Monday, December 31, 2012

A Monumental Work on the Arabs by a Japanese Scholar

He is a happy man who has come across an eye-opening book.  Nagasawa Eiji's 600-page "Jewish Egyptian Marxists and the Palestine Question"(in Japanese), published earlier in this year 2012, has been one such book to me.  It minutely and persistently follows, and analyzes, the lives of two Egyptians who are of Jewish origin, have embraced Marxism, and, in spite of all the persecution, been faithful to the 'ism' in their own way.
Ahmad Sadiq Sa'd(1919-88) is the younger of the two, but survived the elder one by ten years as he died a natural death.  He is more of a scholar of the two and has left at least two works which are worth remembering even today.  His father comes from a family who fled Spain at the time of the Reconquest to Turkey.  His mother was born at Odessa.
Henri Curiel(1914-78), the senior one, is more of a man of action, and a charming speaker.  His life, however, was cut short by a political assassination.  His parents are originally from Italy and Turkey, respectively, and we are bewildered at the cosmopolitan nature, the 'world citizenness', of those families.
They were both French-educated, but while Curiel's Arabic language remained poor till the end, Sa'd made an effort to improve his so that he could play a more active part in the mass movement.  Moreover he together with his wife got converted to Islam.
Curiel did not get converted, but forfeited his Italian citizenship for an Egyptian one.  Those actions on their part were motivated by the popular demand for indigenization (Egyptianization) of the leadership of the Communist movement.  They responded to the move positively, but the positive response itself resulted in pushing them to a corner.  Sa'd was dismissed from the party leadership, while Curiel was expelled from Egypt in 1950.
It is to be noted, however, that when the German tanks approached the Suez Canal zone during the Second World War, many fellow Jewish left the country in fear of persecution, but both of the two had determined to remain in the country.
Curiel also distinguished himself by single-handedly opposing the merger of Egypt and Sudan.
When the UN decided the partition of Palestine into the Arab and the Jewish parts in November 1947, with the Soviet support, ultimately leading to the war disastrous to the Arabs,  Curiel supported the decision while Sa'd opposed it.  As his friend told the author, after his death, Sa'd was of the view that there is no national home for the Jewish people, they should live in Egypt as Egyptians, in Britain as Britons and so on, a Zionist state cannot be allowed to be set up in East Arab as it belongs to the Arabs for thousands of years and Zionism is a form of racial discrimination.  In other words Anti-Semitism gave rise to Zionism in Europe, which in turn brings about anti-Jewish attitude in the Middle East.
The author's attention is closely drawn to Sa'd's work, "Palestine in Claws of Colonialism", 1947(in Arabic).  It is a study of the Palestinian economy under the Mandate.  It says that the Zionists regard upon the Arabs as backward and unfit for the democratic framework.  They bring both the capital and the labour from outside Palestine, the labour from Eastern Europe.  They do not employ the local labourors.  They also appropriate the Arabs' land.
In the second edition of the book, written in 1973 but remaining unpublished, Sa'd sees the possibility of the new Jewish nationalism to overcome Zionism in Israel.
The author was not lucky enough to meet either of the two.  In the last chapter, instead, he mainly talks of another activist, co-founder of a different Communist group, an author, a long-term political prisoner out in the desert, a very likable man fully one generation elder than him.  His contact with him continued on and off from the early 1980s to the mid-90s when his elder friend passed away.  The author says that it is because there is a person like him that he can continue to study this country(Egypt).                  

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Japan's Former Ambassador to China Speaks Up

