Ms.H.K.is an 88 year-old Japanese woman. In her younger days she experienced two wars of entirely different nature. She was even about to join in a third one, but was fortunately prevented from doing so. I have attended a public lecture she has given recently on her life.
She was born in 1924 in a farming family. She went to high school which was not very common at the time. As the war became intensified she went to a nurse-training school and got qualified as a nurse. She was drafted as a nurse and sent to an Army hospital near the Great Wall in the Northeast China in 1944. It was a two-year contract. But in reality she was in China for 14 years until her return to Japan in 1958.
She heard the news of Japan's defeat while working in the above hospital. She and the whole hospital were in the process of regrouping, when they were suddenly surrounded by the Eighth-Route Army of the Chinese Communists. There she and several others were attached to the Eighth Route.
From then on they kept marching(sometimes retreating from the Nationalist Army) almost day and night. One of the things she saw on the way was a people's court where landlords were being shouted at by their former tenants. With the Eighth Route she studied mutual criticism and self criticism. She noticed that the Communist Party members in the Army were taken into confidence, but casualties among them were also high. There were many severely injured anyway, and she used to nurse them for a month or so without changing her clothes.
They crossed the Wall into the mainland. She noticed that those soldiers who had been given a plot of land in the revolution now demanded that they be allowed to go home, as there is nobody to cultivate the newly acquired plot.
South of the Wall, she noticed the fertility of the Yellow River area which she did not see in the Northeast. The climate is different, and there were also different diseases like malaria. It was strange to see people keeping water in a big pot with fish in it. If the fish was swimming they say the water is fresh. The language is also different.
She and the troops have gone as far as Quilin, famous for its beautiful natural scenery, when the People's Republic was declared to be established. By this time she had also been qualified as a doctor.
Very soon the Korean War broke out. She with many other volunteers moved as fast as possible day and night to the North Korean border and changed into Korean uniforms. But at the very last moment the Japanese nationals were ordered not to cross the river. Bidding farewell to her associates of many years, she came back to the South again, where she continued to work as a doctor-cum-nurse till the time she returned home.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Which Way DPRK? Which Way Japan?
Kim Jong-il died, and Kim Jong-un has succeeded, if not in all the titles that his father used to monopolize, but very substantially.
Kim Jong-il has failed miserably, especially in the economic field. His people were starving. The disparity between DPRK(North Korea) and the South is expanding. The aerial photo taken at night showed that the southeren part of the Korean Peninsula was all bright and glittering, while the north was almost completely in darkness. It was so many years ago already.
Kim Jong-il tried to develop nuclear weapons and missiles to get economic dividend in the form of capital goods and energy in exchange for them, mainly from the US. But the strategy was too transparent to succeed. Why then did they not approach Japan instead?
Japan, as has been discussed in these columns, has been so tightly bound up with the US. Knowing this fully well, the US were not willing to offer too soon what the DPRK wanted.
In Japan's case, there is one peculiar problem. Some of her nationals have been kidnapped by the State organ of the DPRK, and have not returned yet. Kim Jong-il admitted this and apologized to Japan's Prime Minister when he visited Pyongyang in 2002. And he returned some of them. But the others were all proclaimed to be dead, and nothing has been heard of them though they promised reinvestigation. It is doubtful whether the new leader will admit that there is such an outstanding problem.
In the six-party talks consisting of China as Chairman, the US, Russia, Japan and the two Koreas, Japan has tended to insist on the solution of this problem. The six-party talks were set up primarily to discuss the DPRK's nuclear problem, and as such were not an ideal arena to discuss other issues. There should have been a different place. Was there any?
The Japan-DPRK Pyongyang Declaration, concluded at the 2002 summit, says that the two countries will recommence talks for the normalization of relations. Having diplomatic relations has been therefore agreed upon between the two a long time ago. It has been reconfirmed, together with the normalization of the US-DPRK relations, at the six-party talks in September 2005. No matter what may have happened, it is unthinkable not to recognize a country which the UN General Assembly unanimously welcomed in 1991.
