Those were very bad times for us. Only recently were two junior high school girls run over by US tanks. The new president with his rash populist remarks was playing tough rasing serious doubts as to his ability to handle the complicated power balance in the area. But contrary to his defiant words, he turned out to be quite cooperative with US policy. I don't know his deal with the US, but with some struggle, he managed to pursuade the congress to send non-combatant units to Iraq. As you suggested in another post, playing Korea and Japan against each other could have been a factor. Why divide and conquor ? Because it costs less, I guess, or more profitable.
So basically you're saying status quo est ad infinitum.
According to your logic, the French Revolution could never have happened as the past determines the future.
You probably would have shouted 'Vive l'ancien regime !' You would have shouted such anachronisms while the gates of Bastille were being cracked open. If you do not have the guts to make history, then please at least be brief.
Don't insult my intelligence. If you don't want to debate the issue at hand and simply want to attack my credibility or whatever then as far as I'm concerned my debate with you is over.
senseiman, I take it that you do know a little about Japan, so I'm amazed that you can't see that one very probable reason that Japan hasn't fired one shot at another country/person in the past 50 yrs is that JAPAN IS CONSTITUTIONALLY BOUND NOT TO DO SO? The post-WWII pacifist constitution was forced upon Japan by the Allies. How would you know if Japan wouldn't involve itself in aggression again if they change their contitution as they said they would?
OF course Japan is constitutionally banned from military action. How is that at all relevant to the topic at hand? The constitution was imposed by the Americans but of course it wouldn't have worked if the Japanese hadn't wholeheartedly embraced it for the past fifty years.
qwertyu said:
One clear indication of Japan's stance and what it believes in is its support for Bush's invasion of Iraq, an invasion condemned as an illegal act of aggression and imperialism by much of the rest of the world, justified by lies and propaganda.
Does this support reflect an anti-war, peace-loving, aggression-renouncing, morally responsible attitude?
And please, don't say that it was only a humanitarian mission, as Japan isn't constitutionally allowed to send combat personnel. By endorsing Bush's sham imperial project, Japan shows its mantle.
Sure, the governments of Spain, Britain, Italy, Poland also supported Bush, but their citizens overwhelmingly opposed it and registered their displeasure through the means available to them, the vote.
The vast majority of Japanese were also opposed to the Iraq war, FYI. I would agree that participating in the war is a VALID reason for opposing Japan's entry into the security council, but only if it would also be used to remove Britain and the US from the Security council. Otherwise it would be just hypocritical to single Japan out for its extremely minor role in this flagrant act of aggression carried out by the most powerful member of that organization.
qwertyu said:
Also, I am aware of at least a couple of occasions when Japanese naval freighters fired, charged at and rammed into rickety fishing boats chartered by Diaoyu Island civilian activists in HK around the disputed islands, causing damage to the vessels, and the squirmish indirectly led to one death.
Again, in light of the fact that EACH and EVERY member of the security council has been involved in acts of war that have cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of innocent lives during their tenure the fact that Japanese maritime forces may have indirectly cost the life of a single individual is an extraordinarily weak argument against their entry, if it is the strongest example of a 'bad act' you can find.
qwergyu said:
Might I also point out that Japan has standing disputes over territory it annexed prior to WWII from its neighbours, to which it maintains its claim to this day? Is this showing remorse for its past, or clinging to the spoils of aggression/war?
The extent of Japan's territorial dispute with South Korea is an uninhabited island. I'm in no way qualified to comment on the validity of either side's claim but this strikes me as being an absurdly irrelevant dispute. Its only other territorial dispute is with Russia over 4 small islands populated by Japanese and recognized by all sides as being inherintly part of Japan. Just about every member of the security council is also involved in some sort of 'territorial dispute', from Russia's extremely brutal war in Chechnya to China's equally brutal suppression of Tibetan and Muslim minorities in the west. Japan's disputes - which one can all but guaruntee will never result in open warfare - seem incredibly small by comparison.
qwergly said:
If you have concrete proof that regardless of its involuntary pacifist constitution, Japan will surely uphold international law [as oppose to supporting illegal American wars the UN is opposed to] and renounce aggression, then by all means provide them.
Japan's "involuntary" constitution as you put it is generally regarded as one of the most succesful in modern history. The reason it works is precisely because it has been accepted by the Japanese people regardless of who wrote it. They never protested it and in fact the largest protests in relation to it was the extention of the Japan US defence agreement in 1960 by Japanese pacifists who wanted nothing to do with US militarism.
I'm 100% opposed to Japan's involvement in the Iraq war, but again seeing as how two of the five permanent members of the security council initiated that war I don't see how you can use that as a reason to bar Japan's entry unless you also use it to demand Britain and America's removal from the Security council. Otherwise it is just plain hypocrisy.
Since we have found ourselves on the slippery slope of moral relativism, I propose another criteria, how about nations' records at upholding international laws, treaties and accords and acting in good faith in international relations?
The US would certainly be disqualified on most scores, but they are the most powerful nation on earth militarily and it basically allows them to get away with murder and plunder. The rest of the world can only hope and pray that the American electorate will come to their sense and cease being the good Germans of 1935 one day soon. The US will unquestionably remain part of the UN body but its role needs checks and balances. In Japan, the US has an uncritical, all supportive sidekick which would help and enable it to expand its influence and warmongering ways into Asia. That is what I fear most, a neo-con dream of perpetual wars abetted by an already heavily-armed Japan. That Japan seems unable to convince its former victims of its remorse over its past simply acerbates its case.
I would completely agree that the US and Britain should be deprived of their say in the UNSC because they have made up lies and false pretext to justify an illegal invasion and killed over 100,000 but how is that ever to take place? Blair, Hoon, Straw, etc. should at the very least face the ICC, which the US of course failed to ratify and we now know why. Well, who's going to enforce it?
At least Japan isn't there yet, and this is still open to debate. I don't trust the government of Koizumi, he was one of Bush's staunchest supporters. At the same time, I don't think it was a "vast majority" but a "slim majority" who opposed Japan supporting the US and dispatching troops to Iraq. I'll look it up. Polls in Korea showed high 70s/80s opposition in contrast.
