Aikido - the organizational context

4. The current situation

As the IAF became a stronger organization, newer members of the IAF
accepted it as such. The older members, which were often still under a Japanese
instructor, became less influential. The number of members grew, and even
becoming a member was more of an issue. The IAF developed an admission procedure,
and the congress in 2016 admitted the largest number of new members since the
foundation of the IAF.

At the same time, the IAF was looking for ‘what else to do’ besides
meeting and participating in the Combat Games. The new-found strength needed to
be used somewhere.

And while this new energy led to new drive, and the participation of new
members, both in the general assembly and in the board, it also became clear
that the concern within the Aikikai has risen to a critical level. In a meeting
with the board representatives from Hombu argued strongly that the IAF had no
task to propagate Aikido: this was the task of the Aikikai Foundation.
Therefore, the IAF did not need to be an independent legal body. It should be a
subsidiary of the Aikikai Foundation and under the close control of the Aikikai
Foundation.

And this is the current dilemma the IAF faces. A large number of
countries have an organization that is recognized by the Aikikai Foundation.
Because of that recognition, they are recognized by their national government
as representing the sport of Aikido, with all the rights and obligations that
follow. One of the obligations is to be democratic and represent the
participants in the sport. The conflict of interest, however, is that the
Aikikai is concerned that independent strong organizations may stray from what
they perceive to be the legacy of O Sensei, the leading position of Doshu and
the control the Aikikai Foundation must have to protect that legacy and that
position.

This controversy will not go away. It is not new, it was never hidden
from the public by the previous board of the IAF. But as the IAF grows, the
implications of the controversy grow. This is the fundamental challenge for the
future of the IAF.

Two final remarks: while these observations are subjective, I have tried to be as objective as possible. And while the final conclusion may be considered sharp by some readers, it does not challenge the integrity of any person or body involved. It may well be that this actually is where Japanese culture is different from mine 🙂

3. The last 20 years

Being cast into the world of international sport fundamentally changed
the dynamics confronting Aikido organizations, Hombu, IAF and national
organizations alike. The dynamics can be described as one revelation after the
other leading to the need to adapt to new conditions.

When Doshu Kisshomaru Ueshiba was convinced that the Aikikai should
enter GAISF (now SportAccord), the IAF soon found out that it could join the
IWGA as well. This led to participation in the World Games. This forced the IAF
to find a compromise in participating in the competitive world of sport,
without succumbing to the pressure to introduce competition. But this forced
national organizations to start really and practically cooperate in the
organization of the World Games demonstrations of Aikido. If forced the members
to deal with far larger budgets than their annual contributions. It exposed
them to other challenges than doing Aikido had prepared them for.

But what also happened that for the first-time representatives of
organizations would come to meetings who were not direct students of Japanese
teachers on top of a national organization. In Britain Chiba Sensei had left;
in Sweden Ishimura Sensei was gone; in France Christian Tissier had separated
an organization from Tamura Sensei; in the Netherlands Tamura Sensei was no
longer in charge of the Aikido organization. Of course, several countries
remained where the old situation continued: Tada Sensei visited Italy, Ikeda Sensei was in Switzerland, Asai Sensei
still is in Germany, Kitaura Sensei was still in Spain. And new instructors
appeared on the playing field: Kanetsuka Sensei went to Britain, together with
Fujita Sensei he instructed in the Netherlands. Hosokawa Sensei and Fujimoto
Sensei were important instructors in Italy.

But because this new generation of representatives were younger
Aikidoka, were not accustomed to the strong impact the old Shihan had on their
students, and because they were representing their national organizations in
the European Aikido Federation as well, they became a new influence. They were
far more ‘democratic’ for lack of a better expression, simply because they were
not aware of the ‘Japanese’ way of working.

At the same time it is surprising to see that to this day ‘the Japanese
way’ is being presented to students in Aikido dojos around the world, even if
their source of knowledge of this Japanese culture is extremely limited.

