From what little time I have for the news, I gather that, for some time now, the Japanese government has been asserting that it will clear up the issue of comfort women with Korea by the end of the year. Personally, I applaud this effort to try and reconcile differences between Japan and Korea, and I hope this marks a greater shift towards a deeper understanding between Japan and its neighbouring countries.
However, I have a couple of issues with how this reconciliation is being approached. The short version is that the approach of both governments is fundamentally flawed.
1) The necessity for financial compensation.
It makes sense from a legal perspective that victims be compensated for the traumas (in this case, quite horrific ones) incurred. However, who should be paying that compensation? The issue is such an old one now that it is no longer possible to round up the responsible people and impart justice.
From the agreements reached so far it looks like the Japanese government will be paying compensation, which superficially seems fair: it was the Japanese government that occupied Korea, right? Well, I have problems with this.
Firstly, the Japanese government now is nothing like the organization that rampaged around East Asia during the war. To my mind, it is a separate entity, established largely by the US when they demolished Imperial Japan and led them by the hand to a truer democracy*. Since then, it has evolved yet more. As such, I think it odd that modern Japan be held directly responsible for the compensation of the comfort women.
Secondly, where does this money come from? The government gets its money from taxes, which are paid by working individuals in Japanese society that are entirely innocent. Sure, the figure per head is going to be infinitesimal** (7.8 yen, something like 4p), but to my mind this is foundationally flawed.
2)Japanese revisionism
Just so we're clear, it's not just the Korean side I have issue with here, the Japanese side is equally flawed. It is plain to see on the news, Abe wants to "put an end to the issue before the year is out". Why the rush? Is this really the best premise for discussion? He may as well announce "Let's just get this over with quickly so that when the new year comes we can forget all about it". Anyway, part of the initial terms drawn up by Japan was the removal of a statue erected outside the Japanese embassy. This statue symbolizes the pains inflicted by Imperial Japan and a defiance, which I applaud, towards Japanese indifference to the issue.
I think part of the issue here is that the statue hurts Japanese honour. But let's be honest, it should do. The actions of Imperial Japan are a shame to the name of Japan, and it is by overcoming that shame that Japan should move forward; the Japanese government should be working towards building a society where past lessons are learned and can never be repeated. Instead, Japan has focussed on this shame as something that needs removing, rather than a harsh lesson.
I feel slightly alleviated by the fact that Korea haven't agreed to this term yet; however, I am somewhat disappointed that revisionism isn't the main thrust of Korea's discussions. If you're going to hold modern Japan to account, at least do so for its own wrongdoings***...
*The barbarism the US displayed (admittedly blood was on everyone's hands back then) is at least partially offset by the spirit of cooperation the US managed to forge with their vanquished.
**1 billion yen divided by 127 million people. 7.8 yen doesn't sound like much, but 1 billion yen is. A lot of good could be done with that money; lives could be saved with it, but as it stands a lot of elderly people and their families are going to get large sums of money. Yeah, they deserve a break, but so do starving children in the slums of the places we like to forget about.
*** My greatest fear here is that, by focussing on the money, the solution will only be a temporary one. I'm sure there is still plenty of anger in Korea regarding this issue, and while Japan keeps avoiding the issue, the Japanese will be less informed as to why such a sentiment exists. This in turn reinforces Japanese hostility. In such a situation, one can only hope that time passing will counteract this.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Reinterpretation of the Peace Constitution. Does it matter?
Japan's government has recently begun implementing its reinterpretation of the Peace Constitution. For more than 60 years, Japan has foregone the right to use military force except in self-defence, but the new changes being implemented by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) mean Japan will now exercise the right to "collective defence".
Here, collective defence means providing military force in defence of an ally. What does this mean in real terms, though? I think its fair to say that if a nation allied to Japan came under attack, that the Japanese government would be quick to forget the peace constitution and make ready to commit troops anyway, where such a conflict was endangering Japanese security. One example often touted by the media is the new ability for Japan to shoot down missiles from (for example) N. Korea, that were headed for an allied country (i.e. the USA). I would conjecture that even without the reinterpretation of the constitution that Japan would do this, because it cant risk losing face to America because of its dependence on the US for trade, and it could easily justify the action after the fact. The same goes for any conflict involving major trading partners.