Also, the Brits, from academia to media to parliament to military, went through a long, wrenching process to debate about the legality of the war, a process that left the otherwise popular, left-leaning Blair a lame duck. It shows they are very bothered by the legal implications. Did that happen in Japan?
I think you have placed too little emphasis on the role of Japan's Constitution in preventing it from pursuing more robust military ambitions in the past 50 yrs. For one thing, it would never have been tolerated by the US, UK, Australia and the whole of Asia. One other compelling evidence is the lack of national renounciation and repudiation of WWII, like what Germany has done. Instead, history books, rightwing organisations sponsored by key LDP politicians and big corporations, top judges and government figures like Ishihara, the Yasukuni Shrine all declared that war was a necessity, conducted in self-defense, and Japan was liberating Asia, not colonising and never committed war crimes beyond that which was common. In Germany, this would have landed all of them in jail. Any of this sound like pacifism to you? Without the inhibiting Constitution, what would these guys-in-power do?
It is only since Bush has been signaling that Japan could change its Constitution that we are now seeing the floodgates flung open, for it wasn't just the pacifist clause, but a slew of other curtailing of liberties - the right to free speech, publication and free assembly, the reiteration of Shintoism as a state religion - that will be constitutionally amended, all the better to consolidate government power much like the Patriot Act. I'll provide the link if you are interested.
I doubt that the vast majority of decent Americans would ever imagine in their wildest dream that in a democracy such as theirs, America would invade countries on a false pretext and set up torture camps in disparate places over the world, with more "evil" regimes to conquer. It only took blind patriotism, the fear of being under attack, a subdued press, crude propaganda, lying leaders and a compliant, unchallenging opposition, an apathetic majority. Goebbels knew exactly the right formula. Tell me which of these are not likely to come to pass in Japan? The right politicians, staunch, unquestioning patriotism and the ratcheted fear of China and N. Korea are already there.
Unless a sea change in attitude occur among the Japanese population at large who then vote for pacifist leaders, I don't think Japan's Russian and Asian neighbours relish Japan taking a seat on the right side of the US. I would be the first to celebrate if that ever comes to pass, that the Japanese demonstrate with deeds matching words that their neighbours matter and war was wrong.
Another point you raised was the records of other UNSC members like China and Russia. These are all fair and valid, but have they done anything that contravened international conventions between countries? If you consider Tibet a sovereign country invaded by China, although no one has ever proven Tibetan statehood, then what about the independent Ryukyu kingdom annexed as Okinawa ? Japan could have allowed a referendum for the Okinawans to decide on their sovereignty if they are so bothered about rights of self-determination, as they are over Tibet's, wouldn't they?
Japan maintained a highly belligerent stance over the disputed islands with all of its neighbours, whereas at least China has worked out a joint co-operative framework with ASEAN over the disputed S. China Sea isles. It is militarily powerful enough to eschew such niceties, but at least it tried.
Your "moral equivalence" argument will not hold water, as you can see, every country has its ugly past and present. The only criteria to judge then for whom deserves a greater say in a world body is the respect for and compliance with international treaties, conventions and laws. In blindly supporting the US and disregarding the international laws and concerns voiced by the UN, Koizumi showed a very troubling side to Japan.
I would completely agree that the US and Britain should be deprived of their say in the UNSC because they have made up lies and false pretext to justify an illegal invasion and killed over 100,000 but how is that ever to take place? Blair, Hoon, Straw, etc. should at the very least face the ICC, which the US of course failed to ratify and we now know why. Well, who's going to enforce it?
At least Japan isn't there yet, and this is still open to debate. I don't trust the government of Koizumi, he was one of Bush's staunchest supporters. At the same time, I don't think it was a "vast majority" but a "slim majority" who opposed Japan supporting the US and dispatching troops to Iraq. I'll look it up. Polls in Korea showed high 70s/80s opposition in contrast.
I was in Japan throughout the buildup to the war and most of the war itself and polls consistently showed opposition to the war at 70% or higher, considerably greater than the margin in the US or Britain.
qwertyu said:
Also, the Brits, from academia to media to parliament to military, went through a long, wrenching process to debate about the legality of the war, a process that left the otherwise popular, left-leaning Blair a lame duck. It shows they are very bothered by the legal implications. Did that happen in Japan?
Yes, there has been immense debate in the Diet between the LDP and the main opposition democratic party which is staunchly opposed to the war. This was a huge issue in Japan because it called into question all sorts of constitutional issues, not to mention the immense unpopularity of the war among the population at large.
qwertyu said:
I think you have placed too little emphasis on the role of Japan's Constitution in preventing it from pursuing more robust military ambitions in the past 50 yrs. For one thing, it would never have been tolerated by the US, UK, Australia and the whole of Asia. One other compelling evidence is the lack of national renounciation and repudiation of WWII, like what Germany has done. Instead, history books, rightwing organisations sponsored by key LDP politicians and big corporations, top judges and government figures like Ishihara, the Yasukuni Shrine all declared that war was a necessity, conducted in self-defense, and Japan was liberating Asia, not colonising and never committed war crimes beyond that which was common. In Germany, this would have landed all of them in jail. Any of this sound like pacifism to you? Without the inhibiting Constitution, what would these guys-in-power do?
I am not at all defending those right wing lunatics, thr things they say and do make me cringe. Germany is a special case, they have gone a lot further than any other country in confronting their wartime crimes, mainly because of the unique barbarity of them. While Japan hasn't gone that far they have still, IMHO gone further than almost any other country. In Italy there are politicians with pictures of Mussolini on their walls, in America there are politicians who take great pride in having dropped napalm on Vietnamese peasants...every country has them. I just don't think it is fair to say that we must hold Japan to a higher standard than everyone else just because they have a few reactionary nut cases in the government making xenophobic statements. Every country (except Germany) has those.
qwertyu said:
It is only since Bush has been signaling that Japan could change its Constitution that we are now seeing the floodgates flung open, for it wasn't just the pacifist clause, but a slew of other curtailing of liberties - the right to free speech, publication and free assembly, the reiteration of Shintoism as a state religion - that will be constitutionally amended, all the better to consolidate government power much like the Patriot Act. I'll provide the link if you are interested.
