The Nobel Prize and the State of Affairs in Japan

     The whole of Japan is full of joy as three Japanese scientists got the Nobel Physics Prize this week.  Their work has been of great value both in terms of science and of practical use. Some of us, this writer included, are looking forward to Japan getting the Peace Prize also, to be announced later today.

     But what about the general condition of the country?  Is it satisfactory?  Are we happy?  Is it worth getting the Prize/Prizes?  I must say, regrettably, 'far from it'.  Let me briefly discuss it under four items.

     (1) Security Question  We have already discussed it recently on the occasion of the Ab Cabinet's decision on 1 July practically to distort the Article 9 of the Constitution in letters and the spirit.  In almost all the opinion polls 50 to 60 % are against the decision, and are of the view that it should be revoked.

     (2)  Economic Question  Abe is still trying to sell his 'Abenomics', saying that although the increase in the wages is not yet up to the increase in prices, and the real wages are still coming down, they are bound to be up before long.  This is the outdated 'trickle-down' theory which has never been successful almost anywhere in the world.  In any poll the overwhelming majority reply that they have not felt the positive impact of 'Abenomics'.  The 3 % hike in the consumption tax in the last April greatly damaged the purchasing power, the devaluation of the Yen is a blow to the small and medium enterprises employing 70 % of the total labour force by raising the prices of the imports, the exports have not achieved the desired results as much of the manufacturing of the country has shifted out, and in the year and a half of the Abe Administration there has been an increase of 1250,000 irregular employees while the regular working force has lost 310,000. The predicted annual growth rate at present is minus 7.1 %.  But Abe is planning to hike a 2 % more on the consumption tax in October 2015.

     (3)  Nuclear Power Question  The government is keen on re-working the nuclear power stations at many places in the country.  This is really astonishing in view of the fact that the damaged Fukushima Plant is far from reconstructed.  Moreover, the 2014 summer has just gone without, for the first time, a single nuclear power plant operating in the whole country, which means that we do not need any nuclear power as our hot and humid summer usually needs more energy than the other seasons.  Last but not least, the Sendai plant in Kyushu which the government has an eye upon to be the first one to be re-opened has got several active volcanos out of the total of 110 not far away, and you may remember the recent eruption of Mt. Ontake in the central part of Japan, without warning.  Again in any poll the majority are against the government policy of re-operating nuclear stations.  No nukes, no nuke stations!

     (4)  The Question of the New US Base in Okinawa  This has been referred to more than once in these columns, and I will not go into it now.  But 80 % of the Prefectural residents are against it.  There will be a crucial Prefectural Gubernatorial elections on 16 November.

     So on any of the serious issues facing the country the Abe Administration is in a minority.  Any of these may affect its still relatively high supporting ratio unless there is a change in policies.  Behind all these, it should be added, there is another issue on a different  different issue.
   

A Battle of Baghdad?

     The ISIS forces are said to be within 5 to 10 km from the city of Baghdad, the capital of Iraq.  Will they try to storm it?  And who will welcome such a battle to see this historic city to be flattened by naked violence?  The Chairman of the US Chiefs of Staff has said that they need at least 15,000 land troops in addition to the air power to stop the tide of the ISIS, or to reoccupy the area taken by them.

     Mr. Obama went so far as to say, one wonders if this is the right moment to say such a thing, that they have been underestimating the power of the ISIS forces and overestimating that of the Iraqi forces.  He sounded rather more optimistic when he made a 15-minute speech on the occasion of the 9/11 anniversary this year.  He said four things.  (1) The ISIS would be stopped by the air power of the broad coalition.  (2) The land forces of the countries in the region would be strengthened.  (3) The outsiders should be stopped from joining the IS forces.  (4) Humanitarian aid would be provided.

     Would these be enough?  Were they not overwhelmingly militarily oriented, even though the US would not be sending the land forces?  Apart from the humanitarian aid at the end, presumably meaning dropping food and water, etc., they were about intensifying bombing, arming the local forces for the use of the modern equipment, and curtailing the incoming of the would-be new soldiers on the other side.  Are they enough?  The above statements by General Dempsy and Mr. Obama were effectively saying that they were not, already, in three weeks' time.

     This writer is not saying that more armed action, let alone the sending of the US boots, are necessary.  Rather it is my view that the US, NATO, or whoever else, who together with Obama looks at the IS as 'a terrorist organization pure and simple' must really sit up and think why this split has occurred, and if the US occupation of Iraq under Maliki, particularly from 2010 onwards, was not instrumental in alienating and distressing the Sunnis.  They should try to isolate by all means available the Sunni masses from the presumably small number of die-hards, rather than to go on annihilating them as terrorists 'pure and simple', which would become increasingly difficult to explain even to the US citizens.  That is the only possible way to avert the Battle of Baghdad.

