Aikido - the organizational context

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.

Chapter 24

In the previous post I’ve described the Tornado Festival in Russia. It is a good example of how the preparations for the Combat Games can take place. The following describes why – to my mind – the format is so suitable.

Some background information on the SportAccord
Combat Games

I will make
a short trip into history: in 2005 SportAccord came up with the idea of the
Martial Arts and Combat Games. Aikido was just struggling with losing its
position as demonstration sport in the World Games. So, when the possibility of
participating in a new platform was presented, we jumped at the occasion. The
format of the event was to present the 80 best athletes from each sport or
martial art. Each participant was asked to come up with a transparent procedure
to prove that the best athletes were sent. Another part of the format was that
there would be three days of competition for each of the sports. Which poses a
challenge for Aikido, because we do not have competition and we did not have a
format that would fill three days. Thinking of these challenges my idea was to
develop a program that would be meaningful to the other sports and to the
public. In Aikido the custom was to have each country do a demonstration, and
generally speaking the senior instructors would demonstrate. In many occasion
that would lead to a program where each country did more or less the same thing
for 5 minutes and the average age would be between 40 and 60, sometimes even
higher. That format would not hold up in this new environment. So we developed
a format in which the demonstrations would not be per country, the program
would not be random but match the progress in the level of participants, for
instance by having the first demonstration with 80 people doing basic
techniques, the second demonstration being 40 people doing advanced techniques,
the third with 20 people doing very advanced techniques such as weapons and
multiple attackers. During these demonstrations the comments by a moderator
would tell the story behind the program: we all practice together, but who
practices longer will have more experience and skill. The demonstrations would
then be topped off with a demonstration by a few senior shihan, showing how Aikido
can be done effectively until a very high age.

This format
left only one question unanswered: how do we prove that we have sent the 80
best athletes in the world, but without competition. This where the concept of
regional teams came into place: each region would organize a seminar where the
countries would send their representatives. During the seminar they would
demonstrate, and experts would select who were the best representatives at that
point in time. These 20 people would be part of the 80 to start in the
demonstrations in the Martial Arts and Combat Sports Games. During the event a
similar procedure would be followed, for instance: in the first demonstrations
the 80 athletes are randomly paired, and after the first day they decide themselves
who will continue as tori and who as uke in the second demonstration. In the
second demonstrations experts could determine who were invited to do the most
advanced techniques in the final demonstration. In this was we would have
neared the format that competitive sports follow, without entering into
qualification, winning, etc.

The Russian
Federation was the first and only to take up this format, and with success. In
the period before the Combat Games they worked as a strong team and created an
excellent demonstration. Today this format is still used.

When you
practice Aikido you are part of a community that is far more complex than you
would expect when you start to practice.

I’m curious
how people see the relationship between the constituting bodies in that
environment.
For this purpose I have listed the most important bodies that I can think of at
this moment, and I would like to find out what you think.

You don’t
need to answer all the questions, just the ones where you believe you have an
idea or an opinion.

1. What do you see as the role of Hombu?

2. What do you see as the role of Doshu?

3. What do you see as the role of your Dojo?

4. What do you see as the role of your
instructor?

5. What do you see as the role of
cooperating dojos?

6. What do you see as the role of a
national organization?

7. What do you see as the role of an
international organization?

8. What do you see as your role as
individual practitioner?

9. What do you see as the role of your
national government in regard to Aikido?

10. What do you see as the role of an organization
such as SportAccord or IOC in regard to Aikido?

You can
either reply, or copy the questions and mail the answers to questions@aikikai.nu

Chapter 21

This chapter was difficult to publish. The reason is that it involved criticizing the organizations which I belong(ed) to, and forces people who trust others to represent them to rethink that positions.

It is also difficult because I am personally involved, and this creates the inevitable risk that my view is tainted (even more than usual).

However, the chain of events is such that I believe that if this experience is not shared, the Aikido community will not learn from it and therefore the experience will be wasted.

In the most general terms the issue at hand is the following: I have filed a complaint with Dutch Aikikai (AN and NAF) about several connected issues: conflict of interest, intimidation, the infringement of my freedom of association.

Unfortunately, the people accused are the people that run these organizations. Therefore the conflict of interest.

Moreover, I have published this article because if the way my complaint has been handled: the people involved, discussed the wrong part of the complaints, agreed amongst themselves that they felt they had done nothing wrong, and decided nothing needed to be done.

Now, take the following example. If a female student complained that she had been sexually harassed by her teacher, it would not take a genius to realize that research can not be that the teacher decides what the complaint was, what has happened and then can dismiss the claim on the grounds that he has done nothing wrong.

In essence any good governance concerning complaints involves a clear and objective procedure which protects the less powerful person against the more powerful person. Good governance in general implies trying to avoid a situation where such a conflict of interest could be perceived.