One example of how this worked for me, was when we organized the World
Games in The Hague in 1993. As chairman of the NCAF, a very small organization,
I experienced first-hand how organizing the Aikido demonstrations worked out.
For instance, the IAF did not have budget to organize the event, but neither
did the NCAF. So, it was democratically decided that the IAF would cover any
losses. From an organizational perspective the event was a success. We worked
closely with Hombu and many other countries. Even a large delegation from
Taiwan came to participate. Okumura Sensei, Yasuno Sensei, Yokota Sensei and
Kobayashi Sensei all represented Hombu. From a commercial perspective it was a
failure. The Games in The Hague were a fiasco for the IWGA, and for the IAF. So,
there was a financial deficit. But at the next general assembly of the IAF an
issue arose unexpectedly. During the report on the event, we were all of a
sudden informed by the Japanese that it was a matter of honor that the NCAF
should cover the loss, and that it was unbecoming that the IAF would be charged
for the loss. As chairman of the NCAF I stood my ground and argued that I had
announced the risk, allowed the IAF to choose beforehand, and was not going to
make any concessions just on the grounds of a claim on Japanese culture. This
wasn’t the end of it. Even though I proposed a compromise in which the IAF
would not have to cover the debt in cash but it would be resolved by
installments on the membership fees or the NCAF in the coming years, at two or
three consecutive congresses the issue was raised time and again, with exactly
the same argument.

During that period of time I started to travel more for the NCAF and had
more opportunity to talk to representatives from different countries. I quickly
became apparent that in countries where there was a Japanese instructor the
attitude towards Japanese culture as an argument was much more favorable than
in countries without one, where the attitude was much more ‘democratic’.

But the world of sport changed continuously and the World Games in The
Hague soon were behind us and other developments became clear. The IWGA quickly
made it clear that the demonstration status of Aikido would not be continued
indefinitely. This led to tensions in the IAF. Some parties argued that any
discourse with IWGA was unacceptable. Without exception these would be Japanese
Shihan or seniors directly related to them. All others argued that competition
was out of the question, but that as a member of an organization an open debate
was the least one should allow. This conflict was again argued with a very
‘Japanese’ attitude: Aikido is Japanese, we do not allow any compromise on the
position O Sensei has taken, that Aikido has no competition. For those in the
position that they had to discuss the matter in the world of sport, it was an
embarrassing position. I consider it a demonstration of the loyalty of the
representatives at that time, that they managed to keep the IAF on board in
IWGA and GAISF, despite the attitude they were representing.

Luckily for the IAF, the world of sport evolved and the SportAccord
Combat Games were established. This led to a new opportunity for Aikido to
participate in the community of combat sports and martial arts. Instead of
being isolated and isolating itself, Aikido quickly became a respected and
strong partner within the SportAccord Combat Games community. Luckily for
Aikido, the chairman at the time, Hein Verbruggen, knew Aikido and appreciated
its position on not holding competition. Other martial arts like Kendo
supported the position of the IAF, or respected it (Kick-Boxing, Karate, Judo).
Others simply accepted the demonstrations as a fact. But to my surprise this
was not much appreciated by some of the Shihans. While none of the members of
the IAF objected, strong opposition came to both the name change (from
SportAccord Martial Arts Games to SportAccord Combat Games) as well as to the
mere participation because it would inevitably compromise ‘the spirit of
Aikido’. As Goldsbury argues in his essays, a claim on Japanese culture was the
main argument.

But as these events took place and were successful, the IAF became a
stronger organization. Also, through its activities it learned what was
relevant, and how the world of sport worked. It became a more interesting body
both for national organizations as well as for individual practitioners. I
believe it is this learning curve that opened up the third step for the IAF.

2. The early history of the IAF

Let us briefly summarize the development of the IAF. The spread of
Aikido outside Japan is generally considered to have started with a trip by O Sensei
to Hawaii. Of course, this wasn’t the first time that Aikido was practiced
outside of Japan, or why else would he have gone there? But this visit does
seem to have expedited the development of international structures and the IAF.
At the request of Doshu Kisshomaru Ueshiba the IAF was formed and joined GAISF.
Refer for the publications of Peter Goldsbury for details.

