It's the sort of thing that almost makes you long for the days of the samurai. Those guys had swords, and strong beliefs, and, well, cojones. Certainly not like modern-day Japanese prime ministers. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe quit last year after less than a year on the job. And now his predecessor, Yasuo Fukuda,  announced his resignation last night here in Tokyo, also after a little less than a year.

It wasn't just that Fukuda left so quickly. Japan has gone through periods before when there was plenty of turnover among senior politicians, such as the 1990s, when no one had any bright ideas for pulling Japan out of its seemingly endless recession. Fukuda's departure was different. It was ignominious. Pitiful. Wimpy.

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Senator John McCain—who has spent years making the rounds among VIPs and diplomats at the international conferences of Davos, Munich, and the others—is regarded elsewhere in the world as an old hand at foreign policy. In my reporting abroad, if people disagree with him they at least respect his experience. But what about Governor Sarah Palin, whom his campaign elevated Friday to a heartbeat away from the presidency? How does the campaign maintain that the world has nothing to fear?

Several lines of (sometimes contradictory) argument have been floating around at the Republican convention here to answer concerns about Palin. One is that she’s no less qualified than Barack Obama to deal with foreign affairs, since service on a Senate committee doesn’t count as experience. Another is that experience is about character more than knowledge—which staff, at any rate, can provide—and victory over the powerful Alaskan political machine shows the character she’ll bring to the presidency. A third line of thought is that judgment is more important than experience (this undermines McCain’s critique of Obama), and while she’s been around less than Obama, at least she supports the surge, which conventional wisdom now says worked. (Obama has danced around the question of its success.) Finally, and half-heartedly, Palin is said to know Russia, since Alaska is right next door. Here is a McCain spokesman struggling to make some of these points:

Senator Fred Thompson, the former senator and presidential hopeful—perceived for much of his campaign to be a less-than-strenuous student of politics and the world—tried some of these arguments on Newsweek editors at a lunch yesterday. And he made some concessions to Palin’s unfamiliarity with the world (she didn’t have a passport until two years ago): “No nominee I’ve ever heard of has had all the boxes checked. You talk about a ‘balanced ticket.’” But he did something I didn’t expect Republicans here to do: he set a high bar for Palin. Could she just answer a tricky debate question about foreign policy by saying she’s still learning? No.

"She has to be fully prepared and has to know the names of the foreign leaders," he said. "That’s rule number-one. She’s going to be tested in every conceivable way, and she’s got to be able to handle it. You should assume that smart people have some walking-around knowledge. She’s the governor of a large state; she’s not out hunting moose all the time. She’ll start at a better place than most people give her credit for. It’s not like teaching a toddler to play piano."

If Thompson is right, maybe Palin has something up her sleeve for the debate against Joe Biden everybody thinks she’s going to lose.

P.S. On the subject of veep picks, Thompson had some choice words about being on a congressional delegation abroad with the famously garrulous Joe Biden (“my friend”): “Traveling with Biden is one of the most unrewarding experiences you can have, because he monopolizes the conversation wherever you are, with whoever you’re speaking to, in whatever country you’re visiting.”

You and Obama have criticized John McCain's response to the invasion of Georgia. Is the problem here with ideology or tone?
The Russians need to be made to see that there are consequences. They isolate themselves from the world and suffer as a result—in political terms (with NATO), economic terms (the Russian stock market sank) and strategic terms (Poland rushed to complete a missile defense agreement it previously would have been reluctant to conclude). Making the rhetoric inflammatory—as opposed to showing Russia the cool realities—is not helpful.

Was John McCain's sharp response to the Georgia invasion wrong?
When McCain said before the invasion that Russia should be thrown out of the G8, that was not a productive proposal. It had the paradoxical effect of making the same statement after Russia invaded Georgia even less effective, because it clearly wasn't tied to Russian behavior.

DENVER, Colo. -- Just now at a panel of Barack Obama's foreign policy team (Adam Smith, Tony Lake, Richard Danzig, Susan Rice, Greg Craig, Gayle Smith) hosted by the National Democratic Institute, Rice -- summarizing Obama's foreign policy ideas -- made a derogatory aside about John McCain's call for a "league of democracies." Whereupon Lake dispatched a (mildly worded but unmistakable) rebuke before the audience: "Senator Obama has not taken a position on a concert of democracies, and I think a campaign is not the place to work it out."