In any case, due process would involve:

– Acknowledging reception of the complaint;

– Ascertaining that there is an objective procedure;

– Informing the person complaining of the procedure that will be followed and of the timeline involved;

– Appointing a group of objective people to form an objective body that researches the situation;

– A report from that body to both the person complaining as well as the persons accused;

– A ruling by the general assembly of the outcome, since this is the only body that stands above the board of an association

In my case I am not a female who was sexually intimidated. I am an active Aikidoka, who wants to contribute to the international Aikido community, and has tried to do so for almost 30 years. I have tried to be as open and democratic as possible, and step by step I believe that all of my actions meet democratic standards*. Therefore, I object to the way I was treated, but that objection has been stonewalled by the people that I have complained to, since they are the people about whom I have complained.

So, what has happened? I have been assistant general secretary of the IAF for some 20 years. In 2015 the general secretary indicated that he would definitely resign. As I was contacted by two countries whether I would stand as general secretary, I agreed to do so.

However, issues started well before that. Another Dutch Aikidoka had the ambition to stand for that position, and that should not have been an issue in any way. However, already in 2012, this individual was in a position to manipulate the process. He placed on the agenda of Dutch Aikido a proposal that the candidate from the Netherlands should be elected by Dutch Aikido. In itself this does not seem anything one would object against.

However, the intended consequence of this decision became apparent in the summer of 2014, when this individual had an informal meeting with the chairman of the IAF and informed him that I would be expelled from Dutch Aikido if I stood as candidate for a position in the IAF**.

This decision was discussed in the Directing Committee of the IAF, and the following conclusions were drawn:

– The IAF cannot object to any decision made by a member federation;

– The IAF cannot object to any member of the IAF proposing any active Aikidoka to stand for any function in the IAF;

– The IAF can certainly not give the power to one country to veto the choice of another country;

– Therefore, the decision of Dutch Aikido could neither be discussed by the IAF, nor could the IAF impose any consequences to that decision

In the DC we expected this would have resolved the matter, but it did not. And here the next issues arose.

As the mentioned individual was also member of the DC one would expect him to be bound by the statutes and rulings of the IAF. This appeared not to be the case. The ruling of the IAF was not communicated to the members of Dutch Aikido.

In fact, in 2016 the issues of electing a representative for the elections was placed on the agenda of Dutch Aikido again. No mention was made of the ruling of the IAF, but the individual involved did stand as candidate, demonstrating that the conflict of interest continued.

Now, within Dutch Aikido I did not close my eyes to what was happening. I had heard that one of the objections to my candidacy was that I did not have the support of Dutch Aikido and therefore was unacceptable as a candidate. So, I tried to show my good will towards Dutch Aikido by asking for their support to stand as a candidate. In that discussion two representatives proposed to approve both candidates. However, the meeting was immediately adjourned, the individual mentioned took his representative outside, and after the adjournment the proposal was taken off the table***.

Now, this would not have been Dutch Aikido’s finest hour, but the elections would take place at the IAF, and democracy would run its course: IAF members would choose who they wanted in office. It turned out not to be that simple.

In the weeks before the elections the individual accused decided to send an email to some members of the IAF, stating that he was the only candidate from the Netherlands allowed to stand as candidate. This can be explained in no other way than to create the false impression that my own candidacy was illegitimate****.

By this time my willingness to accept the manipulations had gone down to zero. However, I was talked to by several seniors in Aikido who raised the following point: “Even if you have a valid point, if you get into a conflict now you will damage the good reputation of the IAF and its elections, so please refrain from standing up for yourself”. As these were both my seniors and people I respect, and to some extent I share that vision, I sucked up my emotions and went to Japan with composure.

Then it became apparent that the playing field had been completely changed. The general secretary who had claimed he would resign, was now a candidate for chairman. The chairman whom I wanted to support had decided to stand down as a candidate. The new chairman had already composed a team of people with who he would work and presented a flyer with their names on it*****.

While it may not be nice to lose elections, it remains the right of the members to choose who they want, without having to justify their choice. So, I would have conceded gracefully, were it not for the final indignities.

It was reported to me that the elected general secretary was still making the public threat that I would be expelled from Dutch Aikido for having stood as candidate. When I returned home, I was informed that the elected general secretary has sent a question to the association I am member of asking them to justify how they had allowed me to stand as candidate.

So, I wrote a complaint. Which will be the issue in the next related chapter.

* I don’t object that others may see that differently, but a ruling on any such conflict of opinion would demand fair research.

** To my mind this constitutes the first demonstration of a conflict of interest (placing an issue on the agenda of Dutch Aikido with the intention of obstructing others to stand for a position in another association, when you aspire to fulfill that position yourself), and of intimidation (if you stand, I will get you expelled)

*** While perhaps technical to some, this is an infringement of civil rights: the freedom of initiative – to be able to make a proposal without being talked to, told off or forced by others to withdraw the proposal. This further constitutes intimidation (forcing another to take certain action against his free will). It further demonstrates conflict of interest (while the chairman had relinquished his chair to create a more objective discussion about his candidacy, he intervened in the procedure on exactly that issue, that it was not favorable to his chances of being elected)

**** While he was fully aware of the fact the IAF had negated that claim, this demonstrates both bad intent as well as further conflict of interest.