The IAF was established by organizations that knew the world or sport:
Budo- and Judo-organizations across Europe were important and strong founding
members. Yet within these organizations Aikido could still be seen as pyramids:
a Japanese instructor at the top, a few well-informed seniors below that, and a
larger number of students at the bottom. The level of development was
different. In countries where the Japanese teachers had connected to existing
organizations (Sweden, Spain, France, Britain for example) this led to other
dynamics than in countries where the instructors started to build by themselves
(for example, in the USA).

Because of these pioneer organizations, history was directly attached to
individuals. People like Yamaguchi Sensei, Chiba Sensei, Tamura Sensei or Guy
Bonnefond, Giorgio Veneri and Peter Bacas were known to everybody who was
involved in the international organization of Aikido. The essays Peter
Goldsbury has written about that time are informative of what happened, and who
were involved.

This pyramid structure isolated
students from background information. Students would know little or
nothing about Hombu, international organizations or the people involved in
organizing Aikido.

During this time, it became quite clear that the Japanese instructors
held a claim on what Aikido was and how it should be disseminated. They would
allow the national organizations and the IAF to do things as long as it suited
their opions, but anything outside of that would run into strong opposition.
Goldsbury’s essays articulate a hypothesis that this attitude or opposition
could be rooted in Japanese culture. Goldsbury
commented: “This ‘hypothesis’ is actually a statement made by Kisshomaru
Ueshiba in his book Aikido Ichiro. He
wanted to spread aikido – and also Japanese culture, to the victor countries in
World War II”.

But without argument I agree that there have been many occasions where
initiatives were simply stopped, and indeed the impression would be ‘O Sensei
is the founder of Aikido, Doshu is the leader of the way, we represent the
Aikikai: therefore if we disagree, it should not happen’. Whether this position
is rooted in Japanese culture or not, is not something I can comment on, but
the repetition of topics becoming issues and then ending this way does suggest
something structural. In the next chapter I will provide some examples of the
consequences of this attitude.

1. Introduction

It seems indisputable that the
development of the IAF occurred in successive stages (what an obvious
statement). It’s early days are probably obscure to the current practitioners
of Aikido, for the world of Aikido has changed so much that it’s almost
impossible to imagine what it was like. Only those with long experience of
Aikido will have a recollection of that period. In fact, this founding of the
IAF would have to be considered rooted in the time when Aikido was introduced
outside of Japan, followed by the early formation of the IAF. However, not only
has the context gone, but the information itself and the recollection of people
who were active in this period is disappearing quickly. The former IAF chairman,
Peter Goldsbury, is one of the few people remaining who can shed some light on
those early years.

In the period that followed this first stage, the IAF was flung into the
community of international sport organizations. Understanding why this
happened, what actually transpired, and how the Aikido community responded to
it, can be seen as the second stage in the functioning of the IAF.
Understanding how the Aikido-world functioned then is not just historically
interesting, but it holds relevant information for how the IAF functions now.

We can easily argue that the IAF has now entered the third stage in its
development. This holds promise for positive developments in the future, but
there is reason for concern as well.

My personal history in the IAF is firmly rooted in the second stage of
the development of the IAF. In 2016, I realized very well that the IAF at this
time was on the threshold of change, and I would have enjoyed to be part of this
change, as I had been instrumental in some of the developments leading up to it.
But my experience is mainly relevant because I was there during this second
stage. Otherwise, this was a stage in which the IAF initially was in the
background and few people were there all through the process. Over time this
changed, particularly because of the participation of the IAF in the World
Games and the Sport Accord Combat Games.

The trigger for writing these articles (I will publish 3 or 4) was an
essay Peter Goldsbury is working on. He allowed me to read a draft, and I
realized that I am just as much a keeper of such personal history as he is. His
essay, which every Aikido official should read, is highly informative about
what happened, who were involved, and which issues became apparent because of
the process.