If the two countries had been keen on having relations, there would have been Embassies in each other's capital by now. Even if it would have been short of full diplomatic relations, they could have had missions in each other as the first step, as Japan and the Philippines did before they had formal relations.
In order for the above process to be realized, it is necessary for DPRK to explain each and every case of the Japanese nationals missing. But once it is done the road to the normalization will be much smoother. The 2002 Declaration says that after the normalization Japan will provide economic cooperation to the DPRK. It will certainly help them not to continue the present nuclear approach. It will enormously ease military tensions in the whole of East Asia. A wiser policy on the part of Japan would have made them unnecessary to go nuclear in a double way, economic and military.
Out of the six parties, only Japan is in a position to do something to break the deadlock in East Asia, if she has got that courage. What she is doing is largely in the reverse, like deciding to buy F35 fighters from the US, as many as 42 in all, as if it will assure China, DPRK, or others.
Kim Jong-il has failed miserably, especially in the economic field. His people were starving. The disparity between DPRK(North Korea) and the South is expanding. The aerial photo taken at night showed that the southeren part of the Korean Peninsula was all bright and glittering, while the north was almost completely in darkness. It was so many years ago already.
Kim Jong-il tried to develop nuclear weapons and missiles to get economic dividend in the form of capital goods and energy in exchange for them, mainly from the US. But the strategy was too transparent to succeed. Why then did they not approach Japan instead?
Japan, as has been discussed in these columns, has been so tightly bound up with the US. Knowing this fully well, the US were not willing to offer too soon what the DPRK wanted.
In Japan's case, there is one peculiar problem. Some of her nationals have been kidnapped by the State organ of the DPRK, and have not returned yet. Kim Jong-il admitted this and apologized to Japan's Prime Minister when he visited Pyongyang in 2002. And he returned some of them. But the others were all proclaimed to be dead, and nothing has been heard of them though they promised reinvestigation. It is doubtful whether the new leader will admit that there is such an outstanding problem.
In the six-party talks consisting of China as Chairman, the US, Russia, Japan and the two Koreas, Japan has tended to insist on the solution of this problem. The six-party talks were set up primarily to discuss the DPRK's nuclear problem, and as such were not an ideal arena to discuss other issues. There should have been a different place. Was there any?
The Japan-DPRK Pyongyang Declaration, concluded at the 2002 summit, says that the two countries will recommence talks for the normalization of relations. Having diplomatic relations has been therefore agreed upon between the two a long time ago. It has been reconfirmed, together with the normalization of the US-DPRK relations, at the six-party talks in September 2005. No matter what may have happened, it is unthinkable not to recognize a country which the UN General Assembly unanimously welcomed in 1991.
If the two countries had been keen on having relations, there would have been Embassies in each other's capital by now. Even if it would have been short of full diplomatic relations, they could have had missions in each other as the first step, as Japan and the Philippines did before they had formal relations.
In order for the above process to be realized, it is necessary for DPRK to explain each and every case of the Japanese nationals missing. But once it is done the road to the normalization will be much smoother. The 2002 Declaration says that after the normalization Japan will provide economic cooperation to the DPRK. It will certainly help them not to continue the present nuclear approach. It will enormously ease military tensions in the whole of East Asia. A wiser policy on the part of Japan would have made them unnecessary to go nuclear in a double way, economic and military.
Out of the six parties, only Japan is in a position to do something to break the deadlock in East Asia, if she has got that courage. What she is doing is largely in the reverse, like deciding to buy F35 fighters from the US, as many as 42 in all, as if it will assure China, DPRK, or others.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Nanjing, 13 December 1937, and Seoul, 14 December 2011
13 December 1937 in Nanjing, China, and 14 December 2011 in Seoul, South Korea, are both unforgettable days in Japan's relations with Asia.
The Japanese army occupied Nanjing, China's capital at the time, on this day and immediately started a reign of terror. Even the Judgement by Justice Radha Vinod Pal, who had not been nominated by the newly-independent India, who denied the principle of war crime, and who declared all the defendants at the Tokyo Military Tribunal not guilty, talks of the weeks of disaster in the city. I would like to postpone the discussion of Nanjing till I have visited it, however, and move on to Seoul.