***** While this is in no way against the rules, the elections cannot be considered fair, if the conditions are changed in the days before the election.

Chapter 21

As
described in chapter … the IAF was established as a cooperation between Doshu
Kisshomaru Ueshiba, the Aikikai Foundation and active Aikidoka from different
countries in the world. While we are decades away from what happened at that
time exactly, I feel it is reasonable to presume that they were all entering
new territory, in the sense that they could not foresee the consequences of
their actions. I think it is also a fair assumption that the people involved
would have looked at the consequences in terms of their own cultural background*.

While these
actions took place in the late seventies and early eighties of the previous
century, finding information, communicating, meeting, organizing, etc. were not
nearly as easy as they are today. If you want to know about the law in a
foreign country today, you google. If you had to do that at that time, you
would struggle to get into the university library to find a translated book of
law. If you wanted to consult a knowledgeable lawyer, you would have to search
with great pain, you could not google. If you wanted to meet, you had to go
through lengthy processed of organizing, you couldn’t hold an on-line meeting
or mail the optional dates. If you wanted to organize the meeting you had to
prepare over long periods of time, because every step in the preparation would
go by mail. Even fax was a new thing at the time.

Why is that
relevant, because it challenges our frame of reference what could be expected
from volunteers at the time. But at the same time, it justifies assumptions
about what was actually agreed on and how that worked out.

It seems reasonable
to state three decisions were taken:
– Join
the International World Games Association
– Establish
an International Aikido Federation
– Establish
Continental Aikido Federations

One of the
consequences that nobody could foretell was that joining IWGA did not just mean
giving Aikido in international platform, but also would imply meeting the
standards of the international world of sport. Over time I was led to believe
that joining the IWGA was not initially intended to allow Aikido to participate
in the World Games, but simply to give Aikido international recognition. It
wasn’t anticipated that this would imply participation in the World Games,
which would make Aikido a demonstration sport. It certainly wasn’t anticipated that
this in turn would lead to Aikido being expelled from the World Games for not
having competition. It simply wasn’t foreseen that this simple step of joining
IWGA would open ‘a can of wurms’.

An other
thing that certainly was not foreseen was the dynamics of national federations
that was triggered. Until that point in time national organizations existed,
but Aikido was in its infancy. In very few countries did Aikido exist as an
independent sport with an independent organization with national recognition.
When I got involved the big Aikido countries were:
– France:
FFAAA – French Federation for Aikido, Aikibudo and Affiliated Associations
– Italy:
Association of Traditional Japanese Culture
– Germany:
Professional Association for Aikido
– Sweden:
Swedish Budo Association
– Netherlands:
Budo Bond Netherlands

With no
disrespect to the other countries that were there, the plate was very diffuse:
in several countries different martial arts were in an association together, in
other countries the organization was cultural, in other countries the
organization was professional. There was no clear picture what a national
Aikido organization was supposed to be.

There were
however two things that were clear:
– They
were all connected to Hombu
– They
were all in a democratic organization called the IAF

All across
Europe (as I am describing the experience I have personally) the volunteers
organizing Aikido were trying to work out how to run their organizations and
cooperate, amongst themselves and with Hombu. And it soon became clear that
this discussion could be summarized as a struggle to match the vertical and the
horizontal.

The
vertical implied the teaching relationship in the dojo, the relationship
between instructors and their Japanese teacher, the relationship of the
Japanese teachers and Doshu. The horizontal represented the cooperation between
dojo’s, the cooperation with other countries, the cooperation within the EAF
and IAF.

But as is
predictable when trying to reconcile the horizontal and the vertical, there
were many domains where there were irreconcilable tensions. For instance:

–
In
many dojo’s the legal form was that of an association, but by example the
instructor would lead as the man in charge;

–
In
many national organizations the legal form as association, but out of respect
for or force exerted by the Japanese instructor, decision making would be democratic
only as long as the Japanese instructor allowed it;

–
In
the IAF decision making would be democratic until senior instructors in Hombu would
raise concern, after which the democratic process would slowly grind to a halt
and need to be restarted.

In many
countries people worked hard to find ways to reconcile both worlds. Some
examples worked better, some did worse. But in all fairness, this struggle wasn’t
foreseen by the people who started the process.

Today I can
describe it more easily. At the time there was no such frame of reference to
understand what was going on. When I was asked to join the board of Dutch
Aikido my instructor was general secretary of an association for Aikido and
when I got to work I bought a book on the law on association. This seemed
justified, even in the realm of cooperation with Hombu and its vertical
structure, because the International Regulations from Hombu stated that the
organization was responsible for running its business according to the laws of
its country.

Luckily the
laws on association appeared to be both quite common sense, and they are quite
similar all around Europe. So, when talking about problems, people organizing
could share experiences and benefit from each other**. So, we developed solutions and work-arounds for
the clash between horizontal and vertical.