My articles can be read with or without that knowledge. But a whole range
of my assumptions about the situation in the mid-eighties are based on his
recollection of that history. Reading his essay, I realized that – details
aside – I am fully informed of his summary of this history, and I support his
conclusions to a great extent.

But if you make the effort to continue reading, all that this implies
will become clear.

Have fun reading.

Associations are the necessary legal structure for dojos in many European countries. While I have no scientific data to back up this claim, I do have a wealth of experience to do so. This fundamentally has to do with the fact that sport is promoted by governments and they support democratic organizations. For instance, in the Netherlands to be affiliated with the Dutch government you must be affiliated with the National Sport Federation. This requires your organization to be a democratic association.
And as governments tend to copy one another, one can predict something similar is taking place in many European countries.
But also the IAF requires its members to be democratic. It does not specify at which level, but the applying organization does need to be democratic.

In Aikido associations are not the most probable organizational structure. A dojo is primarily conceived as a place to train, led by a senior instructor, who determines how things shoudl be run. This highly authoritarian approach is much closer to organizations such as a private business, where there is an owner, there are customers, and in an economic sense there is profit. My impression is that for instance in North America this is the preferred model.

In Japan it’s probably not a legal or economic consideration, as much as a cultural custom. However, the problem for all organizations outside of Japan is that we try to understand and copy Japanese custom without properly studying it (present author included by the way).

I would like to rephrase this as follows. We’re copying Japanese culture although we don’t really know what we’re copying and why it exists in that manner. We are forced into a legal choice by our culture, government and laws. These approaches have conflicting consequences. The following blogs will deal with issues that follow from this conflict.

Grading in Aikido is an interesting topic. While we train to develop our own personality and train without competition, it’s surprising to see how important grading is to most Aikidoka. In fact, it’s sometimes shocking to see how individuals ‘abuse’ the loopholes in regulations to get forward as soon as possible. This leads to regulations becoming more strict, it leads to tensions and irritations. But it also seems to lead the discussion about grading in the wrong direction. This article offers some considerations at another level.

1. Grading is important to focus students

If I have noticed anything myself as student and as teacher, it is that gradings focus students on improving at a technical level. Practitioners all know how simple the instruction about techniques is, and how complex it is to execute techniques in the manner presented. During regular training students appear to be more focused on finding any way to more or less make a technique work. Once they have worked something out, they repeat that despite feedback from seniors or instructors. But when they are preparing for gradings, they somehow seem more motivated to apply what they know to what they do. They pay attention more to detail and this helps to improve their Aikido.

2. This focus helps in the continuation of Aikido

We are all well aware of the fact that O’Sensei was ‘something else’. But Aikido as we know it today is disseminated by the Aikikai, Doshu and it’s Shihan. It’s disseminated by instructors throughout the world, trying to pass on what they understand of the techniques. But it’s only because at some point in their development students have actually tried to learn all the technical aspects of techniques that it becomes possible for them to be instructors of those aspects. So the study and focus mentioned under point 1 is necessary to allow the continuation of Aikido instruction.

3. Gradings help students to envision what is expected from them

It has been delegated to recognized organizations to come up with a teaching and grading system. This is expected to follow the guidelines of the Aikikai, but that doesn’t mean Hombu gives strict guidelines. In fact it’s quite the contrary: there is a lot of freedom allowed by Hombu.
But that leads to the challenge of developing such a system. In the early years this was done by the instructors that were students of O’Sensei or the first Doshu. But this has moved more and more into the hands of national organizations, and the senior instructors in those organizations. This has made it a subjective matter, determined by the people who are the seniors at that point in time, and their level of knowledge and skill. Gradings allow the organization to demonstrate what students are expected to know at each level, and therefore allow students to see what they are striving towards.

4. Gradings help the dojo to remain structured

In very few cultures seniority is the structuring principle. In fact, in most countries either grades or skill will structure a group more easily. So, holding regular gradings allows the dojo to keep seniority, skill and grading aligned, thus practically managing this issue.