In this light, the reinterpretation seems very much like what Japan has been continually doing: posturing. There is overwhelming support among the political parties of Japan for the reinterpretation, and so we can probably assume that (for example) shooting down a couple of North Korean missiles would be received relatively positively over here, regardless of the constitution. The real power of the changes is political: PM Shinzo Abe will gain a fair amount of domestic support from this move.
The problem with such reinterpretation of the constitution is the same problem with Japan that it has always had from posturing: international relations. China and S. Korea have both objected to the change, and the reinterpretation of the peace constitution provides a tempting foundation upon which to criticise Japan. It would be easy at this point to paint Japan as re-militarising, increasingly extremist, and unwilling to resolve disputes diplomatically.
It makes me wonder, is the gain in domestic support really worth the loss of respect in Asia? Then again, does this political posturing really have any impact on trade?
EDIT: Reading the paper this morning, while Abe managed to push this through through the government, it isn't riding well at all with the public: Polls suggest public support for the Abe cabinet has dropped under 50%, with 54.4% disagreeing with the move, and only 34.6% agreeing. Its kind of nice to know the Peace Constitution is valued by the Japanese people, and this raises some questions over the validity of Abe's actions; however, I'd like to think that the Japanese people don't in principal object to the idea of shooting down missiles en-route to their allies..
Here, collective defence means providing military force in defence of an ally. What does this mean in real terms, though? I think its fair to say that if a nation allied to Japan came under attack, that the Japanese government would be quick to forget the peace constitution and make ready to commit troops anyway, where such a conflict was endangering Japanese security. One example often touted by the media is the new ability for Japan to shoot down missiles from (for example) N. Korea, that were headed for an allied country (i.e. the USA). I would conjecture that even without the reinterpretation of the constitution that Japan would do this, because it cant risk losing face to America because of its dependence on the US for trade, and it could easily justify the action after the fact. The same goes for any conflict involving major trading partners.
In this light, the reinterpretation seems very much like what Japan has been continually doing: posturing. There is overwhelming support among the political parties of Japan for the reinterpretation, and so we can probably assume that (for example) shooting down a couple of North Korean missiles would be received relatively positively over here, regardless of the constitution. The real power of the changes is political: PM Shinzo Abe will gain a fair amount of domestic support from this move.
The problem with such reinterpretation of the constitution is the same problem with Japan that it has always had from posturing: international relations. China and S. Korea have both objected to the change, and the reinterpretation of the peace constitution provides a tempting foundation upon which to criticise Japan. It would be easy at this point to paint Japan as re-militarising, increasingly extremist, and unwilling to resolve disputes diplomatically.
It makes me wonder, is the gain in domestic support really worth the loss of respect in Asia? Then again, does this political posturing really have any impact on trade?
EDIT: Reading the paper this morning, while Abe managed to push this through through the government, it isn't riding well at all with the public: Polls suggest public support for the Abe cabinet has dropped under 50%, with 54.4% disagreeing with the move, and only 34.6% agreeing. Its kind of nice to know the Peace Constitution is valued by the Japanese people, and this raises some questions over the validity of Abe's actions; however, I'd like to think that the Japanese people don't in principal object to the idea of shooting down missiles en-route to their allies..
Monday, May 26, 2014
Japan and China: get outta my airspace!
Recently, a Japanese surveillance plane was tailed at close proximity as it flew within the overlapping area of Japan and China's Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ)*.
The Japanese media is very keen to point out the more ominous points of this encounter: Namely, the exceptionally close proximity of the Chinese fighter aircraft (approximately 30 m), the lack of radio communication (despite supposedly having been hailed by the Japanese pilots), and the interpretation of these events as the implementation of China's recent expansion of its ADIZ. These reports are often mentioned in the same breath as the expansion of China's influence in the South China Sea, and paint China much like a dangerous animal that needs to be contained..
Listening a little closer reveals that the Chinese and Russian forces were doing military drills in the area, and China has painted the issue as a kind of invasion of military privacy. This made me laugh at first: So far as I can tell, the Chinese and Russians had every right to do their drills there (I believe it was international waters.. My world politics isn't great), but given the Chinese ADIZ was only extended in the last year, it seems pretty hypocritical to complain of Japanese surveillance planes peeking at your naval tactics when you are conducting drills near/inside the Japanese ADIZ.
