Japan's Position in East Asia

     Abe Shinzo, Prime Minister of Japan, said in the Parliament on 23 April that the term "aggression" had not been defined yet, and whether the external conduct of modern Japan was aggression or not he would refer to the historians.  This is more or less the same line as has been taken by most of the LDP Prime Ministers for the past decades.
     But it is wrong to say that the aggression has not been defined.  The UN General Assembly passed a Resolution on the definition of aggression on 14 December 1974(Resolution 3314) where it is defined, in short, as the use of force by one country against another's sovereignty, territory or independence.  Those who might say that the Resolution is too recent and would not apply to Japan's earlier conduct, may be referred to the Treaty of Paris, 1928, or the Treaty on the definition of aggression, 1933.
     Still, Abe and some others may not be convinced.  They are determined that Japan's conduct was in self-defense.  They do not hesitate to visit the Yasukuni Shrine.  This is not an ordinary Shinto shrine.  It is a huge institution where more than two and a half million who have supposedly dedicated their lives to the nation are being mourned.  It is an office for such propaganda.
     This must have been embarrassing to the countries like the US.  All the more so as 14 defendants of the Tokyo Tribunal, including all the seven who were executed, are among them.  Japan accepted the results of the Tribunal by the Peace Treaty.  What the government is doing by way of extending its hand to the Shrine is thus a clear breach of the Peace Treaty.  The US has, so far as I know, not said anything on this point, though they have voiced their criticism on some other points.  They cannot afford to antagonize the LDP, for the sake of maintaining their bases, even at the expense of truth, and justice.
     Interestingly, the same here in Japan.  The more Abe tries to clear Japan's name over the past wars, the more he will have to defend the role of the Yasukuni, and the more he is likely to injure the feeling of others.  Thus he will be in a contradiction.  We will see how it will develop.  I hope it will become fatal for him.  It is bound to be.  At the same time I hope that the confusion in Japan's politics will not disturb too much the new South Korean President Park's plan for the peaceful cooperation in the Northeast Asia.  
           

A New Pakistan?

     Five years ago, when the Zardari-Gilani civilian administration came into being in Pakistan, Prof. Ashutosh Varshney wrote that 'Democracy in Pakistan will continue to disempower these two groups （religious political parties and the military).  The critical issue is whether democracy will last. (IIC Quarterly, Winter 2008-Spring 2009)
     That administration completed its full five years since then.  It was really for the first time in this country, something of a miracle indeed.  It is another matter if it had done a good job to the satisfaction of the voters.  The answer to that lies in their devastating defeat, and the return of Mr.Nawaz Sharif to power.
     This is the third time he will be saddled with a heavy task.   On both of the previous occasions he was squeezed out by the military, and by a coup at that on the second occasion.  Naturally, therefore, his relations with the military is bound to crop up sooner rather than later.  This will in its turn inevitably bring in the question of India-Pakistan relations.
     Ashutosh Varshney was also writing that Sharif expressed the hope, just as Jinnah had done before, that India and Pakistan would live like the US and Canada.  Coming from the man who ordered Pakistan's nuclear test as against India's, in 1998, and who was at least nominally responsible for the war of Kargil in 1999, it is not easy to believe it.  But if he really believes so it is well within his reach.
     Writing in the same journal, and in more or less the same tone,  B.G.Verghese says that 'A significant and growingly assertive democratic tendency is discernible(in Pakistan) and anxious to build liberal democratic institutions and live as good neighbours with India'.  He thus talks of a possibility of 'two estranged brothers' coming together.
     These words are reminiscent of Gandhi.  There is still an unfinished debate on whether Gandhi was really against the Partition or not.  But at least the so-called "C.Rajagopalachari's Formula", agreed to by Gandhi was a proposal for a peaceful partition of India.  Its fourth clause said 'In the event of separation, mutual agreements shall be entered into for safeguarding defence, and commerce and communications and for other essential purposes'.
     One would think that the clause would have made the India-Pakistan relations much closer to the actual US-Canada relations.  But it was rejected by Jinnah, mercilessly, probably not because of this clause but a previous one on 'a plebiscite of all the inhabitants'.
     The present Indo-Pakistani relations leave much to be desired, which means that there are also possibilities for improvement.  Mr.Sharif is said to have made a long telephonic conversation to Mr.Manmohan Singh.  There are theories that the present tension is man-made in that both the military are in need of it.  The responsible politicians on both sides should prove that it is a lie.  For that they should tackle the crux of the matter, Jammu and Kashmir.            
           