5. Grading is good for character building

Most dojos practice Aikido for harmony and personal development, not for combat or conflict. But many people ask the question what elements of combat remain in Aikido. One of the things many instructors will agree on, is that any training for combat also has to do with learning to manage your emotions. In fact grading is one of the few stressors that are available in training. It allows instructors to help students cope with anxiety, uncertainty, the risk of failing, etc.

6. Overcoming these emotions is a good example for others

We virtually all live in societies where success and failure are are important issues. Students struggle with these concepts when preparing for and taking gradings. To see others struggle and overcome that stress, is good example for younger students learning to deal with this as well.

7. Grading forces instructors to consider their efforts

It’s quite easy for an instructor in a dojo to become complacent about what he is doing. In fact many instructors want the right to give grades as recognition of their skill and reassurance that they are good Aikidoka. But presenting your students to other instructors is an excellent challenge of your skills as a teacher, not of your personal technical level. By holding gradings and presenting students to each other instructors are forced to look more realistically at their own performance as teachers.

8. Gradings force organizations to look outside

When dojos start, it takes time to reach the level where you have candidates to take dan-tests. Years pass before you reach that point. Those years are often focused inwards, towards developing the dojo and the students. Gradings force the dojo to focus on the outside world as well.

9. Gradings force instructors to deal with individual students

Because they all have a different attitude towards grading, instructors have to deal with students individually when it comes to gradings. You can’t simply apply one strategy to each of them. This is already the case when teaching, but even more so when it comes to gradings.

I look forward to receiving your feedback on how you think about this issue.

Chapter 33

In a chain of events the board of Dutch Aikido without consulting its members has decided to terminate my membership and to force the organization I am member of to terminate my membership as well. All of this is based on the claims that my blog is slanderous and damaging to the federation. In consequence this would remove me from every formal relationship to Aikido without any due process.

While it is challenging to respond to this extreme measure with equal aggression, I have consulted many friends on the matter. Much to my surprise there are many who feel that despite the chain of events I should consider removing the parts that are upsetting for Dutch Aikido. Many believe this will entice Dutch Aikido to revoke their decision.

This in fact creates a moral challenge for me. While I am convinced that everything I have written is true, and I stand by each letter, I find it difficult to retract any part of it. At the same time, if I can find no way to take a step
back in a conflict, the saying would apply: if you’re not part of the solution,
you are part of the problem.

As a consequence I have asked myself what arguments I can find to remove parts of the blog, and I have come to the following conclusions:

– While my complaint is that I have not received fair hearing by Dutch Aikido, in some sense the same applies to my accusations. No matter what my view on their actions is, the blog is not a platform where they have the opportunity to present their case. The fact that they have responded with a lawyer and termination of my membership may be unreasonable measures, but that does not change the fact a blog is not a form of fair hearing.
– In a conflict where there is no way out, one party will have to make the gesture of taking a step back. Perhaps this could be perceived as conceding to (further) intimidation but not doing anything will be perceived as unwillingness to compromise anyway. Therefore it seems better to make a positive gesture and accept the consequences of that choice.

Therefore, in the following days I will be removing parts of my blog, with the goal of creating an opportunity for parties involved to reconsider their choices. Feel free to let me know what you think of that choice.

On the 30th of November Dutch Aikikai informed me that my membership will be cancelled, based on a decision by the board of the organization. As grounds for this decision an unspecified claim was made that this blog had damaged the reputation of the organization and had caused other damages. These posts are no longer removed as a gesture of good will towards ABN. I am considering what should be my next steps.

On the 30th of November Dutch Aikikai informed me that my membership will be cancelled, based on a decision by the board of the organization. As grounds for this decision an unspecified claim was made that this blog had damaged the reputation of the organization and had caused other damages. These posts are no longer removed as a gesture of good will towards ABN. I am considering what should be my next steps.