Mr.Niwa Uichiro, Japan's former Ambassador to China, had a distinction in that he was not a professional diplomat.  He had a life's career behind him of serving a commercial company.  It is very rare in Japan that such a person should be appointed an ambassador, let alone to a leading country like China.  His term, however, was only for two years and four months, having been curtailed by his candid criticism of his own government.  He has given a long interview to a newspaper.  Here are summaries of its several portions.
His trouble started with the Tokyo Metropolitan Governor's announcement that his government would purchase the Senkaku Islands under dispute with China from their private owners.  Niwa thought that it would create grievous crisis between the two countries, and openly said so.  He thinks that the then Prime Minister should have reprimanded the Governor since it was the central government's job to deal with such a matter.  But the PM acted otherwise, and, contrary to Chairman Hu's strong advice which he gave face to face to him, decided to nationalize the islands in September last.  Then the protest demonstrations, even arson and looting in China.
Niwa thinks that Japan should admit that the islands are in dispute, and should talk to China on that assumption.  They can discuss the areas the two countries could possibly collaborate, such as rescue activities, fishing or resource development.
He has visited 27 of China's first-class administrative units(Provinces, Autonomous Regions and Special Cities) as the Ambassador.  On that basis he says that seeing is believing, there are two sides of a coin, and among those Chinese who dislike Japan there is also a feeling of jealousy with the Japanese and the Japanese merchandise, even of respect.
At a press conference he gave shortly before leaving Beijing, end of November, Niwa referred to an opinion in China to the effect that China can now dispense with the Japanese help, and called it "arrogant".  He was ready to argue more, but the opinion in the internet was largely in his  favour.
Niwa says that in the Chinese criticism of Japan recently the term "Fascism" is sometimes used.  He want to ask the Chinese if they know the meaning of the term.  If they say so loudly it may provoke the internet opinion.
South Korea, as this writer has written in the previous blog, is going to have a new 5-year administration.  China has already decided on her new 5-year team.  Japan's new cabinet is going to be set up in a few days.  None of them can afford to be short-sighted at this time.  If China, for example, continues to neglect the human rights, and to make a fuss about the territorial issue, it will surely disappoint the well-wishers like Mr.Niwa.     

Friday, December 21, 2012

South Korean Presidential Election 19 December 2012

It was around this time of the year in 1987 that I had a glimpse of the ongoing Presidential campaign in South Korea in the form of posters and processions.  It was the very first under the democratized political system there.  Twenty-five years have passed since then and five Presidents have come and gone(or going) in the meantime.
This time Ms Park has defeated Mr.Moon by a narrow margin of 3.5%.  I would like to congratulate the winner, not as the daughter of a former dictator President, who rushed industrialization and is responsible for the regional and other division in the country, but as a forward-looking woman who cares about this type of division, and the underprivileged classes of people, not the division in abstract and macro terms but the division with a human face.
It was customary to talk about the regional division, which is almost the East-West division in the Peninsula.  It is to a certain extent a legacy of the Japanese rule, owing to the way how and where the railroad was constructed, but the dictatorial governments in South Korea made use of the legacy and, under the leadership of the TK(Taegu-Kyongsang) Group, consolidated the advantageous position of the Eastern Provinces.  This division is still reflected in the Province-wise voting pattern this time.  Ms Park herself is from Taegu in the East.
I hope, however, that the division is on the gradual way out.  The process will surely be accelerated with the social policy she has promised to put into effect.
She also seems to have asked Japan to adjust her South Korean policy regarding the territorial issue and the comfort women.  She has done well to do so, and Japan should sincerely consider those points.  Regarding the former, South Korea should stand on the same level as Japan, without fortifying the islands or sending her President there again.  Concerning the latter, it is really a national shame for Japan that the surviving comfort women with their supporters are holding a weekly "Wednesday meeting" in front of the Japanese Embassy at Seoul.  Only 59 out of 234 Korean women who have come out are surviving.
Finally what about the DPRK(North Korea)?  South Korea should aim at concluding peace with the north in one year's time.  Not unconditionally.  The pending issues should be ascertained and prioritized within this one year.  The South must be cautious about the Visa and immigration.  Too imaginary?  May be.  But is there any other way?  The matter is so urgent.  But if realized it will create jobs in both Koreas for example.  The US could also be drawn in.  And Japan, too.
Japan?  Impossible!  This is really the most difficult part of it.  Wanting to strengthen the military alliance with the US more, yes, even more, and quite unnecessarily, and involving a lot of waste of money, our leadership will be totally unable to see what to do.  But that is what we have to face squarely, in order to live as a respected, or, if not immediately, at least a honest and trustworthy member of the region.
This is my humble hope for 2013.           

