JAPAN

JAPAN

The Japan Times, Tokyo, Feb. 9: Toyota Motor Corp. is in a crisis of critical proportions, the worst in its 70-plus-year history. The firm has voluntarily recalled millions of vehicles worldwide, and has suspended the production and sale of several models in the United States. At stake is the firm’s credibility in Japan and overseas as a trustworthy manufacturer of safe and reliable automobiles.

Akio Toyoda, president of the embattled auto giant, belatedly made his first public appearance since the recall crisis began to emerge in November, and apologized to Toyota users worldwide. Toyota’s brand image — and more importantly, consumer confidence in the quality and safety of Toyota cars — has been profoundly shaken. Things went from bad to worse for the firm, when safety concerns came to light regarding the braking system of its flagship hybrid model, the Prius.

Highest priority

As Toyoda correctly stated, the automaker should make vehicle safety its absolute highest priority, not sales. Toyota should do everything necessary, at any cost and as swiftly as possible, to fix any mechanical flaws in its vehicles.

Toyota and the U.S. oversight administration will face close scrutiny at two U.S. Congressional hearings on the recalls. ... It is imperative that during these hearings Toyota establish its credibility by squarely addressing allegations it was tardy in its response to customer complaints and attempted to cover up the safety issues. The firm must present detailed, convincing explanations of the measures it takes to ensure the safety of its vehicles.

At the same time, it is hoped that the U.S. government and Congress will address the Toyota recalls in a non-emotional manner, and that the issue will not be exploited for political gain ahead of the U.S. midterm elections in November. Toyota should not be made a scapegoat of any attempts to channel American voters’ frustration away from their prolonged economic woes, highlighted by high unemployment.

BRITAIN

The Telegraph, London, Feb. 8: The Russians must be wondering what sort of victory America’s scrapping of plans for missile defenses in the Czech Republic and Poland represents. Last September, the Obama administration abandoned the idea of interceptors and a radar system in Central Europe for what the President called a “phased, adaptive approach” to the threat of nuclear-tipped Iranian missiles.

That approach is translating into a heightened American military presence in the Gulf and an agreement to deploy medium-range interceptors in Romania. Earlier, Moscow argued implausibly that the Czech and Polish projects posed a military threat. It is now pushing the same line over Romania. But the real significance of deploying missile defenses in one of NATO’s newer members is political: it binds the host country closer to the West, thus diminishing Russian influence.

Financial interests

Washington needs a good working relationship with its erstwhile superpower rival, whether over the control of fissile material, containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions or renegotiating the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. However, because it is in Russia’s financial and security interests that talks on these matters make progress, it is unlikely that the Romanian announcement will seriously affect them.

The Kremlin may complain but it should ask itself what it has offered in return for the hand of friendship extended by Mr. Obama.