On the 30th of November Dutch Aikikai informed me that my membership will be cancelled, based on a decision by the board of the organization. As grounds for this decision an unspecified claim was made that this blog had damaged the reputation of the organization and had caused other damages. These posts are no longer removed as a gesture of good will towards ABN. I am considering what should be my next steps.

Chapter 29

A few
decades ago I was chairman of Dutch Aikikai. One day a student told me that an
instructor had threatened to hit a female student. Knowing a little about the
dynamics of their relationship I wasn’t necessarily surprised, but of course
it’s not acceptable. A few months later I heard that she had gone to the police
to press charges.

At the time
I was working as a consultant on communication with victims, and one of the
things that were considered important at the time is that a victim of abuse
should get every support when making her complaint. The reasoning behind that
blunt choice isn’t too difficult to explain: if the complaint is justified the
weaker victim should not feel threatened in any way to make a complaint. On the
other hand, victims often fear public criticism and to avoid further emotional
turmoil simply don’t report such incidents.

On the
other hand, any report should lead to thorough research. This may result in
three types of outcome: the complains was justified; the complaint was not
justified; or the outcome is unclear. None of these outcome give reason not to
support the victim when making the complaint. If it’s justified, there is no
problem anyway; if it’s not justified
nothing has been lost; if the outcome is unclear the organization can do
nothing and the support in the beginning may be the only support the victim can
take away from the ordeal.

I was caught
by surprise when she walked up to me at a seminar and asked my opinion on the
matter. But she mainly wanted to know what I thought about her pressing
charges. While I was giving her a reply in line with the line of reasoning
above, she responded positively. She confirmed that she was afraid of the
negative response of others.

But I was
caught even more off guard by what happened next. A instructor walked up,
interfered in the conversation and stated she should never have gone to the
police. It was an internal matter that we should have resolved internally.

As I said,
I was caught off guard. I had no reply other than repeating my personal
opinion. Our association did not have a procedure for such complaints, and the
position that we would resolve the matter internally, was a complete fallacy.
As an individual I knew what was right and wrong, but as a chairman I had no
guidelines whatsoever.

Now, it’s
not my nature to leave such things lying. So I set out to find out what other
instructors thought about the matter and I came to a disturbing conclusion. The
large majority had one of the following opinions: I don’t want to think about
it; the hierarchy of Aikido prohibits a student going against his teacher; it
doesn’t happen that often so why make a point of it. And as statistics go,
after some odd 30 years I have to agree with the latter fact: it doesn’t appear
to happen that often, with the stress on appear. But frequency isn’t a valid
justification. I have heard of instructors intentionally injuring students, I
have heard of instructors setting up their students to hurt other students. I
have heard of senior instructors forcing other instructors to expel students. Looking
back I have heard of far too many incidents and literally none of them have
been addressed by the organization*.

Over the course of time, too many incidents were brought to
my attention: instructors making out with students, instructors going through
one relationship with students after another, complaints even to the board of
the IAF about violence, sexual harrassment, physical abuse. But the board of
the IAF struggled with these questions just as much. But there was one additional argument: the IAF could not
get involved in the internal affairs of a national federation.

Being on
the short end of the stick myself, filing a complaint about abuse of power,
manipulation, conflict of interest, providing false information and
intimidation, I now find myself in the same position: the people who are in the
position that they need to do something take the side of the official the
complaint is against; the people that have the power to do something (the
representatives of the member organizations) don’t want to be involved; senior
Aikido instructors have actually expressed that I should just conform to the
situation.

The
fundamental nature of a complaints procedure is that you do not know in advance
what the complaint will be and what the context will be. You do however know
that virtually always that procedure is the only straw a weaker party can hold
on to against a stronger party. In Aikido we fundamentally make seniors
stronger than juniors, teachers stronger than students. So, the only thing we
have to offer as protection is that procedure. If we fail to provide that protection,
to my opinion, we fail our students and ultimately ourselves.