For
instance: proposals would first be discussed with the Japanese instructors
before being presented to the general assembly: if you couldn’t get their approval, you just didn’t
bring it to the general assembly. However, over time this appeared to be rather
undemocratic. It implied self-censorship.

At the level
of the European Federation this however did not apply: there was no European
Japanese instructor to censor the process. So, this level of organization
became the crack in the structure. Here representatives would make highly
democratic decisions, and representatives would go back to their national
organizations, and deal with the tension within their own boundaries***.

For the IAF
this was different. The IAF was organized very close to Hombu. From our
European perspective this had practical reasons:
– There
was a language barrier: we didn’t speak Japanese, Hombu didn’t speak good
English.
– There
was no IAF infrastructure: the IAF was small, had nowhere near sufficient budget.
Hombu volunteered to do the office work, and very diligently at that.
– The
IAF didn’t need to be big: activities were limited and the main effort was IAF
meetings and the World Games. The former was organized by Hombu, the latter by
the hosting country.

So for
those few things that needed to be done, it was always in close cooperation
with Hombu. However, here the first cracks in the democratic functioning of the
IAF became clear. For one thing, any new challenge to the IAF was taken up with
Hombu and Doshu for advice (and rightfully so). But through this it soon became
apparent that Doshu would generally refrain from taking a standpoint, and that any
such standpoint would usually come from representatives of Hombu (and in
particular the senior instructors). Since the topics we were involved in weren’t
that consequential, this was noticed rather than addressed as an issue.

However, as
time moved forward and all the organizations involved became more mature,
things started to change. And that will be the topic of the next chapter.

* I will
address that cultural background in a later post

** Over
time I have come to the conclusion that for instance in the USA there is little
understanding for European laws on association. On the other hand, reading a
translation of Japanese Law on association indicates that there are great
similarities.

*** I
believe this is the main reason why there was such a strong call from within
countries for the IAF not to interfere in any way in their countries.

Chapter 20

There are a wide range of reasons why one
organization would (need to) separate from an other organization. In Aikido
there are however multiple reasons why one should not separate. Then again,
from one perspective a separation may seem bad, from another it may not. This
chapter will try to present some of the cases that took place in the
Netherlands*.

As I have stated, I have been involved in the
organization of Aikido in the Netherlands since 1988. In the years before I
started Aikido (1985) a separation took place. Aikido-instructors left the organization they were in (the
Judo Federation) because they wanted to form an independent Aikido federation.

When I found out this had happened, I challenged
the need for this separation. The people that had organized the separation
presented a number of arguments:

Aikido had started as a new martial art with no foundation whatsoever, but had
developed to such an extent that deserved its own organization.

This was not a very strong argument. At the time
some 1000 people practiced Aikido, and about 500 were in one organization, the
same number in the other.

The government has accepted an advice from a committee of wise men which have
indicated Aikido should become member of FOG, not JBN

This was a stretch of reality. While it was true
the committee of wise men was appointed by the government and their advice was
accepted, the advice was that Karate, Taekwondo and Judo should become separate
organizations and other martial arts should become member of the FOG. However,
no specific mention of Aikido was made, so to call on their advice as a ruling
was – to my mind – stretching what was stated.

The JBN doesn’t represent Aikido properly

This argument was usually explained by pointing
to the fact that the JBN had no separate board member for Aikido, that Aikido
was a small section in a large Judo organization, etc. However, the Aikidoka
that have remained in the JBN never felt misrepresented, so this seemed like an
opportunistic argument.

The JBN does not allow for independent Aikido instructors

This turned out to be the most valid argument
available. Judo instructors had to have a black belt to join the instructors
course. Aikido was an application for Judo instructors. So the
Aikido-instructors had to get a black belt in Judo to be able to enter into the
instructors course and get recognition. This did seem like a problem that the
JBN should have solved.

In any case, these arguments were used to
justify the first separation (about which I had first-hand information).

The first split that followed was based on no
need whatsoever. An instructor figured out that if he could get a Japanese
instructor to conduct his gradings he did not need to be member of the national
organization (NCAF). In fact he used the relationship of that instructor with
the NCAF to establish his private relationship and then separated, leaving the
remaining dojos at a loss**.

A next separation happened when the technical
director and technical supervisor of the NCAF resigned. This happened at the
advice of the technical supervisor and in the interest of the NCAF. However,
his advice was not accepted by members. Some instructors followed the technical
director, others followed the technical supervisor. At the time that loyalty
seemed admirable, but it soon became apparent that opportunistic motives had
played a strong role. Any appeal we made as NCAF to maintain cooperation was
dismissed. One organization however tried to overthrow the directing committee
of the NCAF (and their actions were eventually dismissed in court). The other
organization separated again within months after being founded.