During the series of wars that Japan fought for half a century, the Japanese army kidnapped a large number of women from different places in Asia and Pacific, estimated to be around 200,000, attached them to different units, and made them 'comfort women'. The number of the South Koreans is said to be the largest among them.
On Wednesday 8 January 1992, some former South Korean 'comfort women' held a meeting in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul to protest against the Japanese Government's neglect of their duty to apologize and compensate to them. This was the beginning. Since that time onward, they and their supporters, not only South Korean, have been holding a Wednesday protest meeting each and every week at the same place for twenty years. It was 1000th on 14 December 2011. It was reported that a former South Korean Prime Minister addressed the meeting.
Among the 234 women who have identified themselves as former 'comfort women' in these two decades, only 63 are remaining.
Against this background, the Constitutional Court of South Korea declared in August 2011 that it was unconstitutional on the part of the Government not to negotiate with its Japanese counterpart on the claims of the 'comfort women'.
What is the attitude of the Japanese Government? They invariably refer to an article in the Japan South Korea Treaties of 1965, which says that all the claims by the South Koreans are hereby completely and finally solved. They seldom want to recall that the same Treaties also say that if there is a difference in the interpretation of them it will be dealt with diplomatically, and if it does not lead to a solution an arbitration committee will be formed whose decision will be binding on both parties.
It was on a sunny and pleasant morning that I went to observe one such Wednesday meeting at Seoul some years ago. There were ten such women, surrounded by many more supporters. They were holding placards, demanding apologies and reparations from the Japanese Government. The meeting was over in about an hour. Then quite unexpectedly I had the pleasure of being invited to a lunch with the women and the supporters.
The Japanese army occupied Nanjing, China's capital at the time, on this day and immediately started a reign of terror. Even the Judgement by Justice Radha Vinod Pal, who had not been nominated by the newly-independent India, who denied the principle of war crime, and who declared all the defendants at the Tokyo Military Tribunal not guilty, talks of the weeks of disaster in the city. I would like to postpone the discussion of Nanjing till I have visited it, however, and move on to Seoul.
During the series of wars that Japan fought for half a century, the Japanese army kidnapped a large number of women from different places in Asia and Pacific, estimated to be around 200,000, attached them to different units, and made them 'comfort women'. The number of the South Koreans is said to be the largest among them.
On Wednesday 8 January 1992, some former South Korean 'comfort women' held a meeting in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul to protest against the Japanese Government's neglect of their duty to apologize and compensate to them. This was the beginning. Since that time onward, they and their supporters, not only South Korean, have been holding a Wednesday protest meeting each and every week at the same place for twenty years. It was 1000th on 14 December 2011. It was reported that a former South Korean Prime Minister addressed the meeting.
Among the 234 women who have identified themselves as former 'comfort women' in these two decades, only 63 are remaining.
Against this background, the Constitutional Court of South Korea declared in August 2011 that it was unconstitutional on the part of the Government not to negotiate with its Japanese counterpart on the claims of the 'comfort women'.
What is the attitude of the Japanese Government? They invariably refer to an article in the Japan South Korea Treaties of 1965, which says that all the claims by the South Koreans are hereby completely and finally solved. They seldom want to recall that the same Treaties also say that if there is a difference in the interpretation of them it will be dealt with diplomatically, and if it does not lead to a solution an arbitration committee will be formed whose decision will be binding on both parties.
It was on a sunny and pleasant morning that I went to observe one such Wednesday meeting at Seoul some years ago. There were ten such women, surrounded by many more supporters. They were holding placards, demanding apologies and reparations from the Japanese Government. The meeting was over in about an hour. Then quite unexpectedly I had the pleasure of being invited to a lunch with the women and the supporters.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay's View of the Second World War (2)
Kamaladevi wrote a letter to Gandhi dated 27 August 1939. Gandhi reproduced all or almost all of it in his Harijan of 9 October together with his reply. Probably she wrote it in Britain, probably it was shortly after the release by the bandits. But it was a remarkable letter and is worth quoting at length(CWMG vol.70, pp.235-6).
