisis of 2008), but they quickly find how much that sucks and sell them off as soon as they can, lol.

Again, the UN is operating under the supposition that they actually have the legal wherewithal to do this when, in reality, they don’t. There is no such thing as international law in the real world and I sincerely doubt in the MCU verse.

What would very likely happen, should Thanos not have ruined this exciting political drama, is that the US totally agrees to do this. Then a new administration or legislature comes in and reverses it 2-6 years later, assuming that all of the lawsuits from various countries didn’t cripple the Accords sooner.

Those with secret identities must reveal their legal names and true identities to the United Nations.

Hahahahaha. Under whose authority? We’ve established there’s no international law. It’d be up to every single individual country to agree to not only do this, but *share* this list with every other country. If I was the decision maker in the US or China, there’s no way in fucking hell I’d do that. Israel or Iran? Fuck no! Do I *want* all my meta humans to be assassinated by other countries?

The MCU has this little fairy tale (that sometimes the real UN carries on with) that everyone gets along just great when, in reality, that’s really, really, really unlikely.

Those with innate powers must submit to a power analysis, which will categorize their threat level and determine potential health risks.

I could make an argument that this breaks the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures). You cannot forcefully take DNA from someone unless they’ve been convicted of a crime (and in, I think 20 states I just read, if you’ve been arrested, but even that’s been challenged under the Fourth Amendment in those various states the past decade).

If they’re already having a legal argument about this for DNA of people who were arrested, they’re going to have a hell of an argument for this requirement just for *existing*.

Those with innate powers must also wear tracking bracelets at all times.

Oh that’s nice, the UN thinks meta-humans are animals! Likely breaks the Fourth Amendment. Found an interesting article about Amazon and their little tracking bracelets from two years ago that is semi-relevant, and those are employees. Imagine if you required everyone of some minority race or nationality to wear a tracking device because they’re statistically more dangerous due to the prevalence of crime amongst them, or something inane like that.

Yeah, it’s something like that bad. Definitely breaks the privacy protection that previous rulings regarding the Fourth Amendment have established.

Governments are forbidden from deploying enhanced individuals outside of their own national borders unless those individuals are given clearance as described above. The same rule also applies to non-government organizations that operate on a global scale (including S.H.I.E.L.D. and the Avengers).

International law doesn’t exist. This is done via treaties and agreements, but again, the UN has no legal leg to stand on (and countries -- US included -- often just ignore them). If China wants to take over Nepal with meta humans, who the fuck is really gonna stop them? I mean, really? If the US wanted to take over Baja California from Mexico, same question. The UN just doesn’t have the authority (or frankly put, the manpower). Countries often play nice, but there’s plenty of times where they don’t, either.

(But you know who would try to prevent the US/China from taking over Baja/Nepal? Meta humans. That likely aren’t allowed to fight under Accords mandates but do so anyway, all the while flipping the bird towards their nearest UN building :D)

As a corollary, they will not be allowed to participate in any active missions undertaken by private or governmental law enforcement/military/intelligence organizations (such as S.H.I.E.L.D. and the Avengers).

See “international law doesn’t exist and it’s up to each individual country to determine this for themselves” as explained in previous sections.

If an enhanced individual violates the Accords, or obstructs the actions of those enforcing the Accords, they may likewise be arrested and detained indefinitely without trial.

As established, breaks the Fifth Amendment of the US. And fuck, we saw this in action in Civil War-- or so it seemed. Ross definitely looked like he was leaning that way. I wouldn’t put it past Ross. He’s been bad news ever since he was hunting the Hulk.

The creation of self-aware artificial intelligence is completely prohibited.

Heh, not really applicable to the current world, but not necessarily something I’d like to see in the real world either. I’m afraid we’re gonna get a Skynet or HAL rather than a JARVIS or WALL-E.

This was fun, in a weird way.

#mdcbd #ask #answered #sokovia accords #fictional law #mcu #real world law too #meta #long post

20 notes · View notes

raviposting · 7 years

Text

I was talking to @calmandcalculating about my health teacher and...oh my god talking about him made me reignited how much I hate this man and how absolutely fucking shitty this man was. And this is...such a long rant I’m sorry but I need to let it out.

Just a highlight of the fun things he said:

Said only Muslim men should be searched at TSA.

His exact quote was actually: "Listen, it's just facts. Most terrorists are going to be Muslim, brown men in their early 20s! Think of it this way: if a guy commits a robbery and gets away in a red car, will the police stop every car? No, they're going to stop only the red cars of that make and model."

“Oh no, my daughter isn’t going to date. I’m going to chain her up in my basement until she’s 30.” (Umm????)

Also said he had a shotgun for any boys who wanted to be around her and that he would remove the door from her room when she got around the age to like guys (which, who needs privacy amirite).

“Global warming isn’t real! We’ve had natural lows and highs of the earth!”

“Science says that none of our particles really touch anything else, so really, I’m the Messiah!” (his reasoning was that Jesus walked on water I guess? idk)

Annoyingly would say “yes?” every time someone said “God” and “oh my son is at school” when someone said “jesus christ”.

Constantly said that we had no excuse for staying up late or reason to be tired. We were kids so clearly we didn’t have stress in our lives.

Student: “I’m so tired!”

Him: “Oh really? What time did your child wake you up in the middle of the night?” (That kid smartly replied “4 AM actually”)

Because you know, that’s the only reason to be tired. Not like one kid wasn’t taking like 3 APs and was working their ass off. Or not like my dad wakes up from pain at 2 AM and we have to get him medicine to get him to go to sleep. Not like another student may have had a test the next day and was frantic. But yeah, since we don’t have children we have no reason for stress or tiredness.

I don’t have an exact quote because he said this so many times, but he had a ridiculous vendetta against rap and said country was way better. He once spent 5 minutes playing some country song where the guy was just talking the entire time about how he killed a guy. Our whole class hated it.

Said that two underage teenagers having sex with each other meant that they were raping each other.

That was actually a question on our final exam. “Two 17 year olds are having sex in a tent. They are: ______.”

There were TWO correct answers, actually, pick either and it would be correct. You could choose either “they are raping each other” or “they are listening to rap and making poor life choices.”

He had even MORE unfortunate opinions about rape, as he defined rape as “penis going into the vagina” and said that because of this “””definition””” that men could not be raped.

And you know what? The more I keep typing the more mad I get because he was saying this shit to 14 year olds, at the most 15. And there were clearly people uncomfortable - I was uncomfortable, but I was too shy and not as knowledgeable about the topics to speak up, because I was 14. This 30-40 year old man was pushing these opinions onto young kids and who he’s impacted has shown. Obviously white students were uncomfortable with what he said, but of the students who liked him? I realize that the ones who loved and visited him were all white. This man was pushing shitty, misogynistic, racist opinions in our faces and knew barely anyone would challenge him because we were kids. I have the ability to argue back with this man now. I’m more well informed and have formed my opinions on topics. But back then? I was still learning and understanding problems and in the process of unlearning internalized racism and working out my own issues. I, and most students, probably, didn’t have the capability to argue against him, and he knew it.

The more I think about it the more grateful I am that our OTHER teachers made sure to let us know everything he was saying was shit. If we would say something they’d immediately go, “Oh did [teacher] say this?” and when someone said yes, they’d go “yeah that’s not true.” One straight out told us to never listen to a word that came out of that man’s mouth. And I applaud them because honestly I can’t imagine how much this man warped our opinions. I’m brown and I felt uncomfortable, but his reasoning/analogies sometimes sounded correct and it made me think that as a brown person, terrorism had to be my people’s fault and our fault alone. And even without being a minority, it affected us in other ways - how many other people think that men can’t be raped? Or had depression and were told that their problems didn’t matter? Teachers like that shouldn’t be teaching and looking online at his reviews I’m happy because it looks like more and more kids are calling him out on his shit and honestly I could not be more proud of these kids, because that takes a lot of bravery.