If your
organization has such a procedure and follows it, take this chapter as a
compliment. If your organization does not have it, it’s advise: you need it. If
your organization has it but doesn’t use it this chapter is an accusation: you
have failed a moral code that should be self evident.

The next
chapter will give some considerations on what such a procedure must consider.

* I trust
there are examples of complaints handled well, but none of the examples I have
heard of were ever acted upon.

On the 30th of November Dutch Aikikai informed me that my membership will be cancelled, based on a decision by the board of the organization. As grounds for this decision an unspecified claim was made that this blog had damaged the reputation of the organization and had caused other damages. These posts are no longer removed as a gesture of good will towards ABN. I am considering what should be my next steps.

On the 30th of November Dutch Aikikai informed me that my membership will be cancelled, based on a decision by the board of the organization. As grounds for this decision an unspecified claim was made that this blog had damaged the reputation of the organization and had caused other damages. These posts are no longer removed as a gesture of good will towards ABN. I am considering what should be my next steps.

Chapter 26

In 2012 the NAF voted that any candidate from
the Netherlands would need the explicit permission from the NAF to stand as
candidate for the board of the IAF.

In itself this would not seem a disconcerting
decision. However, in 2014 it became clear that this decision had a background
which the members probably did not foresee.
In this year the chairman of the NAF, also
member of the DC of the IAF, went to the chairman of the IAF, and stated that
if I would stand as candidate for a position in the IAF I would be expelled as
member of the IAF.

The underlying decision by the NAF was
consequently placed on the agenda of the DC of the IAF in September 2014. It
was dismissed by the DC as having no relevance for the IAF. The statutes of the
IAF allow any member federation to present any natural person as candidate for
a position, and it could not be such that a single member could limit the
rights of any other member federation to appoint a candidate of their choice. A
letter clearly stating this was sent by the chairman of the IAF to the NAF. It
was never presented to the members of the NAF.

At the time I believed this would be the end of
it, but in August 2016 Mr Vriesman circulated the following mail to some of the
members of the IAF (quote in bold):

As a collegae member
federation of the NAF , I inform you that the NAF being a democratic platform
towards the IAF had an binding election for all the members of the NAF, to
decide which members of the NAF are allowed to be elected or re-elected as DC member
of the IAF.

The result of this
election is that only one member is allowed to be (re) elected….. having the
support of the NAF and so..will be the only one nominated by the NAF.

The elected person
is the current chairman of the NAF.

Best Regards

Wilko Vriesman

Chairman
NAF

This mail leads to a number of inevitable conclusions:
1. the chairman of the NAF brought himself in a
position where he disregarded a letter from the IAF stating that the NAF
decision could not apply to IAF members.
2. this demonstrated both a conflict of
interest, as well as willfully misleading of IAF members.

This was stated in a letter from the chairman of
the IAF to the chairman of the NAF.

After some research it also became clear that
this letter had been signed as chairman of the NAF but had not been discussed
with the members of the NAF in any way. This email must be taken as selfserving
abuse of his position as chairman of the NAF to further his personal interests.

When I received this information, I filed a
complaint with Dutch Aikikai. As I wrote in the previous post, since Mr
Vriesman is chairman of the NAF, it seemed senseless to object with the
virtually non-existent NAF. As it was further clear that AN had statutory
articles forcing the members of the Aikikai section to adhere to the
regulations and decisions of the IAF, it seemed reasonable to file the
complaint with the organization which statutes were available and made such
strong statements.

The (lack of) response was disconcerting. In
first instance the chairman of AN did not reply at all. After repeated
checking, he replied he had received the complaint and that it would be
discussed at the next board meeting. He did not mention when this would take
place.

Only after the IAF elections had taken place, did
I contact the chairman of AN about the status of my complaint. He informed me
that the board of AN had discussed the complaint, had decided nothing irregular
had taken place in the elections of a candidate and that they had dropped the
matter.