She first analyzed the nature of the impending conflict.
'The present conflict is mainly centred round the usual scramble for colonies, or spheres of influence...On this question the world thinks there are only two opinions, for it hears only two views: one which believes in the maintaining of the status quo; the other which wants a change but on the same basis, in other words, a redistribution of the loot and the right to exploit, which of course means war.'
So there seem to be only these two viewpoints in the world and the natural consequence is an armed conflict. But she says that actually there is still another stand which is not to be incorporated in neither of the above.
'That there is a third view the world hardly seems to think, for it rarely hears it. And it is so essential that it should find expression: the voice of the people who are mere pawns in the game. Neither Danzig nor the Polish corridor is the issue. The issue is the principle on which the whole of this present Western civilization is based; the right of the strong to rule and exploit the weak.
So this third path does not belong to either of the two imperialistic ways. It will be in clear conflict with them. She then defines India's position in this picture.
'We are against the status quo. We are fighting against it for we want a change in it. But our alternative is not war for we know that the real solution does not lie there. We have an alternative to offer which is the only solution of this horrible muddle and the key to future world peace...It may seem today like a cry in the wilderness; still we know that it is the voice which will ultimately prevail; and it is those hands which seem so feeble before these mailed fists that will finally reshape a battered humanity.'
In placing the Indians' and the like-minded peoples' stand she depends on the experience of the non-violent struggle of her own people. Finally she puts a request to Gandhi as the leader of that struggle.
'You are eminently fitted to give voice to it. India has, I think, a peculiar place today in the colonies of the world. It has both a moral prestige and organizational strength enjoyed by few colonies. The others look to it for a lead in many matters...India has therefore to tell a very distraught and maddened world that there is another path that humanity must tread if it would save itself from these periodical disasters and bring peace and harmony to a bleeding world.'
This is not a simple analysis. A new view, an innovating view of the ongoing conflict which was to become a full-scale war at any moment, and a fervent appeal, on that analysis, to her mother country to take notice of her position and her mission in such a world for the sake of the world peace. One may see even a forerunner of the Non-Aligned Movement of later years here, although her own country seems to be paying less and less attention to it nowadays.
She first analyzed the nature of the impending conflict.
'The present conflict is mainly centred round the usual scramble for colonies, or spheres of influence...On this question the world thinks there are only two opinions, for it hears only two views: one which believes in the maintaining of the status quo; the other which wants a change but on the same basis, in other words, a redistribution of the loot and the right to exploit, which of course means war.'
So there seem to be only these two viewpoints in the world and the natural consequence is an armed conflict. But she says that actually there is still another stand which is not to be incorporated in neither of the above.
'That there is a third view the world hardly seems to think, for it rarely hears it. And it is so essential that it should find expression: the voice of the people who are mere pawns in the game. Neither Danzig nor the Polish corridor is the issue. The issue is the principle on which the whole of this present Western civilization is based; the right of the strong to rule and exploit the weak.
So this third path does not belong to either of the two imperialistic ways. It will be in clear conflict with them. She then defines India's position in this picture.
'We are against the status quo. We are fighting against it for we want a change in it. But our alternative is not war for we know that the real solution does not lie there. We have an alternative to offer which is the only solution of this horrible muddle and the key to future world peace...It may seem today like a cry in the wilderness; still we know that it is the voice which will ultimately prevail; and it is those hands which seem so feeble before these mailed fists that will finally reshape a battered humanity.'
In placing the Indians' and the like-minded peoples' stand she depends on the experience of the non-violent struggle of her own people. Finally she puts a request to Gandhi as the leader of that struggle.
'You are eminently fitted to give voice to it. India has, I think, a peculiar place today in the colonies of the world. It has both a moral prestige and organizational strength enjoyed by few colonies. The others look to it for a lead in many matters...India has therefore to tell a very distraught and maddened world that there is another path that humanity must tread if it would save itself from these periodical disasters and bring peace and harmony to a bleeding world.'