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Japan's General Elections, 16 December 2012

In the past two Elections to the Lower House of Japan, a strong wind was blowing in favour of one of the parties.  Thus, the Liberal Democratic Party(LDP) won the overwhelming majority in 2005, and the Democratic Party(DP) in their turn got a majority in 2009.  On both occasions we the voters could feel the shape of the things to come on the election day and afterwards.
But not this time.  No wind was blowing, no boom was taking place in favour of some one.  And yet the LDP got 294 out of 480, 175 more than the last time, while the DP got a comparable 173 less, a colossal damage.
These 480 are divided into two categories in the election procedure.  There are 300 single-member constituencies, and 11 geographical blocks to elect certain number each totalling 180, on the proportional basis.  It is in the former category that the LDP has swept the scene.  It is the magic, undemocratic character, of the single-member constituencies.  They have got 237 out of 300 here, but only 57 of the 180, with 28% of the votes, in the other category.  Surprisingly they have lost more or less 2 million votes each in both the categories.
Hardly anybody is expecting them to do a lot of good for the people.  The morning paper today, 19 December, reports an opinion poll saying that 81% of the respondents think the LDP's victory is due to the disappointment with the DP Government while mere 7% say it is because of the support for the LDP's policies.  It is, therefore, not a "Yes" vote.  It is a strong "No" vote.  The voting ratio also dropped to an all-time low of 59%, a sign that the voters were perplexed.
Once in the saddle, however, the LDP will try to implement some of their policies.  In my previous blog I have discussed the Constitutional question today as I see it.  The LDP's new Prime Minister designate, Mr. Abe Shinzo, is already talking of revising, not Article 9 for now, but Article 96, which defines the process of a Constitutional amendment.  An amendment, in order to be placed before a referendum, it says, should be passed by a two-third majority of all the members in each House.
The LDP alone is short of it in the Lower House, but there is no dearth of parties willing to collaborate on this with them.  Among them is the newly formed "Restoration Party" which can be placed even to the right of the LDP, which is sufficiently rightist in itself, and will try to pull the LDP in that direction.  But those forces do not reach that majority in the Upper House.  In this sense the next Elections to the Upper House, electing half of its members, scheduled six months ahead, has got a very significant meaning.
But who knows what will happen in Japan's fluid political landscape in the meantime?  This time, besides the Restorationists, some other parties also have been formed, trying to take advantage of the weakening DP position.  Not all of them have a solid core policy.  In fact many of their members were deserters from the DP.  It can also be said that behind all this bubble of the parties there is a statutory system of the governmental expenditure to support the parties, and any group with five or more MPs is entitled to a substantial sum of money.
There is no viable opposition?  Under the circumstances of the political fluidity the Communist Party of Japan(CPJ) may be the only one worth the name of opposition, if not as yet quite viable.  They have got only eight seats, one less than before, obtaining 3.7 million votes(6%) in the proportional representation part.  None of them has been elected in the single-member constituency.  Interestingly they are the only one which has not shown interest in getting the money from the government, according to their political philosophy, and as such looks more solid and independent of the temptation of the money.                 

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Defense and Constitution Issues in Japan's General Elections

The general elections for the more powerful Lower House of Japan are just round the corner.  Almost a dozen political parties are participating in the fray.  Our Asian neighbours may well be surprised to see that a few of them are calling for a constitutional amendment so that Japan may openly have its Defense forces and be able to fight shoulder to shoulder with the US forces.
Some of them who are spearheading in this direction are even telling us that for the pride of the Japanese the present Constitution should be replaced by one of our own making, as the present one was given by the US occupation forces.  You will see that here is already a contradiction in what they say.  On one hand they want to be a loyal ally of the US.  Any difference of policies, large or small, would upset them.  On the other they pay only scGant respect to the present Constitution although it was given by the US.  They want to make a new one under the name of an independent, national Constitution.
Let us see a couple of issues here.  Is it true that the present Constitution of Japan was just given to us, or enforced upon us, by the Americans?  And what is the main point these pro-amendment forces want to put into their Constitution?
Firstly, the American GHQ had studied a number of documents drafted by various Japanese groups before they completed theirs.  One of them particularly called their attention.  It was a draft Constitution written by a study group of seven liberal-minded professionals.  In fact some of the important articles may be said to have been transplanted from this draft.  It is therefore wrong to say that the Constitution is simply a translated version of the GHQ handout.
Secondly, those parties who talk of the amendment are particularly keen on revising or even deleting Article 9, which renounces war and prohibits to have armed forces.  They say that Japan already has powerful forces which pass as armed forces in the world but we have to call them Self-Defense Forces under the Constitutional constraint.  The name should be changed to suit the substance.  It is a hypocritical argument.  Why can we not change the substance to suit Article 9?  With this Article we in fact pledged that we will never fight a war again with our neighbours.
This is a difficult time for Japan, even apart from the Fukushima disaster.  If China or DPRK put a restraint on their military activities, it would greatly encourage the peace-loving people of Japan.