The next little tidbit, that I've yet to hear mentioned in the Japanese news**, is the fact that the Japanese unilaterally expanded their ADIZ in 2010, to encompass Yonaguni island. To be fair, Yonaguni is inhabited by Japanese citizens, whereas the Chinese expansion does not increase the Chinese ADIZ area to encompass any of its inhabited islands, so far as I'm aware. But it does include the Senkaku islands, which it does claim. Additionally the Japanese expansion of the ADIZ caused the Japanese ADIZ to overlap the Taiwanese ADIZ, apparently causing some upset (see above link).
So where does distilling the whole ADIZ business leave us? Both countries have expanded their ADIZ unilaterally in the past 5 years; however, the ADIZ is basically just a courtesy, like "knock before entering", except rather than being the door to your room, its a door at the end of a long hallway (an ADIZ generally expands well beyond the territorial waters). The problem is that neither country is really obliged to recognise the creation of an ADIZ. Generally its a good idea, because it minimises the chance of getting yourself shot down just for doing surveillance***, but an ADIZ doesn't appear to actually have any basis in international law.
My interpretation is that the Japanese forces were effectively just being rude, by failing to knock on the door. I'd go as far as to say they may as well be rude, given the fact the ADIZ was unilaterally constructed by the Chinese government; however, I think the Chinese response (to scramble fighters) is fair enough, in fact it is standard procedure for encroachment of an ADIZ (they need to make an identification of the "invading" aircraft). The fact these fighters flew within 30-50 m (and out of view) of the Japanese plane can be seen as the Chinese forces being proportionately rude in reaction.
Of course, the fact the incident occurred where the Chinese and Japanese ADIZ overlaps left plenty of room for escalation, but we didn't see that, and I don't think we will. The main escalation was done (as ever) by the media. Exactly what could have been expected to happen happened: an ADIZ was trespassed*4*, and a response was incurred.
The fact that China has been expanding its influence is relevant, but given no blows have been exchanged, and the relative balance of power between China and Japan isn't changed by the incident, this remains, as is so often the case between these two countries, another petty exchange.
What I will say is this kind of thing is awfully convenient for Shinzo Abe's designs for reinterpretation of Japanese Constitution, and I wonder whether the Japanese media's reaction is influenced by this. After all, on the scale of international incidents, this is practically a non-event: the UK does this all the time *5*, and I didn't hear about it until it hit the news following the whole Russia-Ukraine thing...
*An ADIZ is just an area in which a country claims any aircraft that enter must submit their flight plans to the claimant country.
** Though, given my inexperience, I'll be lucky to catch it, even if it is mentioned..
*** No idea if that ever happened..
*4* There must be a better term, seeing as a crime wasn't committed..
*5* Dear Russia, if you're listening, you make beautiful aircraft, but do you really need to do flybys of the North Sea in tactical nuclear bombers? I don't doubt pilots get pretty bored without a few hours in the sky, but you have the whole of Russia to practice in! In any case, you'll make our Tornado pilots jealous..
The Japanese media is very keen to point out the more ominous points of this encounter: Namely, the exceptionally close proximity of the Chinese fighter aircraft (approximately 30 m), the lack of radio communication (despite supposedly having been hailed by the Japanese pilots), and the interpretation of these events as the implementation of China's recent expansion of its ADIZ. These reports are often mentioned in the same breath as the expansion of China's influence in the South China Sea, and paint China much like a dangerous animal that needs to be contained..
Listening a little closer reveals that the Chinese and Russian forces were doing military drills in the area, and China has painted the issue as a kind of invasion of military privacy. This made me laugh at first: So far as I can tell, the Chinese and Russians had every right to do their drills there (I believe it was international waters.. My world politics isn't great), but given the Chinese ADIZ was only extended in the last year, it seems pretty hypocritical to complain of Japanese surveillance planes peeking at your naval tactics when you are conducting drills near/inside the Japanese ADIZ.