This is not a simple analysis. A new view, an innovating view of the ongoing conflict which was to become a full-scale war at any moment, and a fervent appeal, on that analysis, to her mother country to take notice of her position and her mission in such a world for the sake of the world peace. One may see even a forerunner of the Non-Aligned Movement of later years here, although her own country seems to be paying less and less attention to it nowadays.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay's View of the Second World War (1)
Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay(1903-88) was an Indian woman who lived a long and exceptionally fruitful life.
She was born in a South Indian city of Mangalore of well-to-do parents. The family atmosphere, particularly her mother, was very encouraging, so that she played tennis with boys, or did mountain trekking, not usually allowed under the prevailing circumstances.
Soon she was immersed in the freedom movement. She was the first woman to stand for a provincial(Madras) assembly, though losing it by a narrow margin. She became a member of the AICC as early as 1928. At the time of Gandhi's Salt March of 1930, she appealed to Gandhi and convinced him that women could be recruited in large number. So at the time Gandhi was picking salt at Dandi, she was boiling the sea water with a small stove at Bombay's Chowpatty beach, got salt, sold it in small packets, and was arrested. She spent five years in jail altogether.
Later on she became the President of the Congress Socialist Party, and a member of the Working Committee under Jawaharlal Nehru. But with the arrival of independence she refused all invitations to be in politics.
Instead, she became engaged in the rehabilitation work for the refugees, and built a large industrial township at Faridabad 'like magic'. Then she pursued the 'two passions of her life', handicrafts and theatre. The latter, including puppetry, was her 'first love', but in the former also she served as Chairman of the All India Handicrafts Board for 20 years. She said, 'We had been made to feel primitive by the British-that we had nothing of modern aesthetic values'.
She also fought for the rights of women. She served long for AIWC(All India Women's Conference). She worked to build the home science curriculum at the Lady Irwin College for Women, Delhi. She was a founder member of the Family Planning Association of India.
Very importantly, she 'disappoved very clearly of gender-based reservations'. She in fact opposed 'the principle of reservations, on any basis'. She also stood for a Uniform Civil Code for the Indians.
Toward the end of her life, she wrote, 'To accommodate minorities and weaker sections, the Constitution of India is mutilated from time to time...Every single citizen is forced to think of himself or herself as a member of a certain socio-economic group, and no more as an Indian, proud of being a citizen of a great country. Whole groups, under some social label or other, now strive to become 'backward''. On the same principle she was opposed to the formation of lingustic States as it destroys the idea of 'one country.
Shortly before the Second World War she travelled abroad, and was in Britain when the war broke out. She went to Eritrea to see the war graves and was caught by bandits, but was released with a comb as a present as she was from the country of Gandhi.
The above is a summary of Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay, The Romantic Rebel, her biography by Shakuntala Narasimhan, Sterling, 1999. The book is of much worth. Still I would like to add one thing.
She was born in a South Indian city of Mangalore of well-to-do parents. The family atmosphere, particularly her mother, was very encouraging, so that she played tennis with boys, or did mountain trekking, not usually allowed under the prevailing circumstances.
Soon she was immersed in the freedom movement. She was the first woman to stand for a provincial(Madras) assembly, though losing it by a narrow margin. She became a member of the AICC as early as 1928. At the time of Gandhi's Salt March of 1930, she appealed to Gandhi and convinced him that women could be recruited in large number. So at the time Gandhi was picking salt at Dandi, she was boiling the sea water with a small stove at Bombay's Chowpatty beach, got salt, sold it in small packets, and was arrested. She spent five years in jail altogether.
Later on she became the President of the Congress Socialist Party, and a member of the Working Committee under Jawaharlal Nehru. But with the arrival of independence she refused all invitations to be in politics.
Instead, she became engaged in the rehabilitation work for the refugees, and built a large industrial township at Faridabad 'like magic'. Then she pursued the 'two passions of her life', handicrafts and theatre. The latter, including puppetry, was her 'first love', but in the former also she served as Chairman of the All India Handicrafts Board for 20 years. She said, 'We had been made to feel primitive by the British-that we had nothing of modern aesthetic values'.