The changes made and those proposed to be made have been pretty minor. Though I don't support them, its extremely premature to go implying that this will somehow lead to an end to free speech and a resurgence of Japanese militarism.
qwertyu said:
I doubt that the vast majority of decent Americans would ever imagine in their wildest dream that in a democracy such as theirs, America would invade countries on a false pretext and set up torture camps in disparate places over the world, with more "evil" regimes to conquer. It only took blind patriotism, the fear of being under attack, a subdued press, crude propaganda, lying leaders and a compliant, unchallenging opposition, an apathetic majority. Goebbels knew exactly the right formula. Tell me which of these are not likely to come to pass in Japan? The right politicians, staunch, unquestioning patriotism and the ratcheted fear of China and N. Korea are already there.
The big difference being that Japan has absolutely no ability to launch a military campaign against anyone. Its in one of the most heavily militarized regions of the world surrounded by powers that have spent most of the past fifty years mobilized on a war footing. Even if they did away with article 9 tomorrow Japan would simply be in no position to go starting a war with anyone.
qwertyu said:
Another point you raised was the records of other UNSC members like China and Russia. These are all fair and valid, but have they done anything that contravened international conventions between countries? If you consider Tibet a sovereign country invaded by China, although no one has ever proven Tibetan statehood, then what about the independent Ryukyu kingdom annexed as Okinawa? Japan could have allowed a referendum for the Okinawans to decide on their sovereignty if they are so bothered about rights of self-determination, as they are over Tibet's, wouldn't they?
As luck would have it I am married to an Okinawan (a descendant of the Royal family at that) so I'm pretty familiar with issues related to Okinawan sovereignty. Okinawa was annexed by Japan in 1879, so you would have to take the case pretty far back. Even further than that, in fact, as the Ryukyuu kingdom had been conquered by the Samurai from Satsuma in 1609, after which the status of the kingdom was reduced to a sort of vassal state to the lord of Satsuma and the Tokugawa shogunate. Okinawa was taken over by the US at the end of the war and sovereignty was returned to Japan in 1972. The issue of an independent Okinawa was raised during the period of US occupation but the party seeking an end to the occupation decided that the best way was through return to Japanese soveriengty and thus the whole issue of Okinawan independence was more or les shelved. If you held a referendum today very few people would vote in favor of independence.
The Chinese, I should note, also made a claim on sovereignty over Okinawa following the war. The rationale was that the Ryukyuu kingdom had sent tribute to the imperial court in China and thus recognized the emporer of CHina as its head of state. Needless to say this claim was not upheld.
I'm no apologist for Japan's actions in Okinawa, which have been exceptionally brutal. Half my wife's family on her mother's side was killed during the battle of Okinawa during which the entire main island was destroyed and many Okinawans are still rightly bitter towards Tokyo about that. Despite that today Most Okinawans are quite satisfied to have their Island a Japanese prefecture whereas many Tibetans and Muslims in China, whose human rights abuses are well known, may not be so happy under Chinese rule.
qwertyu said:
Japan maintained a highly belligerent stance over the disputed islands with all of its neighbours, whereas at least China has worked out a joint co-operative framework with ASEAN over the disputed S. China Sea isles. It is militarily powerful enough to eschew such niceties, but at least it tried.
The fact that every country has its ugly past and present is my point exactly. The main argument being hoisted throughout most of this thread is Japan's wartime past and its failure to adequately apologize for it as reasons to bar its entry to the Security council. By illustrating the bad acts of the other members I was just trying to demonstrate that Japan's past cannot, in and of itself, seriously be considered as the main reason for keeping it out.
qwertyu said:
The only criteria to judge then for whom deserves a greater say in a world body is the respect for and compliance with international treaties, conventions and laws. In blindly supporting the US and disregarding the international laws and concerns voiced by the UN, Koizumi showed a very troubling side to Japan.
I looked up the poll figures. Opposition was initially high, over 70% but plunged to 60% after Bush's "Mission Accomplished" military costume stunt.
I am unable to locate any reports of substantive debates about the legality of the Iraqi invasion in Japan. Can you post some links? We get to hear so much about the opposition in Britain because many of Blair's cabinet and own Labour MPs resigned, formed or joined anti-war parties, and instigated media leaks and investigations. Koizumi's own stature soared after Iraq in stark contrast to Blair's fortunes. I would venture that the political climate in Japan isn't that antagonistic to Koizumi's support of Bush's war.
I am not at all defending those right wing lunatics, thr things they say and do make me cringe...While Japan hasn't gone that far they have still, IMHO gone further than almost any other country. In Italy there are politicians with pictures of Mussolini on their walls, in America there are politicians who take great pride in having dropped napalm on Vietnamese peasants...every country has them. I just don't think it is fair to say that we must hold Japan to a higher standard than everyone else just because they have a few reactionary nut cases in the government making xenophobic statements.
First, unless you or your family have been victims of Japan, I don't think you are in a position to judge if Japan has done enough, since you are neither at the receiving end of the atrocity nor the reparation. Me neither. However, I would listen and defer to rather than dismiss the claims of Japan's victims who should be the best judge of whether enough has been done to address wrongs done to them.
What would provide you or me with the legitimacy to answer for say, Bhopal victims, Holocaust victims, Nanjing Massacre victims that enough is enough, in contravention to what they say?
Also, you play down the rightwing nationalists very prominent role in Japan today. These aren't a few "nuts" as you put it. These are the popularly elected PM, Tokyo's Mayor [slated to be the next PM], Cabinet Secretary, Foreign Minister, Judges, and the majority of the LDP which dominates the Diet, not to mention huge business interests. The rightwing "nuts" are holding the equivalent power of the Bush Administration and the Republicans in the US. They are not the fringe as you claim.