And for people who argue like he does? It’s sad. Because every time he’d say something bad he asked if anyone wanted to argue, and he would laugh because he knew no one would say anything, and as my friend pointed out, that’s a huge power imbalance with someone who grades you. It’s shitty, it’s pathetic, and it’s sad, and from the bottom of my heart I give a huge fuck you to my health teacher.

#janie rants #okay to reblog #long post for ts #i'm just...oh man all my salt came out whoops #rape mention #rape mention tw #janie salts

11 notes · View notes

nchyinotes · 6 years

Text

Blockchain and the Law Workshop @ UCL

April 26 2018

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/events/2018/apr/blockchain-and-law?mc_cid=d361c2bb54&mc_eid=f20555d56f

“The workshop deals with emergent economic, political and legal phenomena in the field of FinTech. It pursues two distinct goals. First, it intends to generate awareness and facilitate a better understanding of the actors, phenomena and dynamics of the new financial order. Second, it explores the political and legal implications of financial and technological innovation based on blockchain technology. These debates will constitute the basis of an edited volume that introduces practitioners and researchers to the regulatory and political challenges of blockchain technologies and its diverse uses.”

Thoughts: To be honest, I found this quite dry. Even though I knew the layout of this event, I still think I expected this to be more of a lecture style and cohesive delivery of material that everyone agreed on, which obviously is never what panel events are like. But I still found that the content was very scattered, information was repeated, and some of the information seemed quite generic. I was definitely not impressed with the speaker that spent most of her presentation talking about AI and its implications - just seemed like she recycled an old presentation and somehow thought it would fit into a workshop specifically about blockchain?? Though I did learn overall, it just wasn’t very consistent or necessarily what I thought I’d get out of this session. Some things I found especially helpful: the three token types explained (by multiple different people haha), the comparison between token launches and other types of funding, and Prof. Ioannis Lianos’s insights on regulatory challenges.

NOTES

Panel 1: Fintech and Blockchain: State of play of the industry

Julian Leitloff, Co-founder & CEO of Fractal Blockchain

Deutsch bank background

Equity crowdfunding

Similar

investors are young and male

Interests of people investing have similar interests: product driven (i need to use this), return driven (privacy), cause driven (i care so much about data privacy)

Similar funding dynamics: Most of the funds are allocated right at the start - people make up their minds before the actual launch

Inherently different

International

More like a currency valuation - the token value does not depend on revenues, isn’t the same as just equity. → tokens not dependent on revenues but on usage (return token ←→ utility token)

Open and transparent way to fundraise for open source projects - token launches

Building this international community is really hard to do - actual international capital market

166 nationals involved

Components of a token launch

Florian Glatz, President of the German blockchain association (Bundesblock)

Thomas Bertani, CEO of Oraclize and EIDOO

Leading data delivery (connection between blockchain applications + any other context)

99% of the market cause started early

Eg. decentralised insurance (delay / smart contracts?), gambling games (implementing lotteries), exchange scalability

HMRC policy paper - vat exemption?

FCA sandbox program

Sterling-backed ERC20 token - allowed to issue sterling pound tokens on the public chain in a regulated manner (using digital identity cards to send payments would facilitate the KYC process on both business and usersides: onboarding of new users into blockchain space). Simple P2P payments without intermediaries.

technical complexities

Uncertainty around value of the coin

Switzerland is moving really fast, and encouraging new startups. Guidelines from FINMA (for financial licenses)

Exchanges: centralised / decentralised

Change one crypto to another, huge implications in regulation because operator in one case is actually holding on to the money VS exchange operator is just facilitating transfer + has no way to steal money or instruct money to move in a way not approved

Wallets: custodial/non custodial → implications

Still not defined

Custodial: If you are a provider of a wallet, and you are custodial provider (can prevent user to spend independently money), you will need a license for KYC

Non custodial: Technical service (can just download and run software themselves) → technically impossible to do KYC

ICO/tokens: classification of tokens, requirements

Robert Kilian, General Counsel, N26

Traditional fintech / fintech bank - 850/900k customers, v small bank, but have to report to 20 regulatory authorities on a daily basis

What��s especially interesting is solutions around digital identity services & Regulatory reporting (there’s a whole world to discover), beyond payments

Every authority has working groups + understands the business models

2 main hurdles

Blockchain based payments (cryptos + settlement systems/target 2) are not very widely accepted on european market, problem in every B2C business

Tech capacities & solutions are all very early stage, need to step up in regards with bringing specialised blockchain fintechs with other banks/fintechs. How you can put them into other solutions/technologies

Ben Whitby, Director of Compliance, TokenCard

Was at HSBC

Prepaid card platform built on ethereum to realise/extract value of ethereum/TLC?? token into Fiat, enabling that through mastercard and other issuers

Built on decentralised - you are holding those assets and they’re under your control (vs custodian wallet or bank, where custodian holds those assets)

SSL technology is driving public/private key infrastructure

Transactions you operate on an ethereum network can be seen by anybody, except your name isn’t associated with it (its your wallet’s address)

People can send you information/tokens if they have your wallet’s address, you can’t stop that. Operators can’t stop it either. [ie. terrorist sending them in]

Need some mechanism of sanctions

Data that is provided to blockchain is open + transparent

Lots of talk about scanning your documents (raw files) on to the blockchain for a digital identity: problem, because once your identity info is on blockchain, even though its encrypted, encryption deteriorates over time + as computer gets more sophisticated. I wouldn’t put anything on it that you ultimately wouldn’t mind being made public.

Youport, sovereign, UN’s 2020 -- will all push forward digital identities, in 2-3 years will probably have to use them

DLT vs public chains

DLT: Reduce operational cost, T+10 seconds. Barriers to entry here are v v significant, good for existing players

Public: support entrepreneurial activity. Enter into an ecosystem and grow your chain

Tokens: evolution of where we are in society, fractional capabilities are game changing, and transacting at near 0 costs, with massively increased trust because you know assets are going to go from point a-b

V important to determine difference between utility and payment tokens

Shouldn’t regulate tokens with yesterday’s regulations

Structure it properly and not hamper the innovation

Personally doesnt use internet banking lol

Sending photos on email/internet is horrible

Risk cannot be delegated - due diligence is important

Panel

Startups are working on quantam computing resistant encryption

People will eventually move to decentralised, non custodial solution

Hackable point is overdone - because systems develop overtime. You never store data on the blockchain, only metadata (??).

Blockhchain is the only proof you have of the timestamp? can’t remove it

Blockchain is the only censorship resistant mechanism that exists today - internet is censored by the government

Liquid assets - can easily sell, more appealing to investors

ICO vs equity funding

ICO: upsides - international market, easy access. Downsides - Technical capacity (wallet, install this, get to know this to the customers, which is a huge process), security

Panel 2: Blockchain and Fintech: Emerging legal issues

Victoria Birch, Partner, Norton Rose Fullbright

For AI to be accepted in any given market, it needs to be perceived by participants in the market as meeting minimum ethical/legal standards

Why are ethical values important?

Humans make decisions against a background of implicit societal ethical norms

AI is capable of autonomous decision making

AI is trained on past data and live operational date and takes on societal norms

Liability, reputation

Eg. HR decisions

Legal risks: supply chain impact, civil liabilities, consumer impact, contractual implications, criminal liability, regulatory breach, human rights/reputation, data privacy, etc

Smart contracts and stuff

Michael McKee, Partner, DLA Piper

European banking authority has defined virtual currency (digital representation used as a means of exchange and can be transferred/stored/traded electronically, not issued by a public authority, not necessarily attached to a fiat currency) - doesn’t have a backer and is decentralised, often are cryptographically secured

3 different categories - not necessarily legal

Payment (ie. bitcoin) - do not entail any claims on their issuers.

Are they money?

Problem with terminology

Store of value - Don’t function well as store of value, lots of volatility

Means of payment - not widely accepted

Unit of account - no

Utility - designed to give their holders access to blockchain powered services/platform, don’t generally create an issue for financial services regulators

Asset - attract most attention from regulators, usually associated with ICOs, that represent debt/equity claim. Offer some interest in profitability of the project - v similar to traditional securities.