"Sadeeq Bale",a Fantastic Taiwanese Movie

     Last week I went to see a Taiwanese Movie "Sadeeq Bale"(2011) at a cinema in Tokyo. These days Cinema viewers in Japan are on the decline. Moreover this one is, to us, on a gloomy topic, a rebellion against the occupying Japanese.  It is also a long one, almost five hours including an intermission. I have not, therefore, expected to see a large crowd. But that is exactly what I saw. It was a comparatively small cinema, but its 145 seats were full and some viewers were standing on the wall.
     I kept wondering why, but I got no answer. An easy one would be that some of them are from Taiwan itself, and it is difficult to tell a Taiwanese from a Japanese. But this is not very convincing, since it was not prohibited in Taiwan.
     The story concentrated on what happened at a place called Musha(in Japanese) in the interior, and therefore, mountainous part of the Island on 27 October 1930. It was a massacre of the Japanese who gathered there for the children's athletic meeting.
     But who rose in a rebellion? The Island had been under the Japanese for a third of a century at that time. The Japanese gradually infiltrated the mountainous regions inhabited by the indigenous peoples of Taiwan, not the Han Chinese. The Japanese tried to give them letters and language, school and postal systems, industries such as cutting timbers, in short tried to civilize  and assimilate them, ignoring their own culture and way of life.
     Prejudice, discrimination, and outrageous arrogance on the part of the Japanese were the order of the day. The indigenous peoples were a very proud stock. The Sadeeq was one of the tribes. They valued the defending of their hunting ground in the hills. The tattoo on the man's face is a sign of bravery. A man hopes to be a true man(Bale), and it is a woman's duty to make a man like that. They have also in mind the idea of 'crossing the bridge of rainbow' to go near their ancestors. These are their values and the colonial rule comes in conflict with them and try to crush them. They, the 'barbarians', have been in the end cornered, and ultimately rose against the oppressors.
     The second half of the movie is the story of attacks and counter-attacks. The rebels, or rather the legitimate residents of the land, fought bravely, just like the Vietnamese during their anti-American war, making use of the jungles, streams, etc. The Japanese mobilized guns. They used poison gas. Only the tanks and warships were not to be deployed.  Most of the people committed suicide, but the supreme leader of the tribe, saying that 'I do not afford to be captured', was not to be located by his pursuers.
     One difference between this story and the Vietnamese fighting is that while the latter was led by the modernized elements and the modernized thinking of the society, the former was not.  For one thing the former took place at a much more isolated region, and one generation earlier. But these characteristics will pose some more questions to the social scientists.

Polls on the Constitution

     Third May is the Constitution Day in Japan, as the present Constitution was promulgated on this day in 1947.  It has been customary for the media to publish on or around this day the result of the polls they have conducted on the Constitution.  Since in the present Japan it is becoming a very hot issue, as I have discussed in the past week, the media this year seem to allot more time and space to the Constitution.  I would like to pick up some features from the polls published by the Asahi newspaper on 2 May.
     The most important question they have asked, after showing the text of the Article 9, is whether the respondent is in favour, or not, of changing it.  39% is in favour, 52% is not.
     The gap between the two groups may not appear as large, but look at the answers to the following several questions.  One is, How strongly does the respondent feel that Japan should not go to war again, and 72% feel strongly and another 18% feel somewhat strongly.  So 90% are against their country going to war again, in effect under any circumstances, and only 6% do not feel so.  Relatedly, 77% think that Japan should maintain the three principles of her nuclear weapons policy of Not possessing, not manufacturing, not letting others to bring them, which is remarkable under the North Korean intimidation.  Besides, 71% are against the expansion of the export of weapons from Japan, which is also remarkable given that the country is still in an economically bad shape.
     It is by now fairly known that the ruling LDP is proposing to transform the present Self Defence Forces into a regular Defence Forces.  62% is against, and only 31%, just half, support it, which is also remarkable taking into consideration the high(still high) supporting rate for PM Abe and his government.  It is also becoming known that the US is outright pressing Japan to make her right of collective self defence exercisable, meaning that Japan should be able to send fighting forces on the side of the US. However, only 33% think that it should be exercisable, and 56% do not think so. As to the crux of the matter, so to speak, which is the question of whether the LDP's proposal of amending Article 96, so that it becomes easier for the Parliament to put a draft amendment for the referendum, only 38% is in favour, with 54% against.