To my mind this demonstrates lack of respect for
a member who has a complaint, and bad management of a complaint:
– it would have been only decent to inform me of
the outcome of the process, but that was apparently not deemed necessary.
– it also shows bad management that the person
against who the complaint is raised, can simply state that nothing is wrong,
and this is the end of the research into complaint that included accusations of
infringement on the freedom of association, abuse of power and intimidation.
– it shows lack of management skills that the
reply did not address any of the actual complaints made, but focused on
something explicitly mentioned as not being part of the complaint.

When I raised these issues, a repetition of
positions took place. As a consequence I contacted the chairman of the NSF
(Dutch Sport Council) who replied that in such a case the general assembly of
the organization should be contacted as the ruling body.

I therefore sent my complaint again, only to
receive the same reply, now drafted by a lawyer:
– in fact it’s not a matter for AN, it’s a
matter of the NAF
– the election of a candidate in the NAF took
place democratically
– you lost the election in the IAF, so what do
you complain about

In the meantime I had however also contacted the
members of Dutch Aikikai individually, since I had little confidence in the
functioning of the board of the NAF and AN. This led to further disappointment:
– one member replied that he understood the
complaint but considered it an Aikikai matter and did not want to be involved
– one member replied he did not want to get
involved
– one member sent a confirmation of receiving
the complaint, and I heard nothing since

I was not surprised by such developments at all.
When I met Mr Vriesman in December 2016 he told me ‘the ranks were closing
against me’. That may all well be, but since we are served by these
representatives and believe we can trust them, also when situations get
complicated, I see no other option than to allow everybody to know how they are
represented.

Chapter 25

Dutch Aikikai has a complicated history, as described earlier. When the BBN was split up into Karate, Taekwondo, Judo and a Federation for Eastern Martial Arts (FOG), the NCAF was founded. This federation became member of the FOG (national level) and the IAF (international level).

But as time passed and political interventions changed the landscape, the NCAF changed its name and became the NAF. A new umbrella organization was formed and this is called AN.

The question now is: what is the relationship between the NAF, AN and the IAF.

To start off with, my hypothesis is that the remaining construction has lost its validity, and is exposed by recent incidents.

When the concept of an umbrella organization was being developed, there was a need to resolve two issues:

– the government would only accept an umbrella organization if it would be host to all forms of Aikido.

– Hombu would only accept an organization that does Aikikai Aikido.

– the IAF has a condition for new members that they must have Hombu recognition.

To resolve this conflict of interest, the following construction was established:

– AN is open to all Aikido in the Netherlands.

– the NAF continues as the organization for all Aikikai Aikido in the Netherlands.

– the NAF becomes institutional member of AN, which implies that Aikikai members of AN are also members of the NAF or vice versa.

However, over the course of time several developments took place:

– as AN became more successful the activities the NAF used to do, where transferred to AN. As a consequence the NAF does very little, other than represent the Aikikai groups in the IAF.

– AN established statutes which describe obligations for the Aikikai members: these statutes clearly state that the Aikikai member of AN must adhere to the regulations of the IAF.

– the NAF reduced its online presence to a single page that predates the formation of AN. It is clear that the NAF web-site is non-existant (www.n-a-f.nl)

– as a consequence there is no information on the NAF available on-line: no contact information, no activities, no statutes.

– on the web-site of the IAF the information on the NAF links to AN, not the NAF, and it links to the gmail account of its chairman, not an NAF account. This further demonstrates that the NAF is in fact no longer a truely functioning organization (http://www.aikido-international.org/membership-advice/hotspot#52.2114235/17.1144519/4/hotspot/2)

– the NAF has no direct income from members. Funding of activities goes through AN. To my knowledge there is no separate approved budget or financial report presented to the members of the NAF.

There is however a strong concentration of power surrounding the chairman of the NAF. For he is also the technical director of the DAF, the general secretary of AN and now the general secretary of the IAF.

So, for all practical purposes the NAF does nothing else than represent the Aikikai members of AN in the IAF. It has no other activities and exists only to circumvent the fact that the actual functioning organization is AN, which is not only Aikikai, does not have Hombu recognition and therefore could not become member of the IAF.