Regulatory rationales?

Lots of abusive behaviour has been associated with eg. ICOs

Capacity to manipulate the market, ponzi schemes

ML and terrorism

Retail investors ?

Reducing transaction costs

Risk to global financial system

Forms of regulation

Top down - how people expect

Bottom up - typically industry led

Businesses policing risk - not so much regulation but business decisions by big players in payments world (lloyds bank)

Recent legal and regulatory developments

Supranational level: financial stability board (to G20), european commission action plan, IMF

US is ahead of the game:

CFTC dived in early (regarded as a commodity from a securities perspective, and a property from tax POV)

token issuers and exchanges are “money transmitters” (register and comply with AML/KYC)

FCC has taken very tough stance on ICO - if its an ICO its regarded as a security

Case by case approach (v british), more nuanced in different ICOs (utility vs those that have a more security slant)

Tax: not subject to VAT, but yes to income/corporate gains tax

Germany - the opposite approach to US/UK (capital gains don’t apply, VAT does apply, because they are treated as means of payment)

EU: 4th money laundering directive includes electronic stuff

China takes hostile approach, cracked down on crypto exchanges, banned ICOs

Russia not so hostile, but has a draft bill on digital assets that states that digital financial assets aren’t legal means of payment

Challenges

Protecting retail investors

Internationally harmonised rules?

Whether integration or isolation in cryptos from traditional financial systems

Energy consumption - does this one huge downside outweigh all the rest?

Dr. Philipp Hacker, Humboldt University Berlin

Crypto securities regulation: ICOs under EU financial law

5B (ICO) vs 200M (VC) - blockchain fundraising in 2017

What you want is to avoid a US class action lawsuit (Tezos ICO - securities class action. Personally liable). 7 ICOs are facing this.

EU doesn’t have class action laws

3 archetypes of tokens:

Currency - not securities (exception of “instruments of payment), possibly subject to payment services regulation (PSD2)

investment (assets) - eg. DAO. prospectus regulation, free put option, crypto bank run

Utility - eg. filecoin, comparable to shares in companies (or securitised debt?). Disclosure duties and withdrawal rights, free put option, cryptobank run.

Negotiability (+)

Voting rights (+/-)

Future cash flow / dividends (-)

Possible appreciation in value (+)

Is this enough? 1 / 2 revenues. Two possibilities and zero case law:

1. Enough if expectations of profit raised by promotional materials

2. Generally not enough → financial risks stem from product functionality risks, better addressed by consumer law. Exception if AIV clearly dominates consumptive aspects.

Generally not securities → advantage for ICO system in EU

Recommendations:

Internal: Safe harbour for tokens - disclosure requirements

External: international convention

Dr. Deni Mantzari, University of Reading

Dr Anna Donovan, UCL Laws

Panel

Corporate governance - deep governance issues in open source/DLT communities

Light touch approach, compliant ?? regime

Algorithmic fairness paper

Singapore is the blockchain disneyland

Courts role (vs regulation) in liability - US/singapore

AI liability - victorian cases about when your horse loses control lol

EU courts probably going to get involved, and they’re quite experienced in dealing with technological change

Growing role for expert witnesses with tech background

Common law places them well in responding sensibly with traditional principles that have manifested themselves in new ??

Panel 3: Fintech, Blockchain and the Law: Regulatory Challenges

Dr Matteo Aquilina, Financial Conduct Authority

Talking about blockchain: 1. cryptos, 2. DLT in general

Consumer protection, market integrity, competition in interest of consumers

Cooperates with financial stability part (bank of england) [FB/PC]

Money has 3 core functions

Roughly 60% of BTC transactions are for illegal (years ago, when it was more niche)

ICOs vs standard capital raising - information asymmetry + uncertainty (company is so young) are extreme

Advantages: Improving organisational resilience, improve transparency, efficiency / removing intermediaries / saving costs in existing services

DLT as a game changer not in reforming old services, but eliminating/creating a completely new service

FCA as a whole is a believer in this technology, but we shouldn’t underestimate the risks (esp in consumer protection area + competition in future)

Regulatory sandbox

Dr. Tomaso Aste, Chair, UCL Center of Blockchain Technology (CBT)

Blockchain for regulation

Transactions are verified by a large community, community verification is hard to tamper, verified recorded immutable history of fair play reduces reputation?? → trust

A coordination technology that can create efficient marketplaces from illiquid environments that are not naturally connected and trustworthy

Use cases - Maison Project

Enabling real time regulatory reporting

Enabling a mortgage switching service

Limitations

Basic motor of blockchain is consensus - super inefficient

Consensus requires community validation

Information must be accessible to all network participants

In most cases, this is not affordable - Conflicts with proprietary rights on data, privacy, security

Reliable time stamping?

Research is needed

Prof. Ioannis Lianos, UCL Faculty of Laws

2 main views of regulation

Public interest - who are we protecting? Investors, consumers, etc

Private interest - new competitors to the market?

2 main issues:

1) What is a regulatory problem to be solved? Market failure

Privacy as a theoretical issue - as the equality parameter of competition (after microsoft linkedin merger)

But blockchain doesn’t bring up risk for privacy issues in comparison to digital platforms

Competition authorities often focus on horizontal - potential entrants + substitutes

But also suppliers and buyers are part of this thing

^ looking at porters 5 forces

Competition authorities duty to protect and promote competition and innovation

What about fairness?

Architectural advantage of various companies being able to influence ecosystem (incl. regulators) in a way that is in favour of their own interest. Narratives out there serve particular actors.

Blockchain → bottlenecks? (network effects/externalities)

Ethereum as indisputable platform of choice for tokens

Mining - highly concentrated, 5 operators control 85% of hash power

GDPR’s right to be forgotten vs blockchain immutability

Adaptive algorithms? Harder to deal with learning algorithms

Schumpeterian approaches ←→ imperfect competition

Permissionless innovation - experimentalism - principle of precaution

Currently missing from regulator’s approach: lots of interaction/collab with firms, but not much public consultation (for other stakeholders POV, like consumers)

Self regulation of industry - probably in the form of rating agencies

2) Different tools that regulators have at their disposal

Robert Kilian, General Counsel, N26

Prof. Iris Chiu, UCL Laws

Ben Whitby, Director of Compliance, TokenCard

Panel

EU financial law is heavily based on model of centralised systems (commercial registers)

See what other technologies we have that are decentralised (eg. cloud) - pretty much the same problems (IT, DP, financial regulation)

Public consultation is key, esp in financial regulation / new tech / entrepreneurship

Public chains are the ones that are going to enable innovation, DLT is great for incumbents to strip out costs n such

Crypto assets are borderless in nature, so needs more international coordination

Pittsburgh g20 OTT space - clear guideline

Utility + currency tokens don’t act like securities, consumer law is probably better

Primary (great ambiguity in asset tokens - should be regulated, not be treated like a financial offering) + secondary market (what sort of trading markets are we promoting and whether that is in line with what consumers want) dimension of ICOs

Regulators do engage with public - publishing many discussion papers

Blockchain will enable a much more competitive enviro

Competition authority should promote more Interoperability standards (open banking), more transparency in the market might encourage collusion?