Let the ideological jockeying begin!

DENVER, Colo. -- When times are bad, Democrats tend to sour on trade. So when Austin Goolsbee, an economic adviser to Barack Obama, reportedly told Canadian government officials that Obama wouldn’t really “redo” NAFTA (despite campaign claims), the campaign had to repudiate his comments. Obama also opposed the Colombian and South Korean free-trade deals. Yet while the American business establishment might see this as a red flag, Tom Donohue, the lead spokesman for American business, doesn’t take it too seriously. To him, Goolsbee’s comment was a “Kinsley gaffe”: when someone accidentally tells the truth.

Donohue told me he’d come to Denver to find common ground with Democrats (global warming, infrastructure investment) and remind them that, when they don’t see things his way, the Chamber—which represents three million companies—“can raise a lot of hell.” But he wasn’t lying awake at night imagining the death throes of free trade under President Obama. So Obama isn’t likely to “renegotiate” NAFTA? “When he started campaigning he might have been, but when he’s finished he won’t be,” Donohue says. “When he looks at NAFTA and sees that the largest sources of oil and gas are Canada and Mexico, he’ll forget all about a redo.”

In fact, the real bogeyman of business is “card check,” a proposed rule that would allow unions to organize more easily, partly by forgoing secret ballots. Unions, he says, will spend $500 million on this election, and he’s desperate to have enough business-friendly senators to keep a filibuster. “More Democrats than Republicans remind me of the importance of that, because they know if they’re owned by trial lawyers and the unions, they won’t be around long.”

Notably, there are no Obama advisers secretly telling businesspeople that Obama won’t really sign card-check legislation.

By Andrew Bast

This weekend witnessed a worrying twist of fate in Bolivia. Voters went to the polls in a national referendum on the country’s leadership, and President Evo Morales won in a landslide. He took more than sixty percent of the vote, higher even than the fifty-three percent he won in the 2005 presidential election. His enthusiasm was unguarded. "I dedicate this victory to all the revolutionaries in the world," he proclaimed in a nighttime victory speech from the balcony of his presidential palace in the capital of La Paz. He had reason to celebrate. The vote cemented his leadership and gave momentum to what could likely be his landmark accomplishment in office, rewriting the country’s constitution.

The twist is that voters not only cast ballots on the president, but on their local leaders as well, and a coterie of opposition governors in the country’s wealthy eastern provinces--Morales’ chief adversaries--also won in the referendum. For months they have been organizing against Morales. The departments of Santa Cruz, Tarija, Pando and Beni have all voted to become more autonomous from the central government, challenging Morales’ centralization of power in La Paz, his land reform initiative and his reengineering of the constitution. “The outcome of the vote in Bolivia is likely to only deepen the wounds between two fiercely antagonistic political projects,” says Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue. “Each side will be tempted to dig in even further.” How Morales plays his so-called revolutionary hand will very much determine Bolivia’s future. Morales would be wise to watch his autocratic ally, Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, for what not to do; better to err on the side of democracy and demonstrate real skill as a politician.

Bolivia’s provinces, especially Tarija, are rich in natural gas, making the situation all the more volatile. After taking office, Morales nationalized the industry, straining tensions to the breaking point. Recently, autonomy protests in the provinces have turned violent, and the memories of the 2003 protests over the country’s natural gas reserves, which left eighty people dead, ousted President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada and helped bring Morales to power, are still fresh. The issue is as raw as any in the country and could give rise to conflict once again.

A resolution seems distant. Morales has said publicly that he is prepared to talk with the governors, though no one knows what, if any, concessions he would be willing to make. From the outside, the U.S. State Department has said it "stands ready to assist" the discussions, despite its tormented relationship with Morales’ government. Spain, Bolivia’s once-colonial administrator, has also offered to help nudge talks along. The most promising pledge came this week from the Organization of American States, which is headed by the Chilean José Miguel Insulza and had a major success earlier this year when it passed a resolution in March to resolve the standoff between Hugo Chávez and Colombia. In Bolivia, negotiations are the next logical step, but with both sides boosted by big wins at the polls, when, where or on what terms are all big question marks rather than agenda items.