"It should be permissible under the law to restrict or ban publication or sale of books that have a detrimental effect on young peoples upbringing,"is one statement that raises a red flag. Under the current Constitution, Chapter III, Rights and Duties of the People, Article 19 reads, "Freedom of thought and conscience shall not be violated."Article 23 states, "Academic freedom is guaranteed."
When more than 200 Tokyo teachers refused to stand for the Kamigayo at public school ceremonies recently, the government slashed their paychecks and made them attend lengthy lectures and confess their errors in writing. This is very harsh punishment, and isn't political freedom guaranteed in Japan? You can find this detailed in a link to the europhobia site.
"There should be restrictions on forming associations that aim at damaging the state or social order," is another statement coming from the committee. Article 21 of the current Constitution guarantees freedom of assembly.
Article 20 currently protects freedom of religion and prohibits any religion from receiving privileges from the State. The committee is proposing changing this to allow "authorities to be involved in Shinto ceremonies and to fund them from the public purse."Although Shintoism is intertwined with the Japanese culture, it is a mistake to isolate Buddhism and to return to the days during the Meiji Restoration when it alone was considered the pure Japanese religion and received State support. And of course Shintoism played a significant role in supporting WWII propaganda.
These, in addition to the ability to project the military, aren't minor changes.
A much better write-up with excellent links can be read here.
The big difference being that Japan has absolutely no ability to launch a military campaign against anyone. Its in one of the most heavily militarized regions of the world surrounded by powers that have spent most of the past fifty years mobilized on a war footing. Even if they did away with article 9 tomorrow Japan would simply be in no position to go starting a war with anyone.
Well, this is simply your opinion. I would rather see backup factual evidence, such as what Japan does or doesn't have in their military arsenal, the expenditure per capita on the military, etc., which I have found here:
You assume two things, that Japan, even though it has a military on par with France and Britain, is unable to go to war, and that it will be on its own starting a war. What about a joint attack on N. Korea or China with the US? Is that impossible? Didn't Britain go to war with the US in Iraq, and isn't Japan the Asian "Britain" of Bush?
Okinawa was taken over by the US at the end of the war and sovereignty was returned to Japan in 1972. The issue of an independent Okinawa was raised during the period of US occupation but the party seeking an end to the occupation decided that the best way was through return to Japanese soveriengty and thus the whole issue of Okinawan independence was more or les shelved. If you held a referendum today very few people would vote in favor of independence.
You reached your conclusions without the benefit of facts or polls. Your wife's perspective may be valid but she speaks only for herself and those she knows. I have found some links on Google by Okinawan groups that assert Ryukyu's independence rights. First of all, there were many options besides full independence or Japanese rule. There were also huge protests when the US reversed soveriegnty to Japan. No one would know short of a referendum, which Japan refused, what most Okinawans want. These are detailed here:
These Okinawans, unfortunately, do not enjoy the patronage of America, the media attention, the huge funds and donations from the CIA's NED showered on the Tibetans. I don't see how their struggle is any less valid, nonetheless.
I can't find any evidence of your claim that China demanded Okinawa soveriegnty. It would be as bizzare as China demanding Korea's sovereignty, as their political relationships are parallel. China has maintained that they traded throughout history with a separate country they called Ryukyu. But you somehow infer that it is right for Japan to claim Okinawa's sovereignty because it had been invaded in the past. Around the same period in the 1600s, Japan too, invaded Korea and it also colonised Korea at about the same period as it colonised Okinawa. Can Japan then claim Korea?
It seems it was up to Japan and the US to decide which of the spoils of war Japan is entitled to, and the terms thereof. Tibet had the support of a superpower to agitate for statehood, the Ryukyus did not. Otherwise, their situations are morally parallel, with the exception that Tibet's annexation dated back to the Mongolian invasion in the 1200s.
Yes, and they also unsuccesfully invaded Vietnam in 1979 partly over the issue. [of S. China isles.
"Although communist China had backed North Vietnam in its struggle against South Vietnam and the United States, the Chinese and Vietnamese were traditional enemies; tensions between the two increased when Vietnam strengthened its ties with the Soviet Union, invaded Laos and Cambodia (Kampuchea) in late 1978, and expelled Chinese living in Vietnam. On February 17, 1979, some 120,000 well-equipped Chinese troops crossed the border into northern Vietnam in several places and seized control of several towns;...."
The border clash lasted all of 2 weeks, the borders weren't changed, and nowhere were the Spratlys or other isles mentioned.
I took a lot of trouble to find the facts, so would appreciate links from your sources as well.
As for the attribution of Japan's pacifism to something other than their Constitution, I would venture an anology.
A man, J, had plundered and murdered his way through his neighbourhood but was defeated by the state police. He was convicted, and had his arms license strictly and indefinitely revoked. His family and business interests are then guarded and guaranteed by the state police, and he prospered mightily. He started accumulating huge arms supplies for "self-defense" and didn't use them for years. However, in increasingly less sober moments, he bragged about his past, that he was wrongly convicted, that he was the good guy and not the criminal as his lying victims alleged, that he did it in self-defense, that it is time to promote his "true" story, that he should have his arms license back. Can you determine from this scenario that indeed, J is contrite towards his victims, has repented, and that it wasn't the revoked license and the heavy presence of the police that held back his use of arms?
I honestly cannot say for sure, but I would watch his rhetoric and deeds with alarm, and place my monet accordingly. There was a time in the mid 90s when the opposition took power that it felt palpably close to a Japan spring, and that the recriminations might be finally over, but then things took a turn for the worse under Koizumi.
60% is still pretty high (and that number does not imply 40% support for the war either), and opposition to the war went down in most other countries as well once their troops were actually in Iraq.
qwertyu said:
I am unable to locate any reports of substantive debates about the legality of the Iraqi invasion in Japan. Can you post some links? We get to hear so much about the opposition in Britain because many of Blair's cabinet and own Labour MPs resigned, formed or joined anti-war parties, and instigated media leaks and investigations. Koizumi's own stature soared after Iraq in stark contrast to Blair's fortunes. I would venture that the political climate in Japan isn't that antagonistic to Koizumi's support of Bush's war.