In retrospect I can only distinguish the
following motives**:

– I want to stay with my instructor regardless
of his actions and their consequences for the organization
– I will go with this instructor because it will
place me in a higher hierarchical position than remaining in the organization
– I will go with this instructor because he is
my access to his assistants
– I will go with this instructor even when I
admit his actions are wrong, because that is the hierarchy in Aikido that has
been taught to me

In the period that followed completely new
things happened. For instance, European instructors came to the Netherlands and
started their own dojos. In virtually all cases we offered these new
organizations a place in the NCAF, but time and again this was declined. In
retrospect I will assume two factors played a role:

– all the separations described above created a
very negative atmosphere, one we could not compensate for by explaining Hombu
regulations or IAF policy, government policy and international interests
– new organizations were involved with other
issues than where will I become member
– new organizations could see four or five new organizations
that could exist outside the official IAF member, so they rather copied that
strategy

What was intersting to observe, is that after a
number of years the need to cooperate became more apparent after all. When the
NCAF joined a new umbrella organization and strived for recognitionof an
instructors course, virtually all the existing organizations joined as well. By
then the need to have your own organization and be separate had become less
pertinent, whereas the need to get more formal recognition had grown. This was
a clear sign that as a sport Aikido was becoming more mature.

The strategy of separating to become more
important in your own realm did not stop however. Neither did the strategy to
do this under the cover of a foreign instructor. And as travel became cheaper,
more foreign instructors presented themselves. This went on to such an extent
that at least one new organization per year could be expected. At a certain
point I even gave up interest in getting to know all the organizations or
trying to get them to cooperate, because the dynamic was always the same:
– an appeal on Hombu regulations, international
regulations, IAF regulations, etc. was ignored
– a false pretence of all the negative politics
was presented
– gradings were organized through foreign dojos
and foreign instructors
– once sufficient time had passed the
organization would present itself for recognition of its teachers

But as stated earlier, as the number of
organizations grew, so did the general understanding that some form of
cooperation was necessary. And during the period that most organizations were
in the NCS and the cooperation with the JBN was starting to flourish a climate
of democratic cooperation could take shape.

Unfortunately that proved insufficient to stop
the strategy of empire-building. Even at the time the argument no longer could
be the bad political climate, instructors would use the proven strategy:
separate under false pretence, abuse the relationship with a foreign
instructor, and claim a position as soon as you felt strong enough.

Fortunately for me, this was the time I stepped
down as chairman of the NCAF. It was no longer my responsibility to at least
try and uphold the Hombu regulations, IAF statutes or international interests
of governments.

And therefore I rest my presentation on
separations at this point in time.

* and may be considered painful by those which
were involved
** on the other hand, this relationship has
continued until today and has not disturbed the landscape since then.
** unfortunately I can not present any positive
motives surrounding that period of separation

Chapter 19

As the NCAF was the single Hombu recognized organization and the IAF member, it tried to live up to its responsibilities. Since there was no job-description it tried to define its role based on the three lines I have described:
– what followed from the Hombu regulations
– what followed from membership of the IAF
– what followed from government policy

However, as more and more groups left the NCAF, for different reasons* we realized that we could hardly claim to be the single representative for Aikido in the Netherlands. However, the remaining dojos were actually strongly committed to being a decent democratic organization. So, the NCAF tried to remain open, cooperating, exchanging information with the other organizations, providing information on international policy, developments in Hombu policy, etc

To express that we no longer claimed the pivotal role, the name of the organization was informally changed. We started using the name Festina Lente, rather than NCAF.

As the majority of Aikido organizations moved to the FOG, the contours for an umbrella organization took shape. With the ever increasing number of organizations it became more and more apparent to everybody that some form of structure was needed. As slowly the concept of the umbrella organization took shape.

During that period in time Hombu changed its policy from informal recognition to multiple recognition. As we struggled to find solutions for the informal recognition we were now confronted with all organizations being recognized. This in fact went so far that organizations that until then had claimed they were not Aikikai now could apply for Hombu dan-grades and get them awarded**.

The spectrum of organizations was so broad, that it deserves credit that an umbrella organization was formed. However, part of that solution needed to be to safeguard the IAF membership. This was done in several steps.

First of all, as AN was formed, a section for Aikikai-organizations was established. The second step was that the NAF/Festina Lente was asked to create a new organization Festina Lente and apply for Hombu recognition***. The NAF was then offered as an empty body to all the Aikikai-organizations that were in the new umbrella AN. The NAF was appointed institutional member of AN****.

These steps all worked well for parties involved. The ministry of sport and the NSF were happy, the Aikikai-organizations were happy they were now on equal footing, the other Aikido-organizations were now happy they were under a recognized umbrella. The IAF was happy because the NAF was still only an Aikikai organization. Hombu was happy because the complex situation in the Netherlands was now resolved.

And this summarizes the transition period. What should follow is a description of the current situation. Which will be the next chapter.