In addition to touting his success as another victory for the revolution, Morales has said that his presidency “starts a new Bolivian history.” Indeed, he is the first indigenous president to be elected in Latin America, and his proposed constitutional reforms would lend political representation to the long-disenfranchised indigenous majorities in the country. But his presidency is not a revolution. It is the result of votes and process and democracy, and with that recognition comes the undeniable fact that he cannot write off the past, no matter how much he may want to.

After a stinging defeat of his Venezuelan constitutional reforms in December, Morales’ staunch ally Hugo Chávez last week decided to instead issue his reforms by decree, subverting the democratic process. Morales would be wise to learn from his mentor, namely that such autocratic strategies make for bad so-called revolutions. Changing Bolivian history could mean bringing the country together, not fanning the flames of autonomy by strong-arming the opposition. Since they have popular support in their provinces, the governors’ grievances deserve a fair hearing, and if Morales has the political skill to bring them into the fold, 21st-century socialism in Bolivia could establish a sound democratic foundation. Considering the way that Chávez’s project is being left behind by less bellicose leaders like Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil, Morales’ aim may be morally admirable, but his method will have to be more independently minded.

By Jonathan Kent

Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim is again under arrest on charges of sexual misconduct that appear to be politically motivated. Police detained him today in Kuala Lumpur before he was to appear voluntarily to face questioning over new charges that he violated Malaysia’s anti-sodomy law with a political aide. Days before his latest arrest, Anwar told Newsweek that the new charges against him were “disgusting” and said elements of the current government had framed him.

By Mary Hennock

China's parliament is frequently dismissed as a rubber stamp body whose delegates agree with every government measure and avoid controversy. This year's session has seen a new trend at work. The two-week gathering of the National People's Congress has seen protesters lobbying hard against a key government policy. No, not Tibet independence activists, angry farmers, or unemployed workers, but company bosses. Many delegates are entrepreneurs, and they're objecting to China's new labor contract law, introduced just over two months ago. "The law is overly-protective of workers' rights," delegate Zong Qinghou told Reuters, adding, "It isn't reasonable." Zong is the chairman of Wahaha Group, China's biggest private soft drinks company.

By Mike Elkin
 
With Spanish national elections two days away, a former Socialist town councilor was assassinated around midday today. Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and opposition leader Mariano Rajoy agreed to cancel the remaining campaign events and have convened a parliamentary session at 7pm to respond to the attack. Government officials attributed to violent separatist group ETA, but no group has claimed responsibility.
 
“The Spanish democracy has shown that it won't allow challenges from those who defy its basic principles and its essential values," said Zapatero. "It hasn't allowed them in the past, it won't allow them now and it will never allow them. Together… we will defend our institutions and our freedoms.” 

The gunman shot dead 42-year-old Isaías Carrasco, who worked at a highway toll station and was a councilman in the town of Arrasate-Mondragón in the Basque Country between 2003 and 2007. He was shot three times as he left his home with his wife and daughter.
 
ETA hasn’t targeted a specific person for assassination since May 2003. It's widely believed that the group is trying to influence the outcome of the election. The separatists, who have killed around 850 people over the past 40 years, appear to be following the precedent set in 2004 when the Madrid train bombings by an Al Qaeda-inspired group tipped the scales in favor of the Socialists. Or perhaps ETA wanted to send a bloody reminder to the country that has been focusing its political attention on the ailing economy and immigration.

It’s hard to say how this attack will affect the elections on Sunday. The initial reaction from the Socialists and Rajoy’s Popular Party (PP) has been one of solidarity in the face of a common enemy – a solidarity that has been absent since the Socialists won the last election. The political atmosphere of the past four years and especially this campaign has been tense and angry. And while the PP consistently attacked the government’s anti-terror policy, namely Zapatero’s decision in 2006 to open talks with ETA after it declared a ceasefire, a collective political response is more likely than not.