I'll take a look for some links. The debate was the lead story on NHK news for weeks on end during the war and debate on whether or not to dispatch Japanese troops.
qwertyu said:
First, unless you or your family have been victims of Japan, I don't think you are in a position to judge if Japan has done enough, since you are neither at the receiving end of the atrocity nor the reparation. Me neither. However, I would listen and defer to rather than dismiss the claims of Japan's victims who should be the best judge of whether enough has been done to address wrongs done to them.
I think you have misunderstood my argument. I'm not implying that Japan has apologized sufficiently and that the victims should accept that. I'm actually inclined to believe that Japan hasn't done enough to atone for its wartime aggression. All I am saying is that the lack of a sufficient apology is not, IMHO, in and of itself enough to bar Japan's entry into the security council.
qwertyu said:
Also, you play down the rightwing nationalists very prominent role in Japan today. These aren't a few "nuts" as you put it. These are the popularly elected PM, Tokyo's Mayor [slated to be the next PM], Cabinet Secretary, Foreign Minister, Judges, and the majority of the LDP which dominates the Diet, not to mention huge business interests. The rightwing "nuts" are holding the equivalent power of the Bush Administration and the Republicans in the US. They are not the fringe as you claim.
I think the role of the far right is overstated. For one thing its a mistake to lump the Prime Minister in with the likes of Ishihara. I strongly disagree with Koizumi's visits to yasakuni, but his views are nothing like Ishihara's. And there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Ishihara will become PM, he has no party backing, he is over 70 years old...there just isn't a chance.
The comparison between the LDP and the Republican party in the US is somewhat reasonable. But again, I don't see how this can be used in the narrow argument of whether Japan can or cannot become a member of the security council.
qwertyu said:
"It should be permissible under the law to restrict or ban publication or sale of books that have a detrimental effect on young peoples upbringing,"is one statement that raises a red flag. Under the current Constitution, Chapter III, Rights and Duties of the People, Article 19 reads, "Freedom of thought and conscience shall not be violated."Article 23 states, "Academic freedom is guaranteed."
When more than 200 Tokyo teachers refused to stand for the Kamigayo at public school ceremonies recently, the government slashed their paychecks and made them attend lengthy lectures and confess their errors in writing. This is very harsh punishment, and isn't political freedom guaranteed in Japan? You can find this detailed in a link to the europhobia site.
"There should be restrictions on forming associations that aim at damaging the state or social order," is another statement coming from the committee. Article 21 of the current Constitution guarantees freedom of assembly.
Article 20 currently protects freedom of religion and prohibits any religion from receiving privileges from the State. The committee is proposing changing this to allow "authorities to be involved in Shinto ceremonies and to fund them from the public purse."Although Shintoism is intertwined with the Japanese culture, it is a mistake to isolate Buddhism and to return to the days during the Meiji Restoration when it alone was considered the pure Japanese religion and received State support. And of course Shintoism played a significant role in supporting WWII propaganda.
These, in addition to the ability to project the military, aren't minor changes.
A much better write-up with excellent links can be read here.
I agree that this is all very worrisome and I am quite opposed to these changes but as they relate to the question of Japan's entry into the security council I don't think they are sufficiently provocative, given the type of similar legislation that has passed in most other countries post 9/11.
qwertyu said:
Well, this is simply your opinion. I would rather see backup factual evidence, such as what Japan does or doesn't have in their military arsenal, the expenditure per capita on the military, etc., which I have found here:
You assume two things, that Japan, even though it has a military on par with France and Britain, is unable to go to war, and that it will be on its own starting a war. What about a joint attack on N. Korea or China with the US? Is that impossible? Didn't Britain go to war with the US in Iraq, and isn't Japan the Asian "Britain" of Bush?
If you look at just the dollar figures Japan's military looks big, but that is very misleading. On paper Japan looks like a major naval power, but in fact all its ships are small frigates and destroyers that would be of very limited use in an actual war and are just adequate for the patrol of Japan's territorial waters. All its land and air forces are configured for defensive operations, it has no long range attack aircraft or other offensive capabilities. The SDF has been built up solely as a defensive force for fifty years and Japan has absolutely no ability to project its forces overseas, which would be necessary if it were to be involved in any sort of war. Even the dispatch of a mere 500 troops to a non combat zone in Iraq was a major undertaking for the SDF.
The cost of building up its forces and purchasing new ships and aircraft would be prohibitively high, no government could afford it without drastically curtailing public works spending, which isn't going to happen as it would mean political suicide for whoever tried it.
You reached your conclusions without the benefit of facts or polls. Your wife's perspective may be valid but she speaks only for herself and those she knows. I have found some links on Google by Okinawan groups that assert Ryukyu's independence rights. First of all, there were many options besides full independence or Japanese rule. There were also huge protests when the US reversed soveriegnty to Japan. No one would know short of a referendum, which Japan refused, what most Okinawans want. These are detailed here:
I'm lacking in facts or polls? Neither of those websites you posted links for contain ANY polls or facts that would contradict my statement that Okinawans wouldn't favor independence in a referendum held today. This isn't just my or my wife's opinion, it is just plain common sense. Okinawans have about a million priorities that would come before ahead of restoring an independence they lost more than a century ago: removal of US bases, improving their economy, protecting the environment, etc etc.
Anyone who had a knowledge of Okinawan history would probably come to the conclusion that it would have been better off independent than at the mercy of an uncaring central government in Tokyo for the past 125 years. But the fact is that at this point in history there isn't anything that could be called a serious, broad based indpendence movement in Okinawa.
qwertyu said:
I can't find any evidence of your claim that China demanded Okinawa soveriegnty. It would be as bizzare as China demanding Korea's sovereignty, as their political relationships are parallel. China has maintained that they traded throughout history with a separate country they called Ryukyu. But you somehow infer that it is right for Japan to claim Okinawa's sovereignty because it had been invaded in the past. Around the same period in the 1600s, Japan too, invaded Korea and it also colonised Korea at about the same period as it colonised Okinawa. Can Japan then claim Korea?