The next little tidbit, that I've yet to hear mentioned in the Japanese news**, is the fact that the Japanese unilaterally expanded their ADIZ in 2010, to encompass Yonaguni island. To be fair, Yonaguni is inhabited by Japanese citizens, whereas the Chinese expansion does not increase the Chinese ADIZ area to encompass any of its inhabited islands, so far as I'm aware. But it does include the Senkaku islands, which it does claim. Additionally the Japanese expansion of the ADIZ caused the Japanese ADIZ to overlap the Taiwanese ADIZ, apparently causing some upset (see above link).
So where does distilling the whole ADIZ business leave us? Both countries have expanded their ADIZ unilaterally in the past 5 years; however, the ADIZ is basically just a courtesy, like "knock before entering", except rather than being the door to your room, its a door at the end of a long hallway (an ADIZ generally expands well beyond the territorial waters). The problem is that neither country is really obliged to recognise the creation of an ADIZ. Generally its a good idea, because it minimises the chance of getting yourself shot down just for doing surveillance***, but an ADIZ doesn't appear to actually have any basis in international law.
My interpretation is that the Japanese forces were effectively just being rude, by failing to knock on the door. I'd go as far as to say they may as well be rude, given the fact the ADIZ was unilaterally constructed by the Chinese government; however, I think the Chinese response (to scramble fighters) is fair enough, in fact it is standard procedure for encroachment of an ADIZ (they need to make an identification of the "invading" aircraft). The fact these fighters flew within 30-50 m (and out of view) of the Japanese plane can be seen as the Chinese forces being proportionately rude in reaction.
Of course, the fact the incident occurred where the Chinese and Japanese ADIZ overlaps left plenty of room for escalation, but we didn't see that, and I don't think we will. The main escalation was done (as ever) by the media. Exactly what could have been expected to happen happened: an ADIZ was trespassed*4*, and a response was incurred.
The fact that China has been expanding its influence is relevant, but given no blows have been exchanged, and the relative balance of power between China and Japan isn't changed by the incident, this remains, as is so often the case between these two countries, another petty exchange.
What I will say is this kind of thing is awfully convenient for Shinzo Abe's designs for reinterpretation of Japanese Constitution, and I wonder whether the Japanese media's reaction is influenced by this. After all, on the scale of international incidents, this is practically a non-event: the UK does this all the time *5*, and I didn't hear about it until it hit the news following the whole Russia-Ukraine thing...
*An ADIZ is just an area in which a country claims any aircraft that enter must submit their flight plans to the claimant country.
** Though, given my inexperience, I'll be lucky to catch it, even if it is mentioned..
*** No idea if that ever happened..
*4* There must be a better term, seeing as a crime wasn't committed..
*5* Dear Russia, if you're listening, you make beautiful aircraft, but do you really need to do flybys of the North Sea in tactical nuclear bombers? I don't doubt pilots get pretty bored without a few hours in the sky, but you have the whole of Russia to practice in! In any case, you'll make our Tornado pilots jealous..
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Visiting the Yasukuni Shrine
To set a point straight: In my opinion, the Yushukan museum (the propaganda zoo situated next to the Yasukuni shrine) is an atrocity all unto itself. True, the Japanese have their own side of the story of what happened during WW2, but the stuff in that museum is exactly what the propaganda of the day was saying "it's all for the benefit of Asia, freeing it from colonialism!"... Ridiculous. The idea that promising young people here in Japan are falling for the exact same propaganda that cost so many young lives just a few decades ago is sickening.
Anyway, lets continue. Recently, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited the controversial Yasukuni war shrine.
If I (or the state, for that matter) was to visit a war-grave in the UK, noone would think a thing of it, I think. Somewhere (I assume) there are graves for the people that gave the go-ahead for the bombing of various cities in Germany, Japan, and a whole host of other cities across Europe that were under axis control. I imagine people still visit the cemeteries housing those graves, and I never heard of anyone complaining about it.
Yasukuni is a bit more complicated because the war-criminals and soldiers are all at the same complex. I'm not sure about the exact layout of the shrine, but needless to say, if you want to pay your respects to your war-dead, you might have your prayers overheard by a war-criminal or two. Evidently, if you're the leader of a country surrounded by past victims of said war-criminals, this is going to cause problems.
However, is this really a problem with the Japanese side? Or is this as much to do with our failure to understand what is going through the Japanese heads?