     But that is not enough in the long-term view.  On the West of the region, there is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  It has been the US and European policy so much in favour of Israel and so much prejudiced against the Palestinians that has made the conflict so persistent and insoluble till today, and probably tomorrow.  Without in the least defending the IS, the Sunni masses must be under the dual psychological oppression, anti-Sunni and more general anti-Muslim.

     On the East, there is the "AfPak" problem, which got worsened by the "Obama's Wars", referring to the US military surge in 2009.  I will not go into this here.  But the question of the possible Battle of Baghdad should be placed in the whole spectrum of this East to the West to find a political solution.  They are all related.  The new President was inaugurated in Afghanistan yesterday.  Let us wish all the best to his, and the new CEO's, administration.      

      

The US Middle East Policy and Japan

     Then what would be Japan's position with regard to the emerging situation in the Middle East as described in the previous column?  It is not possible to discuss it without reference to the US policy toward the region.  Mr. Obama is scheduled to announce his new, or new but old, policy in a day or two, on the eve of the 9/11 anniversary.  So here we will present our opinion on the basis of some hypothesis concerning the Japan-US relations.

     We have discussed how the UN Charter defines the concept of 'self-defence' several times already.  It refers both to the right of the individual self-defence and the collective self-defence. It has been the policy of the Japanese Government that Japan has the right of the former and can exercise it by the Self-Defence Forces(SDF), but cannot exercise the latter in view of Article 9 of the Constitution although she possesses it.

     But the Article 9 says that we will not resort to war.  We will not have any war potential. And we will deny the right of belligerency. Therefore, strictly speaking, it is doubtful if Japan has even the right of the individual self-defence, let alone of the collective self-defence.  Almost all the wars in modern history, not only of Japan, have been fought in the beautiful name of self-defence.  According to the Government's view, however, almost everything is allowed even under this Article, except to wage war together with some allies.  This is exactly what the present Abe Government has wanted to make possible.

     Therefore they have adopted in the Cabinet meeting on 1 July this year a document in order to, in their eyes, fill the gap.  This lengthy document states toward its end that 'not only in case of an armed attack on Japan, but also in case of an armed attack on another country in close relations with Japan which would endanger the existence of our country, it will be allowed by the Constitution to use force to the minimum degree to expel the said danger if there is no other way to do so'.(translation by this writer)

     Thus the Government has introduced a grave change in the interpretation of the Article 9.  It has publicly proclaimed that Japan will go to war for the sake of other country or countries.  The document adds that in terms of international law such action may be based on the right of collective self-defence.  The Cabinet decision has become known widely in the nation as one that has made the right of collective self-defence exercisable, and as such been very unpopular.  But the document itself has placed its emphasis on the interpretation of the Constitution, and not on the application of the UN Charter.  This leads us to suspect that the document itself is part of the preparation for the revision of the Article 9, which in the opinion of many has been the framework of the post-war Japan.  That means this is effectively a Constitutional amendment.

     What should be emphasized here is that the above statement on the use of force refers to no geographical limit.  It may well include the Middle East.  The close country to Japan is another name of the US.  Suppose the US puts pressure on Japan to be a part of the new anti-ISIS coalition?  We will watch Obama's 9/11 speech carefully.  Hopefully it will be worth serious consideration.

    



    
           

What is ISIS ? How Do We Understand It ?

     It was two months and a half ago that I wrote my last blog in this column.  Even before that my writing had been rather sporadic.  I sincerely apologize for my idleness, at least as far as this column is concerned.  This writer was terribly busy writing a book from 15 September 2013 to 15 August 2014, and was not able to attend to all other things seriously.  The book is on Gandhi. Right now I am trying to have it published in India in English.  I will talk about it in greater detail if and when it comes out.

     In the meantime there have been certain changes in our environment.  There was a very good article in yesterday's Japanese newspaper Asahi by Sakai Keiko, one of our foremost Middle East specialists.

     Her argument is roughly as follows.  The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a fight to restore to themselves the life and the human rights by the local Arabs who had coexisted there but had been pushed out of the land at the time of the creation of Israel.  There was a time when the creation of a country in such a way was allowed.  It was also the time when the Jewish people had almost despaired of living on in Europe.  Israel was the realization of the ideals of the Jewish people no matter how the Arabs who had been living there were affected.

     If so, she continues, and this is where this article is original, what about the ISIS?  Suppose they are the people who entertain the idea that they want to establish a pure and orderly Islamic state in the present lawless countries of Syria and Iraq ?  