The issue of China's claim is well documented in George Kerr's "Okinawa: History of an Island People", which I highly recommend.
I don't make ANY judgements on Japan's claim to sovereignty over Okinawa. Anyone familiar with the history would agree that Japan's conquest of Okinawa was completely illegitimate as it relied on force and threats against a peaceful people. But I don't know if you can just infer from that that Okinawa would therefore be better off independent today. Things have changed too much, Okinawan society, culture and its economy are heavily interwoven with that of the rest of Japan nowadays and breaking away would not come without serious consequences.
qwertyu said:
It seems it was up to Japan and the US to decide which of the spoils of war Japan is entitled to, and the terms thereof. Tibet had the support of a superpower to agitate for statehood, the Ryukyus did not. Otherwise, their situations are morally parallel, with the exception that Tibet's annexation dated back to the Mongolian invasion in the 1200s.
I'm afraid my knowledge of Tibetan history is limited and I only brought it up to point out that Japan is not the only country with territorial disputes. As for the legitimacy of Tibetan claims to independence I'll just leave it up to the experts.
As for the attribution of Japan's pacifism to something other than their Constitution, I would venture an anology.
qwertyu said:
A man, J, had plundered and murdered his way through his neighbourhood but was defeated by the state police. He was convicted, and had his arms license strictly and indefinitely revoked. His family and business interests are then guarded and guaranteed by the state police, and he prospered mightily. He started accumulating huge arms supplies for "self-defense" and didn't use them for years. However, in increasingly less sober moments, he bragged about his past, that he was wrongly convicted, that he was the good guy and not the criminal as his lying victims alleged, that he did it in self-defense, that it is time to promote his "true" story, that he should have his arms license back. Can you determine from this scenario that indeed, J is contrite towards his victims, has repented, and that it wasn't the revoked license and the heavy presence of the police that held back his use of arms?
As I've said, I'm not debating whether or not Japan has sufficiently apologized. I'm arguing that even if it hasn't that shouldn't be enough in and of itself to bar its entry to the security council.
"Although communist China had backed North Vietnam in its struggle against South Vietnam and the United States, the Chinese and Vietnamese were traditional enemies; tensions between the two increased when Vietnam strengthened its ties with the Soviet Union, invaded Laos and Cambodia (Kampuchea) in late 1978, and expelled Chinese living in Vietnam. On February 17, 1979, some 120,000 well-equipped Chinese troops crossed the border into northern Vietnam in several places and seized control of several towns;...."
The border clash lasted all of 2 weeks, the borders weren't changed, and nowhere were the Spratlys or other isles mentioned.
I took a lot of trouble to find the facts, so would appreciate links from your sources as well.
I stand corrected about the immediate causes of the war. But the fact that China did invade Vietnam still undercuts your original assertion that China was somehow more interested in seeking peaceful ways of settling disputes with its neighbors than Japan.
Japan's so-called 19 official apologies that the Foreign Minister of Japan recently boasted of by saying "Japan apologized many more times than Germany" were on the whole fake.
A Comparison of Post War Reflection of Aggression between Germany and Japan from end of WWII into the 1990's
The statistics do not include those imposed by Allied Powers
.......................Germany...........Japan
WWII related
criminal............>100,000...............0
suspects pursued
WWII related
suspects.............>6,000...............0
convicted
source: Takahashi Tetsuya ﾂ坂?壺?ｹ'窶廸ﾂ催 Sengo sekininron ﾂ戰ﾅ津｣ﾂ静凪?戮ﾋ彑 Kondasha 1999, Chapter 1. Demanding Sengo sekinin, Sengosekinin as the Japanese People (p. 67 Korean edition.)
A Comparison of Post-War Relief Funds Paid to Families of the War Dead between Germany and Japan from end of WWII into early 1990's
..........................Germany...........Japan
WWII relief funds
for survivors of ...........?..............~Y40,000,000,000,000
war dead (Japanese military)
WWII relief funds
for survivors of ..........?.................~Y1,000,000,000,000
war dead (non-Japanese victims)
Germany's Self-Criticism on Revisionist Trends
"Althought some German politicians express their hopes that the post-war period is over, this is certainly not the case. Regarding (our) past that destroyed so many human lives and happiness, will there ever be a time when we can positively say, 'Enough is enough !' ? This is not a matter that we can conclude for ourselves. This is because there are people in other countries who will never forget, who can never forget what had happened there. What we could not handle under the scrutiny of our consciousness for the past 20 years shall return to us any time as painful memories."
source: Alexander & Margaret Mitcherich Sorrows Lost-the psychoanalysis of fascism (Die Unfahigkeit zutrauern) 1967.
Germany's President von Weizacker on Mourning
"We must firstly mourn the Jewish, then all other peoples who were victimized by Germany's aggression, and only after, and lastly, must we mourn the German soldiers."
Premier Kohl's Figures Without Expiration
"Germany bears the responsibiity for the outrage that Nazi committed to human history. This responsibility is expressed in the figures without expiration."--1985, 40th anniversary of the end of WWII
Fujioka & Nishio's Revisionism
"1. Nanjing Massacre never happened. Comfort Women system as a sexual slavery instituion did not exist in the Imperial Japanese military."
"2. 'Comfort women' were not sex slaves but only prostitutes who engaged in selling their sexual services."
"3. The victim count of the 'Nanjing Incident' is neither 300,000 like the Chinese say nor 200,000 like the Japanese tetbooks say, but only 10,000 at the most. Even if the report by the International Committee of the Safety Zone were all verifiable, there were only 47 civilian casualties."
"4. As for the colonization of Choson (Korea) and the Sino-Japanese War, Japan should bear no responsibility. The real responsibility lies with (the governments of) Choson and China who felt no sense of crisis facing the threats from Russia, Europe, and America."