Freedom of religion is something we of the West are supposed to be pretty big on (not a fan of religion myself, but lets not go there today), and to tell anyone they cant worship somewhere because of events come and gone is supposedly amoral. But religion is just an obfuscation of what is really happening. The real reason Yasukuni has become such a controversy is because it has become a political tool. If the Japanese don't visit the shrine, domestically speaking they might look cowardly, and the government will weaken as a result. If they do visit the shrine, the surrounding countries will look cowardly if they don't protest. Its a horrible balancing act between Japanese public opinion and international politics, with religion acting as a pivot. If everyone just stood back and acknowledged the situation, and then moved on to the next issue, then the problem would disappear entirely. Unfortunately world politics always plays out like school-ground arguments.
Looking at the Japanese newspapers, it doesn't seem this latest visit the shrine went down too well on the Japanese side either, and perhaps this is a sign that visiting the shrine is no longer a viable way of increasing opinion poll ratings. If that is the case, then visits to the shrine by state officials might die off.
EDIT: Lets ignore the fact that Shinzo Abe is a Right-winger for the purposes of this discussion. It undoubtedly played a part in this, lets not kid ourselves that it wasn't desire for political support that really made him go, but his ideology. That isn't how most democracy works*.
EDIT2: Lets also ignore Shinzo Abe's possible ambition of nullifying the peace consitution. That is speculation, interesting and well-informed speculation, and possibly true. But for him to ever succeed he needs to come out of this affair with better public opinion than when he went in, which frankly doesn't look so certain.
*I say this with some considerable degree of hesitation.. Would love to discuss that with a politics graduate.
Anyway, lets continue. Recently, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited the controversial Yasukuni war shrine.
If I (or the state, for that matter) was to visit a war-grave in the UK, noone would think a thing of it, I think. Somewhere (I assume) there are graves for the people that gave the go-ahead for the bombing of various cities in Germany, Japan, and a whole host of other cities across Europe that were under axis control. I imagine people still visit the cemeteries housing those graves, and I never heard of anyone complaining about it.
Yasukuni is a bit more complicated because the war-criminals and soldiers are all at the same complex. I'm not sure about the exact layout of the shrine, but needless to say, if you want to pay your respects to your war-dead, you might have your prayers overheard by a war-criminal or two. Evidently, if you're the leader of a country surrounded by past victims of said war-criminals, this is going to cause problems.
However, is this really a problem with the Japanese side? Or is this as much to do with our failure to understand what is going through the Japanese heads?
Freedom of religion is something we of the West are supposed to be pretty big on (not a fan of religion myself, but lets not go there today), and to tell anyone they cant worship somewhere because of events come and gone is supposedly amoral. But religion is just an obfuscation of what is really happening. The real reason Yasukuni has become such a controversy is because it has become a political tool. If the Japanese don't visit the shrine, domestically speaking they might look cowardly, and the government will weaken as a result. If they do visit the shrine, the surrounding countries will look cowardly if they don't protest. Its a horrible balancing act between Japanese public opinion and international politics, with religion acting as a pivot. If everyone just stood back and acknowledged the situation, and then moved on to the next issue, then the problem would disappear entirely. Unfortunately world politics always plays out like school-ground arguments.
Looking at the Japanese newspapers, it doesn't seem this latest visit the shrine went down too well on the Japanese side either, and perhaps this is a sign that visiting the shrine is no longer a viable way of increasing opinion poll ratings. If that is the case, then visits to the shrine by state officials might die off.
EDIT: Lets ignore the fact that Shinzo Abe is a Right-winger for the purposes of this discussion. It undoubtedly played a part in this, lets not kid ourselves that it wasn't desire for political support that really made him go, but his ideology. That isn't how most democracy works*.
EDIT2: Lets also ignore Shinzo Abe's possible ambition of nullifying the peace consitution. That is speculation, interesting and well-informed speculation, and possibly true. But for him to ever succeed he needs to come out of this affair with better public opinion than when he went in, which frankly doesn't look so certain.
*I say this with some considerable degree of hesitation.. Would love to discuss that with a politics graduate.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Book: "Visas for 6000 lives" 「六千人の命のビザ」
It's been a while since I posted. I've spent most of that time writing my PhD thesis, and preparing its defence. In my spare time, I've done a fair amount of reading, my main challenge being "Visas for 6000 lives" (六千人の命のビザ).