     It is original because she has combined the Israeli-Palestinian question and the ISIS.  She is not suggesting any particular solution on the ISIS here, but says that the danger comes from outside when some group of people fix their eye on a certain land as their own, their holy land, their mother country.  It is clear that she is after a peaceful solution.

     Right now the US is looking for the ways and means of attacking the ISIS more effectively, if possible from inside Syria also.  It seems to this writer that that would mean a potential danger to involve Japan after the recent change in our security policies.  Let me discuss it the next time.          Thank you.    
   
     

Shangri-La Dialogue

     Shangri-La Dialogue was held at Singapore to discuss the security situation in Asia, on the last day of May and the first of June.  But was it a dialogue?  Here is a photo of the pre-lunch reception on the first day.  Japan's Defence Minister, Mr. Onodera, was shaking hands with some delegate on the right side, while China's General Wan, Deputy Chief of Staff of People's Liberation Army, was talking to some other delegate on the extreme left, never exchanging a word even casually.

     The Chinese delegates stressed that the islands in the East and South China Seas belonged to China for a long time by now, but were taken over by the Japanese imperialism.  Whether it was China or any other that was a dominant power on the sea, it is true that long-distance, inter-country trade (between China and Japan, for instance) was prosperous on these seas.  But when some one says that China was active around these islands since, for instance, the ages of Han, or Tang dynasties, and therefore they belonged to them even now, we get into trouble.  Do we have to go back to the eras of Han, or Tang, to determine the present boundaries?  Surely what is applied to China must be applied to others also.

     It is true that some of the islands had been taken over by Japan by war.  Those islands, Taiwan included, have been written down in Peace Treaties.  The islands in South China Sea were abandoned by Japan according to Article 2(f) of San Francisco Peace Treaty, without mentioning whom they would belong to.  But Senkaku is not in any of the treaties, nor is it in any of the treaties by which Japan annexed new territories. Why? Because they were not taken by Japan in a war.  China started claiming Senkaku not in the Han, not even in the Tang era, but in 1970's, which is unjust.  There may have been Chinese activities, but that applies to every where, and every people.  To send warships and warplanes is quite unbecoming a Permanent Member of the UNSC.

      

Egypt and Thailand-the Military Takeover and its Future

     For two days, 26 and 27 May, the Egyptians were supposed to elect their new President.  But even though a third day, 28 May, was added to the voting schedule, a very extraordinary measure, the voting rate seems to have been less than 50%.

     On the very day of 4 July 2013, when the military put Mr.Morsi under detention and took over the political power of that country, I wrote in these columns that this was a coup, Mr.Morsi was a democratically elected President no matter how many people might not like his way, and the military should immediately go back to their barracks.  Unfortunately the military had stayed on, and had its former Defence Minister got elected the new President.

     One would hope that the people of Egypt would not be unduly discouraged by these events, and start working for something great which could be called a second 'Arab Spring',  deep-rooted among the people both urban and rural and in a non-violent way without risking the danger of a head-on clash with the military.

     The military coup of 22 May, preceded by Martial Law of two days ago, in Thailand has impressed the outsiders that, rightly or wrongly, that country has changed but little over the years, say, since 1976.  The military has been a weapon in the hands of the Royal Household, aristocracy, and the privileged at that time and also now.

     These elements felt threatened by nothing more than peaceful movements, perhaps with some demands for redistribution of wealth.  Among others, they did not like to have elections, and induced the military to stop having elections to the Lower House, and keep the Upper House only half elected, as the previous coup of 2006 had transformed it from the fully elected one.  It will be wrong to think that what has been going on in this country for many years by now was a struggle for power between the two contending political parties.  The military was clearly taking the side of one who were opposed to the elections.

     If you look around the other Asian countries, many if not all of them are on the way for more armament.  And we are sure to find the 'Merchant of Death' across the border.  It is time, however, for the civil society of those countries seriously to get together to think about it.





     

Mr. Obama's Japan Visit

     Mr. Obama conferred with Japan’s Prime Minister Abe on 24 April, but the joint communique was issued only a few minutes before his departure for Seoul the next day, showing how the discussions between the two came across with difficulties.

     The particular difficulties were in the area of trade, centred around the possible TPP agreements.  The US were putting enormous pressure for lowering the Japanese tariffs on the five items, i.e., rice, wheat, sugar, meat and milk products.  These are the life and death problem for many of our farmers, who have been putting up a stiff fight against our own government.  The chief US negotiator is reported to have mentioned ‘breakthrough’, and it makes us suspect that there could be an untold story about the negotiations, but officially our government has not yielded yet, and let us hope that they would continue to do so.