"5. The real threat of many East Asian countries when (Imperial) Japan expanded into Asia was not Japan but the Powers of Russia, Europe, and America."
"6. The problems of 'Nanjing Massacre' and 'Comfort Women' were all fabrications propagated by anti-Japanese elements from in and out of Japan."
Whatever you may argue to discredit the current Security Council member states, the immutable fact remains that Japan's government has not lived up to it vows it made at the unconditional surrender on Aug. 15, 1945. Its official apologies were revoked either in words or in action. What else would satisfy you ? :?
Singapore supports Japan's bid for permanent UN Security Council seat
Thursday May 19, 6:17 PM
SINGAPORE : Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said Singapore supported Japan's bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
He said Japan was a natural candidate as it makes many international contributions, and has the ability to contribute internationally to peace, stability and prosperity in the world.
Mr Lee was speaking to the Japanese media in Singapore on Tuesday ahead of a visit to Tokyo next week.
I support Japan's bid for permanent UN Security Council seat too. I think the problems with the A class war criminals in Yasukuni shrine will be solved in the future.
I support Japan's bid for permanent UN Security Council seat too. I think the problems with the A class war criminals in Yasukuni shrine will be solved in the future.
I raised the issue of Okinawa because you and some of the other Japanese posters often use the issue of Tibet as a point of contention about the morality of China, without also weighing in on the morality of Japan vis the Okinawans. At least I don't apply assymetrical standards to Tibet and Okinawa. Personally, I do not think that complete independance is viable based on "common sense" that both are so integrated with the mainland etc., but am I fit to speak for all of them? Unless there's a referendum, we will never know the will of Tibetans and Okinawans. Since the assumption is Japan is more moral than China in supporting self-determination and democracy, I would infer that surely a referendum for Okinawa is something desirable to the Japanese. Again, you assume that a referendum MUST be about either the status quo or independence, but as the links shows, there are a host of political options that are neither. Attention to Tibet's cause has afforded the Tibetans greater bargaining power vis the central government as to their degree of autonomy and other issues. Okinawans could likeweise benefit from greater attention to their issue to strengthen their minority status vis the Japanese government. Surely your family would be glad to see Okinawans not bear the brunt of hosting the US bases alone.
As to Japan's military arsenal, it seems they are already purchasing what akins to an aircraft carrier for projectile purposes, something not even China has done. Their planes are conducting joint exercises with US ones and their military tankers are in the Indian Ocean fuelling US battleships. I would defer to opnions of military experts from Jane magazine to Foreign Affairs as to Japan's military capability. Unless you can provide a credible link that debunks the collective opinion of experts.
You keep talking about whether Japan's victims feel it has apologised enough [how many times must Japan apologise???!!!], but you seem to fail to note that the greater grievance is that the apology rings hollow in the light of Japan's government DEEDS - approving revisionist history books, endorsing Yasukuni Shrine, cracking down on teachers, etc. There are revisionist organisations boasting major supporters from LDP and corporate interests, revisionist best-selling books, manga, etc., but it is the official stance from the Japanese government that causes the greatest anger among former victims. Koizumi regularly invokes Japan's "freedom of speech" but FoS does not protect lies, libel or crying "fire!" in a crowded theatre. We can infer from his visits to Yasukuni that he believes the Yasukuni "Japan went into WWII in self-defense" crap. After Koizumi, more belligerent politicians like Shinzo Abe, Ishihara are waiting in the wings. Japan is getting more rightwing not less.
As to China's 2-week war with Vietnam, I believe that China had a political alliance with Cambodia as an ally, and Vietnam attacked the Chinese living in Vietnam. When Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, the US went to war with Iraq as Kuwait was an ally, with the world's blessings. Does it make the US or UN "unpeaceful"? Likewise, if Country X were to invade Japan and attack American nationals living in Country X, do you think it is proper for the US to do nothing vis its own people and its ally?
As to how all of this matter to Japan's entry into the UNSC, I believe the criteria most of us would apply is whether Japan will be likely to be a responsible member, a peace maker, one who honours and abides by interntional laws rather than offering unequivocal support to the biggest bully on the block. That it honours and glorifies its wartime past shows that it still believes unprovoked wars was the right thing to do if they can justify it with some vague notions of "self-defense" and "liberating" others. Today, it supports "pre-emptive" wars which are opposed by the UN. It is on an increasingly more rightwing and less liberal trajectory, as the changes to their Constitution shows. They will be more likely to crack down on dissent, not less. I do think that Japan should join the UNSC, but certainly not when there is so much support for this belligerent rightwing majority.
You have boiled the whole thing down to the bottom again, senseiman, which i am afraid will get on your own nerves. But i feel obliged to remind you that you are not in the best position to tell a Chinese or Korean that he is ludicrously hypocritical not to think "the repeated apologies Japan has issued over for acts commited over 60 years ago have been sufficiently heartfelt." You do make a competent spokesman for the offender in telling the offended that the offender's apology must be taken as heartfelt.
I do doubt if you are trying to derail this debate. Ok, let me just follow you since sentiments prevent you from following me:
Today's Tibet is just like one of the former Soviet republics and I personally think it will earn its independence from communist China. Tibetans as well as the Inner-Mongolians well deserve and should have gained more significant moral support from this highly moralised international world.
Personally, i do think that the communist regime in China deserves santions from the international community in many respects, what then? Does this mean Japan's immorality (if any) can be justified and that there need to be no moral standard for anyone in any issue?
Briefly as I lack time, as Senseiman said there is probably no moral qualification to be on the UNSC considering the current members' past. It is all a matter of power. The most powerful and influencial countries are eligible. That's why Germany and Japan can both be considered. But as Lexico and others said, Germany has reflected on its past and matured more than Japan, and therefore should be rewarded for that.
I also agree with Bossel that the current system of permanent members should be changed.
. The most powerful and influencial countries are eligible. That's why Germany and Japan can both be considered. But as Lexico and others said, Germany has reflected on its past and matured more than Japan, and therefore should be rewarded for that.