She also fought for the rights of women. She served long for AIWC(All India Women's Conference). She worked to build the home science curriculum at the Lady Irwin College for Women, Delhi. She was a founder member of the Family Planning Association of India.
Very importantly, she 'disappoved very clearly of gender-based reservations'. She in fact opposed 'the principle of reservations, on any basis'. She also stood for a Uniform Civil Code for the Indians.
Toward the end of her life, she wrote, 'To accommodate minorities and weaker sections, the Constitution of India is mutilated from time to time...Every single citizen is forced to think of himself or herself as a member of a certain socio-economic group, and no more as an Indian, proud of being a citizen of a great country. Whole groups, under some social label or other, now strive to become 'backward''. On the same principle she was opposed to the formation of lingustic States as it destroys the idea of 'one country.
Shortly before the Second World War she travelled abroad, and was in Britain when the war broke out. She went to Eritrea to see the war graves and was caught by bandits, but was released with a comb as a present as she was from the country of Gandhi.
The above is a summary of Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay, The Romantic Rebel, her biography by Shakuntala Narasimhan, Sterling, 1999. The book is of much worth. Still I would like to add one thing.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Some Debates on 8 December
Eighth December(Japan time), 2011, was the 70th anniversary of Japan's Declaration of War on the US and the UK. This writer, then a primary school boy, still remembers the one-sentence announcement by Japan's Combined Army and Navy Command, broadcast over the radio, which was 'The Imperial Army and Navy(there was no independent Air Force) went into action with the US and British forces in the Western Pacific early today, 8 December'.
The Declaration of War was too difficult for him to comprehend. But gradually it became clear what it was saying. The Anglo-Americans were firm in backing the Chinese Nationalist Government in Chunkiang, were increasing their economic and military threat against Japan, and there is no other way for us to stick to our self-existence and self-defense than to go to war.
Since this was the 70th anniversary, there were more debates than usual on how the war was started, why, and so on. Here are two of them.
One was a TV discussion on 8 December itself on the circumstances of attacking the main US naval base at Pearl Harbour, Hawaii. One of the Japanese Ambassadors at Washington(there were two at the time), as the last resort in his view to avoid the war, called an Embassy officer with an American wife, and ordered him to find ways and means to request President Roosevelt to send a wire directly to the Japanese Emperor asking him not to go to war. I do not know if this episode has been known before. FDR duly obliged, and the Japanese side received his telegram. But it was withheld by the military for the crucial ten days, and was shown to the Emperor only minutes before the attack. The majority opinion of the participants was that even if it had been shown to him in time, he could not have gone against the Cabinet and the two Chiefs of Staff he had himself appointed. The decision to go to war on 8th itself was taken at the Conference on 1st with him present.
Another was a newspaper article by Prof.Nemoto Kei of Sophia University on the way Japan started the war on 8th.
According to him, it is wrong to consider the attack on Pearl Harbour as the start of the war. The Japanese troops landed at Kota Bharu on the east coast of the British Malay 65 minutes before. It can be explained in two ways. First, this was a war intended to invade and occupy Southeast Asia. Second, in the case of Pearl Harbour, Japan at least tried to deliver some document, even if it was short of a formal declaration of war and not in time for the attack. But in the case of Southeast Asia there was no such attempt at all. This would show that it was an invasion.
If, he continues, therefore, we call the war the "Pacific War", it will give us a wrong idea that it was a war between Japan and the US, and we were defeated by the US material power. The fact is that it was an invasion and occupation of Southeast Asia, and to be called the "Asia-Pacific War". The war with China was also continuing. Only then we may realize that we were also defeated by the resistance and nationalism of the Southeast Asian people.
This writer agrees with Prof.Nemoto's view. He would also like to add that the whole series of the wars the modern Japan fought for fifty years can best be understood if we turn them chronologically upside down and start from examning why we fought with the Anglo-Americans. If we do so we will come to the conclusion that it was to win the on-going war with China which we were not able to win, and to obtain the resources in Southeast Asia for that purpose.