* I will try to summarize the splits in a later chapter, but this will be a sensitive topic
** this is one of the reasons why AN initially had in its regulations that if an organization applies for Aikikai-grades it is considered Aikikai. Later this was rephrased and that it must have the right to conduct Aikikai gradings to be member of the Aikikai section. This section structure was later abandoned, but traces are probably still to be found in the statutes of AN.
*** Contrary to Hombu policy that an organization must exist for at least 5 years, the newly formed association was given recognition immediately.
**** Until today nobody has any idea what that actually implies.

Chapter 18

In chapter 8 I described how the formation of an umbrella organization for all Aikido in the Netherlands (AN) posed a problem, because of the complex interrelated issues of Hombu recognition and IAF membership. In essence:
– to be Hombu recognized the organization must do Aikikai Aikido (and certainly not competitive forms of Aikido)
– the get national recognition the organization must be member of an international organization and organize all the Aikido in the country
– to be member of the IAF the organization needs Hombu recognition

I further described the history of the NAF: how a Budo federation was divided into three different organizations for Karate, Taekwondo and Judo, and how a federation for Eastern Martial Arts (FOG) was established.

I explained how a government committee proposed that Aikido should be member of the FOG and how the conflict between the Judo-instructors doing Aikido and the Aikido-instructors led to conflict and incidents unbecoming.

In this chapter I will try to describe how the umbrella organization NAF was established and what it has become over time.

As the BBN was dissolved and a committee advised the formation of the FOG, the people that wanted an Aikido organization in its own right set out and created an association called the NCAB. This organization applied for membership of the FOG and was given that under the condition it would change its name from ‘Bond’ or union to ‘Federation’ to stress the democratic nature of the organization.

At that point in time this was the only national organization for Aikido. This was not undisputed, because the JBN claimed that they were the continuation of the BBN and that therefore they should take on the recognition by Hombu and the IAF membership. While still before my time, I know only from the stories told that the IAF decided to make the NCAF member and that Hombu decided to recognize the NCAF.

But just like many other early organizations the NCAF was struggling to find its role. The Hombu regulations at the time still spoke of a strong position for a man in charge, and his dan-rank. Therefore the NCAF asked Kanetsuka Sensei to become technical director. At approximately the same time Fujita Sensei was asked to become technical supervisor. Both instructors took their role very seriously and the NCAF slowly developed under their technical guidance.

They however had little influence on the organizational development. The NCAF and the JBN both strived for the samel goals: technical develpment, recognition as an Aikido organization, gradings, an instructors course.

For the NCAF this cocktail led to initiatives such as developing an instructors course and striving for government recognition. But the JBN strived for the same thing. And the ministry of Sport insisted on cooperation which the officials at the time could not make happen.
The NCAF also strived for events that would give it recognition: participation in the World Games in Karlsruhe in Germany, hosting the Aikido demonstrations at the World Games in the Hague, participation in the EAF and the IAF, organizing seminars.

The political climate was nasty. The conflict between the NCAF and the JBN was harsh, but a new organization presented itself: the ARN. These Aikidoka were not Hombu recognized, but did work with highly respected instructors. They presented themselves as a non-political alternative. But under the one recognition per country regime from Hombu and the one organization per country regime of the IAF they were not really connected to organized sport.

Their appearence did however open the door for other organizations to get started. New instructors quite quickly found out that if you had a relationship with a Japanese instructor you could exist very well outside the recognized structure. Gradings could be handled informally through the organization of the Japanese instructor. Hombu appeared to turn a blind eye to the fact that Dutch students were getting their dangrades through Japanese local dojos.

Once this became public knowledge the number of organizations grew quickly. The government-driven policy of having one organization per country became subverted within a few years, and this process was unstoppable*.

When the conflict between the JBN and the NCAF culminated in the explusion of the NCAF from the FOG, and the NCAF found refuge under an umbrella organization called NCS, all the new organizations joined. They were all in the same situation, and for the first time in probably a decade an atmosphere of cooperation could be noticed. Within the NCS the cooperating Aikido organizations worked on an instructors course, that was eventually realized and with great success. Instructors from all organizations participated, the course was recognized by the government and it was highly appreciated by the participants.

As described, during this time the Aikido-department of the JBN sought reconciliation with the NCAF and the ARN and this worked out well. As described, only when the government started to overturn the structure for umbrella organizations for sport in the Netherlands, did things get off track again.

The FOG allowed one disgruntled organization under its wings. The NSF supported this organization in starting a process to establish a next umbrella organization. When the NCS epxressed its concern it might cease to exist, a number of groups abandoned ship and joined the FOG.

But what did this all imply for the NCAF? That’s the content of the next chapter.

* This did not only happen in the Netherlands, but all around the world

Chapter 17

The other day a friend replied to my post. It reminded me that I want to share some of the old politics that actually weren’t so nice. But at the same time, he was part of the reconciliation that took place afterwards.

In the early days Dutch Martial Arts were all in the BBN, the Budo Federation. However, when this organization was dissolved the Judo Federation did not want to let Aikido leave. Which had some good reason: many Aikido dojos at the time were Judo dojos where the instructor had started Aikido as well. This had often been described as a consequence of how Aikido was introduced in Europe: the Japanese teachers were looking for places where there was some interest in Martial Arts and a basic condition: tatami available. This was the case in the Judo dojos.