Might I add that when the poll of Japan's support for Iraq's invasion was broken down, a MAJORITY of those in their 20s SUPPORTED it. They are also the largest population segment to support the new Constitution changes away from pacifism. This is consistent with the right-leaning trend, and with much you see on this site.
All those "accurate" history books and the new indoctrination seem to be doing their job just fine.
It's also bizarre for any progressives to dismiss Chinese and Korean demands. After all, they are asking that history be accurately portrayed as a minimum legitimate right of the victims, they are not asking for lavish memorials, Japan to punish itself or commit harakiri . How can anyone decent tell the victims they must change their attitude in demanding for truth, to accommodate neo-fascist attitude of lying and glorifying an ignoble historic crime?
And while you dismiss Ishihara as an aged crackpot, you must surely realise that a MAJORITY of Tokyo residents, a barometer of Japanese public opinion, voted for him and his extreme, lunatic, warmongering jingoistic politics. To them, they are none of that, but what Japan should be about.
There is a huge and growing base of support for the rightwing extreme, I have cited many sources vs your gut instincts. We used to laugh at Bush and the basketcase rightwing evangalical crusading Americans, look how we have underestimated them as they seized the global agenda.
My prediction is that with the new Constitution in place, we will see joint US-Japan air strikes against N. Korean targets, the way the US tormented Iraq with the no-fly zones for years, which is why Kim really needs his nuclear cards. In the Middle East, joint US-Israeli strikes will target Iran, unless the oil-dependant import countries [Europe, China, Japan even] can raise a big enough stink and retaliate on Iran's behalf.
My prediction is that with the new Constitution in place, we will see joint US-Japan air strikes against N. Korean targets, the way the US tormented Iraq with the no-fly zones for years, which is why Kim really needs his nuclear cards. In the Middle East, joint US-Israeli strikes will target Iran, unless the oil-dependant import countries [Europe, China, Japan even] can raise a big enough stink and retaliate on Iran's behalf.
Firstly, as far as in the even near future you will not see joint strikes between simply the US and Japan on North Korea. You might see joint strikes between multiple other countries, but the US and Japan alone do not have the military edge to provoke a fight with North Korea. As far as your comments about US-Israeli strikes against Iran go, European countries are becoming much more interested in affairs of Iran right now, so it is not just
qwertyu said:
Bush and the basketcase rightwing evangalical crusading Americans
I raised the issue of Okinawa because you and some of the other Japanese posters often use the issue of Tibet as a point of contention about the morality of China, without also weighing in on the morality of Japan vis the Okinawans. At least I don't apply assymetrical standards to Tibet and Okinawa. Personally, I do not think that complete independance is viable based on "common sense" that both are so integrated with the mainland etc., but am I fit to speak for all of them? Unless there's a referendum, we will never know the will of Tibetans and Okinawans.
You don't need a referendum on every issue if there is almost no popular support for it. In a poll conducted by Ryukyu university (the most prestigious institution in Okinawa) it was revealed that only 3% of Okinawans support independence. About half favored giving more control to the government in Naha and less to Tokyo, but almost none favored outright independence. Here is the link:
Does this satisfy you that I am not just stating my own opinion but am stating what I believe to be the prevailing opinion of most Okinawans when I say almost nobody would vote for independence?
qwertyu said:
Since the assumption is Japan is more moral than China in supporting self-determination and democracy, I would infer that surely a referendum for Okinawa is something desirable to the Japanese.
I make no such assumption, the record of Tokyo is extremely bleak in this area.
qwertyu said:
Again, you assume that a referendum MUST be about either the status quo or independence, but as the links shows, there are a host of political options that are neither. Attention to Tibet's cause has afforded the Tibetans greater bargaining power vis the central government as to their degree of autonomy and other issues. Okinawans could likeweise benefit from greater attention to their issue to strengthen their minority status vis the Japanese government. Surely your family would be glad to see Okinawans not bear the brunt of hosting the US bases alone.
I never assumed anything about the nature of any referendum. I simply stated that very few Okinawans would favor independence in a referendum, which is a fact. I would be 100% in favor of a referendum on greater autonomy for Okinawa, as would most Okinawans.
qwertyu said:
You keep talking about whether Japan's victims feel it has apologised enough [how many times must Japan apologise???!!!], but you seem to fail to note that the greater grievance is that the apology rings hollow in the light of Japan's government DEEDS - approving revisionist history books, endorsing Yasukuni Shrine, cracking down on teachers, etc. There are revisionist organisations boasting major supporters from LDP and corporate interests, revisionist best-selling books, manga, etc., but it is the official stance from the Japanese government that causes the greatest anger among former victims. Koizumi regularly invokes Japan's "freedom of speech" but FoS does not protect lies, libel or crying "fire!" in a crowded theatre. We can infer from his visits to Yasukuni that he believes the Yasukuni "Japan went into WWII in self-defense" crap. After Koizumi, more belligerent politicians like Shinzo Abe, Ishihara are waiting in the wings. Japan is getting more rightwing not less.
How many times do I have to explain this? I'M NOT DEBATING WHETHER OR NOT JAPAN HAS APOLOGIZED SINCERELY OR WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF JAPANESE POLITICIANS HAVE BEEN OFFENSIVE. I completely agree that Japan has not done enough to atone for its past crimes. I completely agree that Japan's victims have every right to remain angry and demand compensation and a sincere apology. I completely agree that the rhetoric and actions of Japanese politicians make their apologies ring hollow. I completely agree that the rise of the right wing in Japan is an ugly phenomenah that ought to be of concern to all. I simply, in response to the original theme of this thread, stated that I didn't think that those were in and of themselves sufficient grounds to dismiss Japan as being morally unqualified to serve on the UN Security council as a permanent member. End of story.
Mere words can hardly deny facts of Japan's military ambition in the past and the possibility of its future military ambition especially when the Japanese mainstream is held under suspection of not being able to assume responsibilities for its imperial past.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