Next time we will talk about an Indian lady, Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay, who hinted at a very creative view of the Second World War.
The Declaration of War was too difficult for him to comprehend. But gradually it became clear what it was saying. The Anglo-Americans were firm in backing the Chinese Nationalist Government in Chunkiang, were increasing their economic and military threat against Japan, and there is no other way for us to stick to our self-existence and self-defense than to go to war.
Since this was the 70th anniversary, there were more debates than usual on how the war was started, why, and so on. Here are two of them.
One was a TV discussion on 8 December itself on the circumstances of attacking the main US naval base at Pearl Harbour, Hawaii. One of the Japanese Ambassadors at Washington(there were two at the time), as the last resort in his view to avoid the war, called an Embassy officer with an American wife, and ordered him to find ways and means to request President Roosevelt to send a wire directly to the Japanese Emperor asking him not to go to war. I do not know if this episode has been known before. FDR duly obliged, and the Japanese side received his telegram. But it was withheld by the military for the crucial ten days, and was shown to the Emperor only minutes before the attack. The majority opinion of the participants was that even if it had been shown to him in time, he could not have gone against the Cabinet and the two Chiefs of Staff he had himself appointed. The decision to go to war on 8th itself was taken at the Conference on 1st with him present.
Another was a newspaper article by Prof.Nemoto Kei of Sophia University on the way Japan started the war on 8th.
According to him, it is wrong to consider the attack on Pearl Harbour as the start of the war. The Japanese troops landed at Kota Bharu on the east coast of the British Malay 65 minutes before. It can be explained in two ways. First, this was a war intended to invade and occupy Southeast Asia. Second, in the case of Pearl Harbour, Japan at least tried to deliver some document, even if it was short of a formal declaration of war and not in time for the attack. But in the case of Southeast Asia there was no such attempt at all. This would show that it was an invasion.
If, he continues, therefore, we call the war the "Pacific War", it will give us a wrong idea that it was a war between Japan and the US, and we were defeated by the US material power. The fact is that it was an invasion and occupation of Southeast Asia, and to be called the "Asia-Pacific War". The war with China was also continuing. Only then we may realize that we were also defeated by the resistance and nationalism of the Southeast Asian people.
This writer agrees with Prof.Nemoto's view. He would also like to add that the whole series of the wars the modern Japan fought for fifty years can best be understood if we turn them chronologically upside down and start from examning why we fought with the Anglo-Americans. If we do so we will come to the conclusion that it was to win the on-going war with China which we were not able to win, and to obtain the resources in Southeast Asia for that purpose.
Next time we will talk about an Indian lady, Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay, who hinted at a very creative view of the Second World War.
Monday, December 12, 2011
From Cancun to Durban to a Catastrophe?
This writer was travelling around in India for three weeks. Hence this interval for nearly a month.
In the meantime COP 17 is over at Durban, South Africa. While fully appreciating the efforts on the part of the Chairwoman, and even agreeing when she said 'This will make a big, big difference', Durban was not a success in terms of what was decided at the previous Cancun Conference(see the column on 19 January 2011). It was decided then that the industrial countries will reduce their gas emission to the degree of 25 to 40% by 2020 against that of the standard year 1990, and the developing countries will start reducing theirs by then. Neither of them was agreed to this time. Needless to say those two are closely interrelated in the field of international negotiations, if not in the language of science.
The small island countries, and other low-lying ones, were desperate in pleading their cases. And they had many supporters, mostly in Europe. But where were the several countries which were really to reckon with as far as the gross emission was concerned, like China, the US, Russia, India, and Japan?
China and India, which prodeced 8% more and 6.2% more of warming gas in 2010, respectively, did not seem to be taking a positive stance in a discussion of world sustainability. As a humble Gandhi sholar I would have thought that Durban being the place where Gandhi landed almost 120 years ago to begin his twenty-odd-year long stay in South Africa, India might send out some message which would serve as the model of behaviour for the emerging countries, especially the BRICS. That was not to be.