Initially, I was quite keen (having been somewhat thrown by what I considered the difficult language in Natsume Souseki's "Bocchan") to read "Visas for 6000 lives" in English; however, I had read on the net that the translation isn't terribly good, and so I decided to get a Japanese copy and read that instead.
As it happens, I'm quite pleased I got the Japanese copy: for the most part the Japanese is not too hard going, and it was interesting enough to keep me going to the end (The most difficult part being a small telegram from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which I had to resort to getting a Japanese friend to read through for me, but besides this, the language was very accessible).
My main interest in the book is the act of humanity performed by Chiune Sugihara through which thousands of Jews were saved during the Second World War; however, the book somehow manages to condense this chapter of Sugihara's life into the first chapter (of seven). Despite this, I feel the scene was set sufficiently well, and there are a wealth of experiences and excitement through the following chapters.
As someone who knows very little of what civilian life was like in Europe during the Second World War, the book was a fascinating, sometimes heart-wrenching, glimpse of that era; albeit from the perspective of the exceptionally well-to-do.
I'd recommend the book to anyone who, like me, has little knowledge of life in Europe during that time, or is interested in finding out more about Chiune Sugihara.
Initially, I was quite keen (having been somewhat thrown by what I considered the difficult language in Natsume Souseki's "Bocchan") to read "Visas for 6000 lives" in English; however, I had read on the net that the translation isn't terribly good, and so I decided to get a Japanese copy and read that instead.
As it happens, I'm quite pleased I got the Japanese copy: for the most part the Japanese is not too hard going, and it was interesting enough to keep me going to the end (The most difficult part being a small telegram from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which I had to resort to getting a Japanese friend to read through for me, but besides this, the language was very accessible).
My main interest in the book is the act of humanity performed by Chiune Sugihara through which thousands of Jews were saved during the Second World War; however, the book somehow manages to condense this chapter of Sugihara's life into the first chapter (of seven). Despite this, I feel the scene was set sufficiently well, and there are a wealth of experiences and excitement through the following chapters.
As someone who knows very little of what civilian life was like in Europe during the Second World War, the book was a fascinating, sometimes heart-wrenching, glimpse of that era; albeit from the perspective of the exceptionally well-to-do.
I'd recommend the book to anyone who, like me, has little knowledge of life in Europe during that time, or is interested in finding out more about Chiune Sugihara.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
More gubenatorial stupidity?
Same s***, different governor? This time its comfort women, who were "necessary" according to the Osaka governer Toru Hashimoto.
I mean, that's just stupid, right? Comfort women aren't necessary! The American's never did th-- oh wait.. Yes, they did, actually. And they got the idea from the Japanese, at that.
Despite shooting down my own argument here, I'm still inclined to say that the comfort women weren't necessary. They might have acted as a "breakwater" between the troops and "regular" women and girls, but considering they recruited the women at exceptionally low wage from a newly impoverished* population does much to blur the lines between "regular" women and comfort women.
So perhaps some of the population at large was protected, but only by recruiting members of the population that likely had little choice.
That said, I never heard of Allied troops with comfort women available during the liberation of Europe. The idea of being shot at making you require a shag is somewhat alien to me**. Surely the best way of letting troops rest is to move them away from the front lines for a while?
So what is the point of this discussion? That Hashimoto is an idiot? Unfortunately, I'm inclined to disagree, no matter how stupid the above is, some of Hashimoto's other ideas are pretty good: he supports cooperation in the case of several island disputes, and tends toward a compromising stance on the Futenma air bases. On the whole though, Hashimoto's nationalist stance, and apparent eagerness to revert rape issues to prostitution ones isn't something I'm willing to overlook.
What really gets to me about this man is that he isn't one of the "old-boys" of Japanese politics, or really an "old boy" of any sort at all. He is the product of late post-war Japan. Born in the 1960s, he's seen Japan's economic rise without having witnessed the destruction that war wrought on his country. There are millions of Japanese who have been brought up in the post-war society, and some of these are becoming the political big-wigs. I fear that they don't have the perspective of their elders, and with the effective censorship of the war in textbooks, I don't see things improving any time soon. From my limited outside view, it seems as though pragmatism is the only thing keeping the right-wingers in check at the moment.
