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.