The BRICS seem to be united that the emission should be measured not by the gross quantity but on the per capita basis. This is with a good reason. This, however, should not justify those countries consuming energy and emitting warming gas as much as they want. This apprehension would apply more to China than to India. And there is of course the US, which is not known for taking any remarkable initiative for global sustainability, particularly when they are expecting a Presidential election less than a year ahead. Moreover, China and the US are suspicious of each other lest the other would not outmaneuver her. COP is one of the theatres of their global rivalry.
In those circumstances, it may have been a great task indeed, 'a big, big difference' to keep the COP itself unbroken, and to extend the KP(Kyoto Protocol) after 2012 with the understanding that a new agreement applicable to all member nations will be reached by 2015 to be effective by 2020. It was reached in the informal discussion in the small hours of 11 December.
Russia, Canada, and Japan have turned their back to the extension of KP. This is in spite of the plea by the UN Secretary-General, Mr.Ban Kimun. Take Japan, for instance, whose then Prime Minister told the UN General Assembly two years ago that Japan will reduce the emission by 25% by 2020 if the other major emitters will cooperate. It would be politically immoral to go back on that pledge without taking any serious initiative to bring others into a positive discussion. Her chief negotiator, a Mnister, did not mention the above pledge in his speech this time. He was not to be seen in the informal discussion of the final morning.
It is a sure way that nobody will be going to take Japan seriously, sooner than later.
In the meantime COP 17 is over at Durban, South Africa. While fully appreciating the efforts on the part of the Chairwoman, and even agreeing when she said 'This will make a big, big difference', Durban was not a success in terms of what was decided at the previous Cancun Conference(see the column on 19 January 2011). It was decided then that the industrial countries will reduce their gas emission to the degree of 25 to 40% by 2020 against that of the standard year 1990, and the developing countries will start reducing theirs by then. Neither of them was agreed to this time. Needless to say those two are closely interrelated in the field of international negotiations, if not in the language of science.
The small island countries, and other low-lying ones, were desperate in pleading their cases. And they had many supporters, mostly in Europe. But where were the several countries which were really to reckon with as far as the gross emission was concerned, like China, the US, Russia, India, and Japan?
China and India, which prodeced 8% more and 6.2% more of warming gas in 2010, respectively, did not seem to be taking a positive stance in a discussion of world sustainability. As a humble Gandhi sholar I would have thought that Durban being the place where Gandhi landed almost 120 years ago to begin his twenty-odd-year long stay in South Africa, India might send out some message which would serve as the model of behaviour for the emerging countries, especially the BRICS. That was not to be.
The BRICS seem to be united that the emission should be measured not by the gross quantity but on the per capita basis. This is with a good reason. This, however, should not justify those countries consuming energy and emitting warming gas as much as they want. This apprehension would apply more to China than to India. And there is of course the US, which is not known for taking any remarkable initiative for global sustainability, particularly when they are expecting a Presidential election less than a year ahead. Moreover, China and the US are suspicious of each other lest the other would not outmaneuver her. COP is one of the theatres of their global rivalry.
In those circumstances, it may have been a great task indeed, 'a big, big difference' to keep the COP itself unbroken, and to extend the KP(Kyoto Protocol) after 2012 with the understanding that a new agreement applicable to all member nations will be reached by 2015 to be effective by 2020. It was reached in the informal discussion in the small hours of 11 December.
Russia, Canada, and Japan have turned their back to the extension of KP. This is in spite of the plea by the UN Secretary-General, Mr.Ban Kimun. Take Japan, for instance, whose then Prime Minister told the UN General Assembly two years ago that Japan will reduce the emission by 25% by 2020 if the other major emitters will cooperate. It would be politically immoral to go back on that pledge without taking any serious initiative to bring others into a positive discussion. Her chief negotiator, a Mnister, did not mention the above pledge in his speech this time. He was not to be seen in the informal discussion of the final morning.
It is a sure way that nobody will be going to take Japan seriously, sooner than later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)