Naoki Inose's (the Tokyo Governor) has come out with some stupid comments, but Inose is pretty harmless. Indeed, Inose exudes an image of cutesy Japanese anime-style stupidity. But people like Hashimoto also exist, who are undoubtedly intelligent, but harbour very dangerous ideologies.
*ie, decimated
**indeed the idea of being shot at in general is alien to me, though I've been in the line of practice fire before (and through no fault of my own, I'll add)
I mean, that's just stupid, right? Comfort women aren't necessary! The American's never did th-- oh wait.. Yes, they did, actually. And they got the idea from the Japanese, at that.
Despite shooting down my own argument here, I'm still inclined to say that the comfort women weren't necessary. They might have acted as a "breakwater" between the troops and "regular" women and girls, but considering they recruited the women at exceptionally low wage from a newly impoverished* population does much to blur the lines between "regular" women and comfort women.
So perhaps some of the population at large was protected, but only by recruiting members of the population that likely had little choice.
That said, I never heard of Allied troops with comfort women available during the liberation of Europe. The idea of being shot at making you require a shag is somewhat alien to me**. Surely the best way of letting troops rest is to move them away from the front lines for a while?
So what is the point of this discussion? That Hashimoto is an idiot? Unfortunately, I'm inclined to disagree, no matter how stupid the above is, some of Hashimoto's other ideas are pretty good: he supports cooperation in the case of several island disputes, and tends toward a compromising stance on the Futenma air bases. On the whole though, Hashimoto's nationalist stance, and apparent eagerness to revert rape issues to prostitution ones isn't something I'm willing to overlook.
What really gets to me about this man is that he isn't one of the "old-boys" of Japanese politics, or really an "old boy" of any sort at all. He is the product of late post-war Japan. Born in the 1960s, he's seen Japan's economic rise without having witnessed the destruction that war wrought on his country. There are millions of Japanese who have been brought up in the post-war society, and some of these are becoming the political big-wigs. I fear that they don't have the perspective of their elders, and with the effective censorship of the war in textbooks, I don't see things improving any time soon. From my limited outside view, it seems as though pragmatism is the only thing keeping the right-wingers in check at the moment.
Naoki Inose's (the Tokyo Governor) has come out with some stupid comments, but Inose is pretty harmless. Indeed, Inose exudes an image of cutesy Japanese anime-style stupidity. But people like Hashimoto also exist, who are undoubtedly intelligent, but harbour very dangerous ideologies.
*ie, decimated
**indeed the idea of being shot at in general is alien to me, though I've been in the line of practice fire before (and through no fault of my own, I'll add)
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Tokyo gubernatorial stupidity: Naoki Inose
Ah Japanese politicians. The outside world must seem so confusing to them. Yes, I'm thinking of Tokyo Governor Naoki Inose's remarks on Istanbul's Olympic bid (go ahead and click that link, the picture is great: looks like they're trying to use the mics to push him over backwards*).
Its almost embarrassing to read what he said, and it shows an outspoken ignorance of the outside world that would get you fired from most jobs in the public eye over here. I find it a bit funny that not so long ago he was warning against complacency over winning the Olympic bid.
Well, its obvious that Tokyo has now screwed its Olympic bid to Pluto and back, but I doubt that will do much to mar Inose's reputation at home, considering his predecessor was completely outrageous, and still was able to resign on his own terms.
But for my part, I'm not going to lose all faith in Inose-sensei. Even if he is a complete pratt, reading his wiki page (Japanese) gives the sense of a reformer, and if nothing else, he played a part in the rescue of several people in the 2011 Tohoku earthquake.
That said, the guy needs to get a bookshelf for that ¥4.5 million toilet of his. Perhaps he can then learn something about how Istanbul was a major seat of civilisation for hundreds of years (maybe thousands of years including the other civilisations that existed there. Hell, I need that book too)...
EDIT: Somehow, Tokyo managed to win the 2020 Olympic bid, though I suspect it has more to do with this person, than Inose.
* I hope you'll forgive my being light-hearted. As much as anything this post is just an excuse to use the word "gubernatorial"** which I can't imagine a single way of pronouncing that doesn't sound ridiculous.
** a word so strange to me that I initially thought it was a cute Japanese corruption of some other word that doesn't sound stupid. If only English were so sensible...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)