1844 railways act

Regulators get blamed whether they regulate or not

V wait and see - probably foreclosure of one of the big platforms not giving access to a competitor

Functionally equivalent in law

#law #tech #blockchain #UCL #2018 #london #event

0 notes

atomskgaming-blog-blog · 7 years

Text

Review: The Foreigner

it was fine. It was a fun, by the numbers action / intrigue movie

plot was pretty linear, the story wasn't really the important part, although it was serviceable. It was very contained in scope, which I like. Reminiscent of NOT Marvel but older action movies that just pit two characters against each other and the entire world isn't at stake. I liked that they didn't have to make it a nuclear threat that has to be stopped

Kinda like John Wick, very much about personal revenge / justice

Very realistic modern combat. Much less about guns and QCC than it was about making and planting explosives. Not only was that realistic but it was extremely bold and interesting for them to expose mainstream audiences to. Our hero is basically a terrorist who happens to be fighting for a good cause. In case you're wondering, yes, that is how most real world operations are. There is so little risk for the user (relative to storming a place with a rifle or something) and the destructive force per individual is so high, not to mention that if pulled off properly you get to maintain plausible deniability. Timed and trap explosives really are how stuff gets done in the modern era, which is what's so scary about the concepts being bandied about in this movie. The film is sorely missing the Jackie brand stunt team though, coordinating all the action to his signature rhythm and long, wide takes to show all the impressive action. I couldn't help but notice all the modern, western jump cuts and purposely shadowed lighting to obscure and let the mind fill in the details. This film could definitely have been elevated by the old energy and time inputs into the action that I know Jackie is capable of.(edited)Decent Performances. Pierce Brosnan and Jackie Chan both ham up their accents a little bit, but for the most part they're very believable in their roles. Which is great because both of these characters are interesting and you feel like they could exist. They carry you through the movie on the fact that it feels pretty real, like this could happen. Jackie Chan isn't a super human fighter, and Pierce Brosnan isn't a evil for the sake of evil political dictator. They're more complex and relatable. Even the "antagonist" if you can call him that is, in his own twisted way, trying to go the right thing.

The book was originally titled, "The China-man" but I think "The Foreigner" is a better title, because it has more meaning within the context of the film. The plot is basically driven forward by the real world conflict between the British government and the IRA. The title asks you to look at the United Kingdom and recognize that they're not necessarily all unified. Jackie Chan's character is a foreigner, but he's been a British citizen for 20 years. The ideological Irish probably feel as if they're prisoners in a foreign kingdom, lashing out to get their freedom back. Very compelling stuff

all that aside, I'd probably give the film a 6 out of 10, 7 tops. The trailers show every moment of classic Jackie Chan action, and there's hardly a drop left for the film to wow you with. This is unfortunately very disappointing. The film was marketed as if it is the return of the action stunt-man king, which it is not. While the film is still serviceable, promising to give back to us something precious that is most likely gone forever is wounding. To make matters worse, the films (accidentally?) rubs this fact in our faces by showing black and white photos of young Jackie in a manila envelope, in the entirely too cliche "bad guy finding out that his one-man nuisance is a highly trained field operative" scene. I would have preferred if they had let it be assumed that that fact was true. Why does the antagonist need to know exactly how the man who's killing all his goons was trained? He already knows that he needs to kill him and that he needs to be very careful about it. Those scenes add nothing to their respective films.

Which brings me to my main critique of the film. It doesn't do anything really too terribly wrong, but nor does it particularly excel in any particular way. Like I said, it was a contained, by the numbers action movie with pretty basic writing, solid structure and decent pacing. Which I LIKED... but I will never be able to love. No matter who you cast in these roles or hire to write the script or whose eye you put behind the camera, this movie will never be a 10. It doesn't risk anything to try and aspire to greatness, it merely attempts adequacy... and achieves what it sets out to do.

#the foreigner #Film Review

0 notes

antonioebangelista · 7 years

Text

This is a question that is quickly answered by the O.W.E. (One With EVM) church loyalists with a resounding “NO!!!” as if it was a matter of fact. This is also a question that is also quickly answered by the long-time church detractors with an even louder answer, “YES!!!!!”, as if it was written in stone…

But for the “Old Guards” of the pristine Church of Christ, like myself and the few who have been the “Caretakers” of the previous Church Administration’s legacy, we answer it with a deafening silence… And today is the day that I, with a broken heart, shall break my silence to serve a far greater Truth.

Anybody who swore an Oath of Loyalty in the holy Ministry knows this by heart. It is a sacred open secret to all of us who are Ministers and those who have been entrusted to protect the church at all cost. Even during the early times when the Church of Christ in the Philippines was still young in years, only but a few decades old, “Sinomang mang-agrabyado sa sinomang kapatid ay tiyak na maglalaho na parang bula”, (Anyone who victimizes any brethren in the Church will definitely disappear like a bubble) is a byline known to every member of the Church. It is both a sense of pride and security for every member of the Church of Christ knowing that if he is ever persecuted, oppressed or violated by anyone because of his faith or conviction, he only needs to go to the nearest Locale or find the nearest brethren and ask for help, then the wheels of a different justice will automatically turn and strike against those who deserve it. I remember the time during the violent years in Tondo, Manila when the criminality was at an all-time high. People were being robbed, mugged or attacked even in broad daylight by crooks that ran the streets of Tondo. BUT EVEN THEN, THIS IS A WELL-KNOWN FACT TO EVERY CRIMINAL DURING THOSE DAYS, “NEVER TOUCH A KAPATID” (Brethren in the Church). It was a silent code among criminals and a peace pact between them and the church because if anyone were to cross that line and break that pact, bloodshed will follow.

Many of you who were already alive during those years were all too familiar with the common stories told amongst brethren, one of them is when a newcomer came to Tondo and while he was riding a jeepney, he got robbed. The robbers took his watch and his wallet, not knowing that he was an INC member. The brother went to the nearest chapel in Tondo. He was met by the Resident Minister and was offered food and water because that’s how brethren were during those days. Even if you don’t know each other personally but you know that you are members of the same Church, then you would treat each other more than your own flesh and blood. So, after learning about what happened to this Brother, the Resident Minister called for the Head Deacon of the Locale. The Head Deacon immediately went and saw the Minister. He was introduced to the disgruntled Brother who was still trembling with fear from his traumatic experience. The Head Deacon just asked two questions, “What is the brand of the watch and what are the contents of his wallet”. He then left the church compound, gathered some other male brethren and went to the side streets of Tondo where even the police were afraid to go. There was a galvanized iron fence that restricted the entry of anybody into those streets. The Head Deacon slammed on the fence three times, an opening appeared, the Head Deacon peered thru and talked to the watchman of the fence. The Head Deacon told the watchmen, “Meron kaming kapatid na nanakawan ng relo at wallet kani-kanina lamang habang nasa Jeep sya. Kapag hindi ninyo sinauli iyon sa loob ng bente minutos, papasok na kami!” (We have a Brother who was robbed of his watch and wallet while in a jeepney. If you do not return them in 20 minutes, we will come in after you!) Half an hour later, the Head Deacon returned to the Chapel and handed a watch and a wallet to the Brother who was so amazed and pleased to see his belongings once more. This is just one of the many stories you hear from the elderly Brethren who witnessed the respect that the public, even the criminals, have for the Church and its members. If a Sister was raped, the attacker was sure to end up dead in a ditch somewhere. If a Minister was disgraced in public, the perpetrators’ houses would suddenly be ablaze due to some mysterious faulty wiring or leaky gas tank. If a member was murdered, as sure as the sun rises in the morning, the murderers and their families would suddenly be involved in some freaky accident killing their entire household. These are open secrets that solidified one’s resolve, NEVER TO CROSS THE INC.

So if you ask any old Ministers if these were true, anyone who says that these are false, are simply LYING to protect the image of the Church. If you ask any young Ministers today, especially the Instant Ministers known as the STF Ministers (Special Task Force to EVM), they would probably deny all of these things simply due to their IGNORANCE and NAIVETÉ.

So how can anybody be capable of killing another person for the Church?

Simple. They believe they are doing it for the sake of the Church and the Brotherhood, and they are ONLY doing it to THOSE who persecute and violate the church and its members, therefore, doing it as a service to God. Always remember that every Minister swore an oath to protect the Church and the Flock at all cost. Everyone is indoctrinated with the same faith that we are all willing to die for the church, and that same faith could easily twist someone’s thoughts so that it would be justifiable to be willing to kill for the church. Some even consider it the ultimate test of their faith. That is why the “HINIRANG” Group (Chosen Ones) is very real. These men and women who belonged to this secret group, swore an oath of loyalty and silence until death, that they will serve and protect the Church at all cost. Take note though that the Hinirang Group during the time of the previous Administration is different from the Social Media war-freaks Hinirang of today.