In any case, as Aikido developed there were seniors that did Judo as well as Aikido, but there were also seniors doing only Aikido. So, when the BBN was dissolved the only-Aikido instructors strived for a national organization of their own, and established it.

Over time it became clear that some of the people involved at the time ‘rigged the game’. An Aikido-instructor misrepresented the situation during a pivotal election, which was said to have tilted the scale in favour of Aikido. A decade later stories went around that Judo representatives had played a role in expulsion of the Aikido-organization from the Eastern Martial Arts Association (FOG).

Luckily most of those politics took place before my time. But what is relevant to me, is that around 2000 the chairman of the Aikido department of the JBN called me and said the following: ‘It is clear that there are conflicts between the organizations that you and I represent. But since we do not know each other, and we have never done anything to justify there is a conflict, shouldn’t we meet and see if we can improve the situation?’. I could only agree with his view, and was pleasantly surprized by the contact we established. Over the course of a couple of years we managed to establish a working relationship between both organizations, friendly relationships between instructors, admission of members to each others seminars. At a certain point I went to a meeting of the JBN to apologize for any misdoings by the organization I was chairman of in the past. We have been friends ever since.

When the shift in the political landscape took place*, we even arranged in a very cordially manner that we would let the Judo people take care of their situation first, and then arrange for Aikido to follow suit. There was a strong intention to come to a solution where we would form one organization, hopefully directly under the Dutch Sport Council.

Unfortunately, as described before, this process was derailed by a similar initiative**. This initiative over time led to the formation of Aikido Netherlands. However, the close cooperation between the Aikidoka of the Judo Federation and the NAF suffered as a consequence. We are still waiting for the time when that cooperation can be established again.

* government intervention to reorganize the umbrella organizations such as NSF and NCS
** formation of AN under the FOG

! out of respect for people involved no names have been mentioned.

Chapter 16

As Hombu introduced multiple recognition, national organizations started struggling with that. In the world of sport and relationships with a national government they had to find a way to explain why there were so many different Aikido organizations. They not only had to explain the differences between styles, but also the differences between school and the reason why these groups would not cooperate.

Imagine what the world of sport would be like if, in a random example, there would be an organization in Great Britain that would recognize soccer clubs throughout the world, and each recognition would lead to a parallel soccer championship.

Now, this type of problem only appears to the recognized organization that is member of IAF. Why? Because this is the only organization – primus inter paris (first amongst equals) that has this problem. Only the first organization can go to its government and ask for recognition as a sport. Only the first organization can offer to represent the sport in its country. The second and following organizations do not need to ask for recognition of the sport (its already organized), they will often not be accepted as a partner by the government (there already is a partner) and besides, it will take them a number of years to reach the point where they want to.

However, this did happen over time. In an increasing number of countries the number of recognized organizations grew, and their governments started to inquire what was going on.

Now, for the first recognized organization in a country, it had been imperative to become member of the IAF. This was one of the conditions to get Aikido recognized in the country. For the IAF this was necessary, because it needed the number of countries to grow, so it could meet the standard of international representation*.

As the IAF was growing into its role, and trying to come to grips with these developments, it adopted a strong grip on the principle of one organization per country. In informal talks with representatives of GAISF, IWGA and the like it had become increasingly clear that this was fundamental to be accepted as an international organization. But also the directors of IAF members stressed how important it would be to uphold this principle. As one chairman put it: the concept of country is one of the few organizational principles that work in this world. It is unprobable that Aikido can come up with a better solution than to organize it throughout the world by country.

Over time different solutions for the problem occurred. Several examples deserve attention, and I have only limited information on many of them. Because if these differences the solutions reached in each country are different and difficult to compare.

For instance, in France the government has forced the two groups to cooperate at the level of grading and instructor courses. But within the IAF they do not cooperate. In Belgium there was one organization for a long time. At a point in time the country was torn into half over the language and economical differences. If fact the Belgian Aikikai asked the IAF for separate membership. Yet today they have found a way to cooperate in a harmonious manner. In the Netherlands an umbrella organization was formed. Yet this has led to a situation where the Aikikai-organizations are in the IAF member as well as in the separate umbrella organization.

As time moved on further, a new dimension arose. We now face the situation that in many countries the number of practitioners outside of the IAF member is greater. Therefore the IAF can no longer uphold the position that it represents (the majority of) Aikido internationally. This can only be claimed by pointing to the relationship with Hombu which does have a relationship with at least the majority if Aikikai-Aikido organizations.

The IAF has now made its first formal move towards a solution of this problem**. Its not really a policy yet, but on 2016 the new members of the IAF were all from countries where there were multiple recognized groups. All of these members were invited to seek cooperation with the other groups before they were presented for membership. They all managed to reach a form of cooperation. This principle of being open to others will hopefully be continued in the future and applied to the previous 44 members as well.