Now the lingering question in all of you is this, did the previous Executive Ministers organize and sanction these groups and the extrajudicial activities they committed?

The answer is NO. The formation of the HINIRANG Groups and INC Vigilantes laid in the hands of the District Ministers who established these groups in their respective Districts to ensure that the members of the Church in their Districts will not fall victims to crimes and abuses. The previous Executive Ministers before Eduardo V. Manalo did not condone these groups and their acts of avenging victimized brethren, rather, they were EXPELLED by the Executive Minister then, for putting the law into their own hands. Once these groups were discovered, they were disbanded, expelled from the Church and were made to answer for their crimes because the ends did not justify their means of carrying out justice. And the decision of Bro. Eraño G. Manalo to eradicate these groups and the elitist vigilante mentality that they adhere to, was divine intervention because what started out as groups who protected the church and its members later on degenerated into criminal syndicates and hired killers that only gained much prominence during the Administration of Eduardo V. Manalo.

Here lies the glaring difference between Bro. Eraño G. Manalo with his, spiritually inspired leadership, and Eduardo V. Manalo and his ego-centered, power and greed-driven administration. The lurking evil that his father banished, EVM embraced and allowed to flourish during his controversy-stricken regime. Not only does Eduardo V. Manalo have full knowledge of the extrajudicial activities that his Administration commit, HE CONDONES THEM, gives worldly rewards to those who can stomach the atrocities, and condemns those who are even remotely troubled by their conscience. That is why at present, it is no longer even shocking to hear news of INC members (and or Ministers) for being members of crime syndicates, drug syndicates, racketeering syndicates, smugglers, sex offenders, murderers, and plunderers. And because EVM destroyed the pristine “check and balance” system that was put in place by his predecessors to prevent the adulteration of the Church, EVM ushered in a NEW BREED OF CRIMINALS that found safe haven into the Church of Christ.

These are the same wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing who slaughtered and murdered the innocent men whose only “crime” was to love their neighbor, as commanded by Christ, yet these Good Samaritans crossed the angry stare of the self-proclaimed “Most Important Man in the World”. The same man who used the holy pulpit during worship services to preach about destroying us, the “enemies of the church”, thereby establishing a biblical prelude of what’s to come to those who will stand up for the Truth, they “They shall be as Nothing!!!”

Remember the warning of our Lord Jesus. When we were expelled from the church for standing up for goodness, righteousness, and truth, the killing of our souls by expulsion wasn’t the end of it all. Our Lord forewarned of an even greater threat to our very lives here on earth.

“They will expel you from the synagogue. The time is coming when those who will kill you will think that they are doing a service to God. They will do these things because they don’t know the Father or me. But I have said these things to you so that when their time comes, you will remember that I told you about them.” ~ John 16:2-4 (CEB)

The result? Multiple counts of abductions, illegal detentions, grave threats, acts of violence and MURDERS. And they are now even boldly doing these PUBLICLY, even in broad daylight, simply because they know that they have the FULL BACKING of the EVM Church Administration coupled with its powerful clout over government agencies, law enforcement, judicial systems and even the media. Who else, then, will stand up against these Spiritual Terrorists? Who would have the courage and the firm resolve to do what is right, when those who do right, are being persecuted, oppressed, jailed and killed? Only the Chosen few, the Remnant few, those who did not allow themselves to be silent and be used as instruments of evil and agents of persecution. These are the few good men and women, the real-life GOOD SAMARITANS.

“7 Your country is desolate, Your cities are burned with fire; Strangers devour your land in your presence; And it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers. 8 So the daughter of Zion is left as a booth in a vineyard, As a hut in a garden of cucumbers, As a besieged city. 9 Unless the Lord of hosts Had left to us a very small remnant, We would have become like Sodom, We would have been made like Gomorrah.” ~ Isaiah 1:7-9 NKJV

Who are some of these modern-day Good Samaritans?

A Good Samaritan has the characteristic of being selfless, which is one of the most important traits any Christian can have. We can find the story of the Good Samaritan In Luke 10 where our Lord Jesus Christ stated that to attain eternal life we must love God above all else and love our neighbor as ourselves (Mark 12:31; Galatians 5:14). In our time today, and in the greatest fight and test of our faith we are in, many can be considered selfless. They go beyond helping someone in need, caring for the sick, giving alms to the poor, loving and taking care of parents, widows, and orphans.

When we speak of Good Samaritans, Bro. Felix Villocino surely comes to mind along with others who risked a multitude of things from losing their very own livelihood, missing time for themselves and for their families, and sadly, even sacrificing their very lives. Bro. Felix went missing for several months before we received leads that confirmed his brutal murder. He is the third confirmed murder to date. If the evidence serves us correctly, he was tortured after he went missing on April 18, 2017, just a week after the disappearance of Bro. Danilo Patungan who disappeared on April 11, 2017.

You can read more about his disappearance on this article. [READ: https://incsilentnomore.com/2017/04/22/iglesia-ni-cristo-leaders-linked-to-two-more-kidnapping-cases/

And who could forget the gruesome murder of Bro. Lito Fruto after midnight on May 24, 2017, followed by another horrendous murder in broad daylight which was that of Bro. Peter Ledesma on June 10, 2017. We reiterate that these 4 victims have one common denominator and that is “helping the family of Bro. Eraño G. Manalo when they were severely oppressed in their own home in 36 Tandang Sora where they were trapped by evil and corrupt men and women of power in the Church within three-story walls without electricity, food, water, and other daily necessities. These four were also the primary and close helpers of bro. Angel Manalo when he was unjustly imprisoned.

Details of the discovery of his remains here [READ: https://incsilentnomore.com/2017/05/26/official-press-release-the-murder-of-jose-norilito-de-luna-fruto/

https://incsilentnomore.com/2017/06/12/inc-hitmen-strikes-again/]

It is a very difficult thing not to think of revenge. A tooth for a tooth, or an eye for an eye. It must be most difficult especially for the helpless families of these victims and for us who share their sorrow to lay aside hurt feelings, aggrieved and wounded hearts, but these killings are only but one part of the test. The other part of the test is for us to become like these honorable victims, men who are truly selfless. As much as we want to hate the perpetrators of these crimes and repay evil for evil, we, the true Christians are expected not to put the law into our own hands. We are especially taught and reminded to love the unlovable. Our Lord Jesus expects us to extend this love and selflessness far beyond normal expectations as he commands us to love our enemies and even pray for our persecutors (Matthew 5:44).

For our fallen brothers who came out of the Church’s state of ruin, rubble and carnage as Good Samaritans and heroes, we are confident that their sacrifices will not be in vain. Do not emulate the merciless and the murderers for they are unGodly and have already accepted their fate of everlasting wrath and punishment. Our examples instead are the Good Samaritans who will inspire a multitude more to rise for righteousness, goodness, and truth, and to provide unmeasured comfort to the oppressed and persecuted to the point of sacrificing their lives.

“So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’” “So which of these three,” Jesus asked, “do you think was a neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?” And the man who had first asked the question responded: “He who showed mercy on him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:30-37).

Beloved Brethren, let us all go forth and do the same.

~ Antonio Ramirez Ebangelista

“They tried to bury us…they didn’t know we were seeds.”

“Unlike you, I don’t have power or money, but what I do have is a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you tell the truth now, that’ll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don’t, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will expose you.” – A.E.

Philippine Daily Inquirer Article: “Antonio Ebangelista writes Philippine Daily Inquirer, Warns Iglesia Elders”

Question adn Answer: Q & A with Antonio Ebangelista

The CHOICE is always UP TO YOU : “The Red Pill. The Blue Pill”

Contact Information:

Official Email: [email protected]

Official Blog: http://www.incsilentnomore.com

Official Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/WeAreTheSeedsSilentNoMore/

Official Facebook Account:https://www.facebook.com/antonio.ebangelista.77

Official Instagram: @antonioramirezebangelista

Official Twitter: @AEbangelista01

#iglesianicristo #inc102 #inccentennial #centennial #inc4life #incootd #incfashion #icmedianews #inctv #net25 #incmedia #increview #fymfoundation #mycountrymenmybrethren #kabayankokapatidko #incselfiechallenge #incwikileaks #sanggunian #radelcortez #gerrypurification #junsantos #gliceriosantosjr #rolandoesguerra #benefridosantiago #rodelcabrera #biensantiago #erdzcodera #ernestosuratos #mattpareja #antonioebangelista #silentnomore #iglesianicristosilentnomore #onewithevm #accessthetruth #iglesianicristoblogspot #mandirigma #spiritualwarriors #arneltumanan #babylynmanalo #jojodeguzman #TJOrosa #GPSantos #SergieSantos #AnnieSantos #incradio #angelomanalo #churchofchrist #Johncollado #orthodoxpriest #angelmanalo #lottiehemedez #36tandangsora #sirkular #circular #proudtobeINC #sherlock #thetakingofroviccanono #PhilippineRedCross #RichardGordon #andrewE #philippinearena #christmasdaygames #pba #oilfracking #southdakota #standingrock #violieedrosalan #roviccanono #bairanfamily #australiasilentnomore #mandirigmanomore #maribelmetano #spiritualbusinessmen #rommelsanpedro #regaladodelosreyes #isaiassamsonjr #aidtohumanity #inc #lingappamamahayag #lingapsamamamayan #incinafrica #stampedeinafrica #venerationforevm #evmministers #felixvillocino #dannypatungan #farleydecastro #rodrigoduterte #jameswhite #joeventilacion #incfakepriest #incfakenun #nonoponce #newsanjosebuilders #joseacuzar #nureauofcustoms #teddyraval #dollytoledo #mandirigmanomore #episode2 #thepawnnameddolly #justiceforlitofruto #litofruto #incwhistleblowersreport #diplomaticpassport #dfa #gemmamanalo #stf #evmsalaysay #angelomanalo #newbreedofdefenders #felixvillocino #danilopatungan #jonathanledesma #sterlingcañete #inchinirang #incmurderers #inccriminals

Is the Eduardo V. Manalo Church Administration Really Capable of Murder? This is a question that is quickly answered by the O.W.E. (One With EVM) church loyalists with a resounding "NO!!!" as if it was a matter of fact.

0 notes

theaagency3651-blog · 7 years

Text

As U.S. Power Wanes, Japan Reboots Its Military

In an uncertain world, Japan rethinks its global posture.

Photo : http://www.thetower.org

By Anthony Berteaux - 4th January 2016 / Re :https://goo.gl/tAEeR6

In the early morning of February 1, after months of secret negotiations between the Japanese government and ISIS over the release of two of the terrorist group’s hostages, Haruna Yukawa and Kenji Goto, ISIS released Goto’s execution video, entitled “A Message to the Government of Japan.” Aired on major television networks throughout Japan, the chilling video featured the executioner known as Jihadi John responding to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s decision to send $200 million in humanitarian aid to nations battling ISIS.

To the Japanese government: You, like your foolish allies in the Satanic coalition, have yet to understand that we, by Allah’s grace, are an Islamic Caliphate with authority and power, an entire army thirsty for your blood. Abe, because of your reckless decision to take part in an unwinnable war, this knife will not only slaughter Kenji, but will also carry on and cause carnage wherever your people are found. So let the nightmare for Japan begin.

By the time the video finished by showing what appeared to be a beheaded Goto, an illusion long held by Japanese leaders and ordinary citizens alike was shattered. The unprecedented act of Islamic terrorism against Japan has led to a growing understanding that despite its longstanding security relationship with the United States, Japan remained helpless and vulnerable in the face of a hostage crisis spurred by non-state actors half the world away. And thus, perhaps, even more vulnerable against its increasingly aggressive neighbors.

Since Japan signed the Potsdam Declaration after World War II, its military has been constitutionally prohibited from pursuing offensive operations on behalf of itself or its allies. American security guarantees have ensured Japan’s regional and international safety. But Japan’s essential lack of military and foreign policy autonomy, combined with growing criticism of President Barack Obama’s regional strategies in both the Middle East and East Asia, has raised questions about whether Japan’s 70-year constitutional commitment to pacifism and demilitarization remains wise today.

“This is 9/11 for Japan,” Kunihiko Miyake, a former diplomat who has advised Abe on foreign affairs, told The New York Times shortly after Goto’s murder. “It is time for Japan to stop daydreaming that its good will and noble intentions would be enough to shield it from the dangerous world out there. Americans have faced this harsh reality, the French have faced it, and now we are, too.”

Photo : http://www.thetower.org

Since the hostage crisis, Abe has vowed to “make terrorists pay the price,” and has referred to the crisis to secure Parliamentary approval to reinterpret Article 9 of the constitution, which prohibits a Japanese military, so that Japan can defend allies as part of “collective defense,” establish a national security council, increase spending to its “Self-Defense Force,” and open up a domestic defense industry. “No country is completely safe from terrorism,” Abe told Parliament the week before Goto’s execution. “How do we cut the influence of ISIL, and put a stop to extremism? Japan must play its part in achieving this.”

The Abe administration’s security bill is currently sitting for approval in the Diet’s upper house; should it pass a final vote, it would give the Japanese military the ability to fight with allies in foreign conflicts for the first time in 70 years. Since the bill’s introduction, massive opposition has uncharacteristically erupted from the Japanese public—56 percent of whom, according to Asahi Shimbun opinion polls, are against militarizing Japan. In July, anti-war protests led by grassroots organizations were attended by 60,000 people, garnering national media attention in front of the Parliament building. In August, 50 former journalists created a coalition to deliver a message from five former Japanese prime ministers demanding that Abe withdraw the bill. Criticism against Abe has even come from within his own party. Liberal Democratic Party member Seiichiro Murakami tearfully and passionately opposed his party’s support for the revisions. “Why are we gambling the fate of the next generation, all the 20 year olds who have a bright future?” Murakami said. “As a human being, I can’t send young people to war.”

But Abe’s determination to push the legislation despite widespread public dissent indicates that his convictions lie not in what his detractors claim is “warmongering,” but in significant policy concerns regarding Japan’s security in East Asia and abroad. It reflects the tangible threat that the current unequal U.S.-Japan defense relationship poses for Japan’s national security. As China’s military and territorial hegemony over the South China Sea continues to grow, conflict between South and North Korea flares up once again, and American security guarantees to Iraq and Ukraine ring hollow, it is clear that Abe’s ambitions are in response to an unsettling decline in U.S. authority. While the main goal of the legislation is ostensibly to allow Japan to come to the “collective defense” of its allies, it’s not hard to spot Abe’s real concern that allies will fail to come to the collective defense of Japan.

Continuing in the footsteps of his grandfather, Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi, who fought to make similar revisions during his time in office, Abe seeks to establish Japan as a military power to fill in the vacuum left by the United States. His legacy hinges on his ability to secure Japan’s future as a legitimate, reliable, and independent military player in ensuring regional and international peace. In a rapidly changing East Asia, and an increasingly global world with increasingly global threats, revising archaic definitions of constitutional pacifism are a complicated but necessary response to the current unequal security relationship between the U.S. and Japan.

After its unconditional surrender to the U.S. in 1945, stripped of military capabilities, Japan has had only the U.S. to rely on for national security. Since Article 9 of the largely U.S.-written constitution declared that Japan would never again maintain “land, sea or air forces or other war potential,” a Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security was reached in 1952 to ensure Japan’s safety from foreign threats, stipulating that the U.S. would help defend Japan against external enemies, while a Japanese defense force would handle internal threats and natural disasters.