* IOC recognition for example implies being represented in over 50 countries in the world.
** We have to thank Seán MacRuairi from Ireland for this result.

Chapter 15

Originally the IAF and Hombu agreed on the policy of recognizing one organization per country and one member per country. As there were no organizations to compete over recognition, there were no organizations to compete over IAF membership.

As time went by several things changed in the world. For one, travel became more easy, and cheaper. As a consequence it became more easy to invite foreign instructors. Dojos didn’t need to cooperate on a larger scale to invite teachers, they could afford to do so at an individual basis. This led to a strong increase in the demand for foreign instructors and the number of seminars being organized.

Another thing that changed, was that indivudual instructors became so popular this created its own dynamics. For instance, in Europe Tamura Sensei became so popular that he had large numbers of students in virtually every country where there was a recognized organization*. However, this happened throughout the world. A teacher like Yamada Sensei from the USA travelled all over the world to visit his students, and so did many others.

At this point in time different aspects of the Aikido world began to collide. For instance, students taking their grading would want the name of their instructor in their passport. But that would lead to the situation that the teacher was in France or the US, whereas the student was in a country where there was another recognized organization with a senior (Japanese) instructor.

This made it abundantly clear that the world of Aikido had been divided in a territorial manner by the Japanese instructors. Initially one would not go to the territory of the other without informing him or getting his approval. They would not conduct gradings in the territory of the other.

But as the territories became countries with democratic organizations, Hombu changed its regulations, and as a consequence organzations now claimed the monopoly on grading in their country.

In the late Eighties Hombu resolved the problem by allowing ‘unofficial recognition’. This was phrased so that the rule of one recognition per country was continued, but that outside of that certain Japanese instructors were allowed to instruct and give grades outside of that structure**.

Once the threshold for single recognition had been lowered, an avalanche of new organizations were established. Each of them created a relationship with an instructor, and avoided cooperation with the recognized organization exactly because it wanted freedom to choose its instructors and conduct its gradings.

During these years the initial recognized organizations were really frustrated, because they were upholding Hombu’s regulations, where Hombu was choosing the side of the increasing number of ‘rogue’ instructors and organizations.

Over time it turned out this wave could not be stopped. It swelled and became the driving force behind the growth of Aikido. The recognized organizations were struggling, and every dojo that could invite a teacher could develop without any restriction.

Over time Hombu adapted to this change in the environment by allowing multiple recognition. The new international regulations set criteria for recognition, but this did not in any way limit the number of organizations per country. In fact this became the headache for many of the recognized organizations.

The next chapter will deal with those headaches.

* Please do not take offence, a senior instructor like Tissier Sensei is now in very much the same situation.
** In several conversations it was made clear that this solution was chosen particularly to resolve the issue of Japanese instructors travelling and grading outside of the single recognition structure.

Chapter 14

AIMS stands for Association of Independent Members of SportAccord. As described earlier, it can be seen as the remaining sports in the structure of the IOC, IWGA and SportAccord.

Several of the martial arts and combat sports are member of AIMS: Kendo, Muay Thai, Sambo, Aikido, etc.

As described AIMS started off without much of a goal, but it found it’s goal when Mr Stephan Fox from Muay Thai became chairman. His position is also general secretary of Muay Thai, and he is an energetic and pragmatic official who will get things done. When he became chairman of AIMS he started to work diligently to make AIMS the steppingstone for members to IOC recognition (ARISF: Association of Recognized International Sport Federation; ic. recognized by IOC).
He quickly found out that eventhough Muay Thai is no small organization, it did not meet the standards of the IOC. So, as he set to work on recognition, he learned what it implies to meet the standards. And he decided that this effort should be shared with the other sports in AIMS.

When SportAccord collapsed, he made a heroic effort to protect the members of AIMS. He started negotiations to get IOC recognition for AIMS, and as such protect AIMS members from the consequences if SportAccord would lose its power of cease to exist. He phrased his intentions at different occasions, and stressed to the AIMS members that on the one hand this recognition by the IOC implies access to IOC resources, NOC resources and such, but on the other hand does not give individual recognition to sports. Aikido can not claim to be IAF recognized, but it can make that claim through its membership of AIMS*.

On the other hand, he clearly stated the consequences he sees that follow from IOC recognition. There are two major lines. The first line is that other sports that want IOC recogntion now have a clear path. They can prepare within AIMS. AIMS will support the process and will work closely with ARISF to achieve such recognition.

The second line is that the sports that do not seek IOC recognition will still have to live up to the standards of the IOC. His work to get us recognized have therefore raised the bar for Aikido to meet the IOC standards.

The first question we asked, was what does that imply. It goes too far for here to go into detail, but looking at the Olympic Charter and the Olympic Agenda was given as advice to get started.

And this is one of the important challenges for Aikido in the coming years: to not look or act below standard in an international community where most sports will work towards the IOC standards.

* In fact some IAF members have already reported that they have been contacted by their NOC. Others have stated that this finally gives Aikido the recognition they need in their country.