The treaty allowed the United States to have military bases across Japan in order to preserve regional security. There are currently around 50,000 U.S. military personnel stationed in 23 military bases across Japan. During the Vietnam War, Japanese bases acted as strategic and logistical posts for American troops. More recently, the United States has used the bases to deploy long-distance surveillance drones over China and North Korea. Japan’s constitutional constraints on military action, combined with the pacifist sentiments deriving from the still-anguishing nuclear devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, have led to the rejection of any measure that might alter the status quo. And the rhetorical and tangible security commitments that America has made to Japan has warded off threats, leading to 70 years of peace.

Photo : http://www.thetower.org

But despite analysts calling the defense relationship a “mutual” one, the U.S.-Japan alliance has always hinged more on support from the U.S. than from Japan. In 1990, the lack of involvement of Japan’s military forces in the Gulf War was widely criticized by the U.S., when Japanese assistance to Kuwait was limited solely to cash because of domestic opposition to military deployment. A decade later, however, Japan deployed 600 soldiers in humanitarian capacities during the Iraq War, a decision that attracted fierce domestic opposition and numerous unsuccessful lawsuits. Sending the first foreign deployment of Japanese troops since World War II to build water purification facilities in Iraq would seem to have little connection to Japan’s self-defense, the only constitutionally acceptable reason for military activity. But as Gavan McCormack, a professor at the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies at the Australian National University, wrote in 2004, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi made his decision not because he supported President George W. Bush’s regional agenda, but because he needed to ensure that the alliance that guaranteed Japan’s security was upheld.

Although the [Bush-Koizumi] relationship is close, that does not necessarily mean that Koizumi, or Japan, really wanted to go to war against Iraq or that it supports the US position on Palestine; for Japan under Koizumi North Korea is the key factor. In February 2004, he declared that it was of overwhelming importance for Japan to show that it was a “trustworthy ally,” because (as he put it) if ever Japan were to come under attack it would be the US, not the UN or any other country, that would come to its aid. When he declared support for the US-led war on Iraq in March 2003, and when he sent Japanese forces to aid the occupation in January 2004, it was not Iraq that was in the Japanese sights so much as North Korea.

Abe’s anti-ISIS rhetoric and actions, combined with his attempt to alter his country’s interpretation of Article 9 despite domestic opposition, parallel the actions and thought processes of his predecessor and fellow party member Koizumi. If Abe succeeds, Japan will be able to more fully support the U.S. in security issues, which would hopefully ensure steadfast U.S. support for Japan’s security.

Abe’s ambitions to establish a domestic defense industry could also be taken as not just a method to strengthen bonds with the U.S, but a representation of his anxiety towards the U.S.’s military commitments. Such an industry would help to assert Japan’s independence in the region, no longer being beholden to a foreign country for security.

As far back as 2000, when he was just a member of the Diet, Abe has raised concerns about the unequal power relationship with the U.S., codified by Japan’s constitutional constraints. Article 51 of the UN Charter details a member nation’s inherent right to practice “collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.” As Abe noted, “It is extremely strange to think that we have the right but cannot use it.”

Abe has devoted most of the past decade to move Japan towards becoming a “Western force” with a larger role in global affairs. His historic address to Congress earlier this April, the first ever by a Japanese Prime Minister, showed his desire to strengthen U.S.-Japan ties, while simultaneously asserting Japan’s reputation as a reliable, independent player on the international stage. And after the Diet’s decision to move the bill for consideration, Abe asserted that “These laws are absolutely necessary because the security situation surrounding Japan is growing more severe.”

Photo : http://www.thetower.org

Abe is right: Japan faces a series of security issues from its neighbors, which has grown at the same time that the U.S. military presence in East Asia has shrunk. Nearly 9,000 Marines are scheduled to be redeployed from Japan to Guam and Hawaii, partially as a cost-cutting measure due to the high cost of living in Japan and partially due to sustained public opposition to the American presence on the island of Okinawa. Sequestration and budget cuts are forcing the U.S. military to, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey said while touring a U.S. base in Japan in 2013, “find a way to accomplish the same thing but with smaller force structures.” The effects of this withdrawal have been incorporated into Japanese military policy. A 2014 report issued by the Japanese Ministry of Defense opened by noting that “the patterns of U.S. involvement in the world are changing.” It went on to note that budget cuts have led to “suspension of training, delayed deployment of aircraft carriers, and grounding of air squadrons,” and if those cuts continue, “risks for the U.S. forces posed by shifts in the security environment would grow significantly.”

The move to militarize Japan is therefore supported by the U.S., UCLA associate professor of history Katsuya Hirano told me, because America “is now trying to reduce the size of its military operation due largely to its weakening economic status. The U.S. wants Japan to have a more visible military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, especially against China and North Korea.” Indeed, with growing military aggression from China, renewed military tension between South and North Korea, the ever-present North Korea’s nuclear threat, and further Russian military development on the Kuril Islands, Japan faces questions of U.S. military authority in a new East Asian power dynamic where neither the U.S. nor Japan is on top. That spot is now taken by China.

Napoleon Bonaparte supposedly once said of China, “Let her sleep, for when she wakes she will shake the world.” His warning proved to be right. Led by nationalist President Xi Jinping, who took over in 2013, China has grown to become the second-biggest military spender in the world. In 2015, it announced that it was boosting its defense budget more than ten percent to $145 billion, almost three times larger than that of Japan’s Self-Defense Force. While the growth of China’s military capabilities can be attributed largely to its economic growth, what truly worries Japanese leaders is China’s increasingly powerful nationalist movement. These sentiments have been indoctrinated into the population by a 20-year “patriotic education” campaign that asserts China’s right to dominate East Asia and vilifies Japan’s “evil” actions during its colonial rule. The atrocities of Japanese colonialism have been used to justify the defense budget increase; as one Chinese official was ...

.... in Foreign Affairs, “Our lesson from history—those who fall behind will get bullied—this is something we will never forget.” Perhaps what epitomizes the Chinese quest for supremacy in the region is the September 3 Beijing military parade, which will be led by 12,000 troops, celebrating China’s victory over Japan in World War II. Xi’s “Chinese Dream” extends far beyond “rich nation, strong army,” as is popularly said. China is committed and determined to modernize and improve its military to usurp U.S. control over East Asia. Backed up by a nationalist-supremacist ideology reminiscent of Imperial Japan, China’s aggressive military policies seek not regional security but regional dominance.

Photo : http://www.thetower.org

This problem is exacerbated by a decline in American regional hegemony. As Adm. Samuel J. Locklear, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command, admitted at a naval conference last year, “Our historic dominance, that most of us in this room have enjoyed, is diminishing. No question. So let me say it again. Our historic dominance, that most of us in our careers have enjoyed, is diminishing.” Trey Obering, the former director of the Missile Defense Agency, argued in a speech this August that China was strategically challenging all foundations of U.S. power in East Asia: “I believe that China is challenging the United States, specifically targeting our strategic ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities], our power projection capabilities, and our technological advantages with their missile programs.”

Indeed, it was discovered two years ago that Beijing had developed a medium-range ship missile that, as Obering said, was designed “clearly and specifically” to target U.S. carrier battle groups. And earlier this year, China successfully created a Wu-14 hypersonic vehicle, which can deliver nuclear warheads while flying ten times the speed of sound. This is to say nothing of China’s cyberwarfare capabilities: In 2014, Senate Armed Service Committee investigators officially found China’s military to be responsible for nine cyberattacks on civilian transportation companies, spreading malware onto airline computers and effectively stealing confidential information. The NSA has accused China of more than 600 hacks of corporate, private, or government entities. And China is widely accused of having perpetrating the hacking of the Office of Personnel Management, accessing the records of over 18 million people. The threat of Chinese hacking affects Japan too: the National Institute of Information Communications Technology said that Japan experienced more than ten billion hacking attempts from China in 2014 alone.

Photo : http://www.thetower.org

In almost all occasions, China’s military actions have shown a blatant disregard for foreign powers and international law. “China does not acknowledge freedom of navigation and overflight for foreign militaries, while at the same time it is threatening other countries’ territorial waters and airspace. Unless China respects international law and rules, these crises will continue,” Tetsuo Kotani, a senior fellow at the Japanese Institute of International Affairs, told The Guardian this January. On almost all fronts, China’s military is beginning to assert dominance over the U.S., disregarding America’s history of regional authority. Japanese journalist Hidaka Yoshiki, currently a visiting senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington D.C., wrote an essay in the Japanese monthly Voice in 2013, as the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program were ongoing. Titling his article “The Day that the Weak-Hipped Obama Administration Bows to North Korea,” Yoshiki argued that as the number of U.S. forces in Japan decreases, Japan should be concerned with the Obama administration’s seeming lack of interest in Japanese security. “While Obama has continuously stated that he is making the ‘big turn to Asia,’ there is no reality nor substance to his statement…Even currently the number of U.S. troops is decreasing…this phenomenon can be attributed to mostly the decreasing U.S. defense interests in Asia.” As China grows increasingly defiant, it is becoming clear that the U.S. is losing its grip over East Asia.

In response, Japan announced its biggest defense budget ever in January, totaling $42 billion – the third straight year of budget increases after more than a decade of cuts. Jun Okumura, a scholar at the Meiji Institute for Global Affairs in Tokyo, told The Guardian that while the budget increases were partly due to concern over increased North Korean belligerency, they were largely in response to China’s dominance: “China’s increasingly assertive behavior in the East China Sea and air space, plus, of course, its overtly hostile actions against the Philippines and Vietnam certainly have a major influence on the direction of Japan’s military spending, the thrust of its military doctrine and its approach to security alliances.”

Photo : http://www.thetower.org

The increase in the military budget – allowing the purchase of surveillance technology and aircraft, F-35 fighter jets, drones, radar-equipped destroyers, and a missile defense system – is a necessary response to current growing tensions not just with China, but also Russia, whose annexation of Crimea has endured despite Western security guarantees to Ukraine. Abe traveled to Kiev on June 6 to announce that Japan would provide Ukraine with $1.5 billion in credit guarantees and a $1.1 billion development loan. Three days later, perhaps emboldened by American inaction and perhaps piqued by Abe’s announcement, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced plans to accelerate military construction on the disputed Southern Chishima islands, which the Soviet Union seized from Japan at the end of World War II. Japanese anxiety over Russian buildups in the north is exacerbated by increasingly aggressive Chinese designs over the disputed Senkaku islands in the south.

Domestic discussions of Japan’s security have also been concerned with North Korea’s military and nuclear capabilities. The 1994 U.S.-brokered nuclear deal with North Korea – coordinated on the American side by Wendy Sherman, who would later serve as chief nuclear negotiator with Iran – fell apart in 2002 after confessions from Pakistan and Libya that North Korea was secretly continuing nuclear enrichment in violation of the deal. Six-party talks, which included Japan, were unsuccessful in persuading North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. Since then, Pyongyang has admitted to administering plutonium device tests, banned International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors from conducting inspections, and fired multiple ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan.

In April 2009, at the beginning of his presidency, Obama struck a chord with many Japanese nationals when he made a speech in Prague stating his commitment to creating a world free of nuclear weaponry.

As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. The United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons.

The fact that North Korea had launched a rocket over Japan earlier that same morning made the speech all the more powerful or all the more empty, depending on your point of view. Since then, many have raised questions about whether U.S. foreign diplomacy really has Japan’s security interests in mind. Chief amongst those critics is Yoshiki, who saved his harshest rhetoric for the U.S.’s failure to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, leading him in light of the Iran deal to question whether the U.S. could be trusted to ensure Japan’s security.

As I have criticized before, President Obama has barely been in contact with North Korea for four years. The bitter truth is, he has no clue of how to stop North Korea’s nuclear weaponry. And it’s not just North Korea that he has no clue about, it’s Asia as a whole…The fact that Obama is has thrown the North Korean nuclear weapon problem at China just shows fundamentally that he has no idea nor strategy when it comes to diplomacy in Asia.

In 2013, Pyongyang threatened that if Japan dared to try to stop a missile attack directed towards it, it would be seen as “provocative” of war, leading to Tokyo being “consumed in nuclear flames.” “Japan is always in the cross-hairs of our revolutionary army and if Japan makes a slightest move, the spark of war will touch Japan first,” the Korean Central News Agency declared. That same year, the Pentagon uncovered evidence that North Korea had been able to miniaturize a nuclear warhead onto a ballistic missile.

As tensions rise once again between North and South Korea, the possibilities of further warfare within the region must factor into the discussion of revising Japan’s peace constitution to create an insurance policy should conflict break out. In light of North Korea’s unpredictability, as well as China’s increased aggression despite the U.S.’s supposed military dominance in East Asia (not to mention Russia’s brazen snubbing of international law without major consequence in Europe, and Syria’s unpunished violation of “red lines” and ISIS’s continued rampages in the Middle East), there is a nagging question on everyone’s minds: does the U.S. truly have Japan’s back?

This is the context in which the debate over Japan’s constitution is being waged. Japanese liberals argue that a revision of the constitution is will not only end Japan’s pacifist policies but is an affront to democracy itself, while conservatives argue, as Abe said, that the bills “are not for engaging in war,” but to “prevent war” by establishing a truly sovereign defense force.

There is a crucial difference between the two arguments. Abe’s detractors, such as the grassroots organization Students Emergency Action for Liberal Democracy, are looking at the past, when Imperial Japan’s military posed a humanitarian threat to East Asia. They argue that the military should never again be implemented in this way. In contrast, supporters of Abe’s security bill are looking at East Asian policy concerns in the present and the future. The domestic politics of Japan today would simply not allow for Japan’s military to start an offensive war, draft Japanese youth for battle, or repeat the mistakes of the past. These are claims based on unfounded fears.

The security bill will allow for Japan to deploy foreign military forces only if Japan or a close ally is attacked, and if not doing so would threaten Japan’s survival and pose a clear danger to its people. The bill also specifically states that Japan is allowed to deploy armed forces only if there is no other appropriate means available to repel an attack. Looking at the bill within the context of security concerns in East Asia today, one can see that it is designed to ensure regional peace, and further assert Japan’s historic pacifism, rather than endangering it.

Photo : http://www.thetower.org

There are good reasons that Abe is an unpopular figure: he has repeatedly attempted to downplay Japan’s war crimes during the occupation, he argued in 2007 that Korean comfort women were not forced into sex slavery, and his recent public apology for war-era crimes was deemed by many as “insincere.” But Abe’s concerns – that Japan’s security is inadequate while its borders are being violated, its citizens are under terrorist threat, and U.S. military hegemony is weakening—are real and valid.

Yusuke Takahashi, the Washington correspondent for the public broadcaster NHK, said during a television segment titled “The Threat of Terror in the World? In Japan?” that ISIS’s awareness of Japan’s inability to conduct military action in the Middle East is what made the country vulnerable.

What’s often misunderstood is that it isn’t just military action that made makes a country a target. Last September, America released a list of 60 coalition partners that have committed themselves to fight ISIS and among them is Japan. It is understood that Japan will only engage in humanitarian causes, and not militarily. ISIS wasn’t under a misunderstanding of Japan’s policies in the Middle East, they knew we couldn’t engage militarily. I believe it is under this understanding that [ISIS] was taunting us.

Under current conditions – in Tokyo, Washington, Beijing, Pyongyang, Moscow, Raqqa, and beyond – it is not only ISIS that can taunt, harm, or attack Japan. As former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama prophetically said before he left office, “Someday, the time will come when Japan’s peace will have to be ensured by the Japanese people themselves.” That time has finally come. Abe is adapting policy to adjust to a growing realization: as the world evolves, Japan must too.

F:@theeagency3651 / I:@TheAAgency3651 / T:@theaagency3651

#Tokyo #Japan #Military #Army #Self Defence Army #Yusuke Takahashi #Haruna Yukawa and Kenji Goto #Haruna Yukawa #Kenj Goto #ISIS #Terrorism #twitter.com/theaagency3651 #instagram.com/theaagency3651 #facebook.com/theaagency3651

0 notes