     On the security question Obama said, for the first time as a US President, that the Senkaku Islands have been under the Japanese rule, and as such are placed under Article 5 of the Japan-US Security Treaty.  This would justify the US going into action on the Japanese side in case of an external attack.  Obama, however, did not go further and said that the US would actually take such an action.

     He had, of course, China in mind, which he is not visiting this time, and took a great care in discussing the East Asian scene.  On the question of the right of collective self-defence also, a very fashionable subject in Japan today, while Abe said that the matter is under study by his government so that the right would become exercisable, presumably with the US, Obama simply said that he would support such a study, but did not say that he supported the direction of the study itself.  Seen in this light we must say that Abe is more war-like of the two.  He did not spell out any idea on how to ease the current tension in East Asia not militarily or strategically but peacefully and politically, thus, I am afraid, exposing the poverty of thought among our politicians.

     Incidentally, Abe and the ruling LDP have recently started an argument in connection with the right of collective self-defence which is, to say the least, funny.  Back in 1959, the Tokyo District Court made the famous “Date(a surname) Judgment” to the effect that the US military presence in Japan was against the Article 9 of the Constitution prohibiting the state to have any fighting potential.  The astonished Japanese and the US governments put pressure on the Supreme Court(which itself is a matter of great shame) to do something about it.  Thereupon it passed the “Sunagawa(a place name) Judgment” later in that year.  It says that the Article 9 does not deny Japan’s right for self-defence, the stationing of foreign troops in Japan outside the Japanese command cannot be called Japan’s fighting potential, and Japan may exercise her right of self-defence through the US military presence in Japan.  Apparently both of them discuss Japan’s right of individual self-defence, but not of collective self-defence.  The LDP, however, have chosen to take it that they, especially the latter by the Supreme Court, have admitted that Japan has both types as is defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter.  This is startling as back in 1959 nobody dreamt of discussing the collective self-defence.  The LDP is thus really running short of their intellectual resources.     

 

        

A Military Man for a Civilian Race

     The Tokyo Gubernatorial race was held on 9 February.  There were four major candidates, or rather there were four candidates who were labelled as major by the media.  Masuzoe, who got elected with 2 million votes, was an LDP candidate.  Utsunomiya, a former President of Japan Bar Association, who as a lawyer pioneered in the field of defending poor debtors, was supported by the Communists and Social Democrats.  Hosokawa, a former Prime Minister, backed by Koizumi, also a former PM with some charisma, fought almost on the single issue of no more nuclear plants.  These two got one million each.  The fourth man was Tamogami, a former Chief of Staff of the Air Force of Japan's Self-Defence Forces.  To everyone's surprise he got 600,000.  They were all men in the mid-60s, except Hosokawa who was in the mid-70s.  The media depicted Masuzoe and Hosokawa as the two main contenders.  So did even the BBC.  But Hosokawa got slightly less than Utsunomiya.

     What kind of man is Tamogami?  Who supported him?  Are there likely to be men like him in the future contests?  He is not a man of charisma.  His style of speech is very ordinary.  But he may be called rightist, even with an adjective of ultra, in that he had been fired when he was the Chief of Staff when he published an article to deny that Japan's wars were wars of aggression, and this time also he repeated the same theme, denying aggression, massacre of Naning, comfort women and so on.  Those voices have been dormant all the time, but the arrival of Prime Minister Abe has made the political atmosphere easier for such voices to be broadcast, and heard.   At the same time the ultra voices have played the role of making Abe and the present mainstream LDP less of the rightist and more of the middle-of-the-road.  There will be a concerted effort to that end, although it is not very likely to succeed.

     The exit-poll shows that a quarter of the voters in their 20s voted for him.  In other wwords the voters in the higher echelons turned away from him, a man who might work to make this a more war-like country.  Having been born in 1948, Tamogami does not know the war, unlike the higher generation.  The greater problem, therefore, is how to win the younger ones to the cause of peace, in other words to the cause of welfare, and higher quality of life. 

Ban Ki-moon's Press Conference

     Three weeks ago, on 10 January, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, the widely respected UN Secretary-General, had the first press conference for the new year.  Here are some excerpts from the opening remarks.

     He said first that this should be the year of 'intensified diplomacy, inroads against poverty and action on climate change'.  In connection with the last-mentioned, he is going to convene 'The Climate Summit' for 23 September.

     On the trouble spots in the world, he mentioned Syria, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic, and said, 'I am especially alarmed by the spread of sectarian animosity'.  On Syria a Conference is going on at Geneva as was announced on this day.

     Then he called attention to 'countries where transitions have gone astray, fragility is growing, institutions are falling and democratic governance has faltered'.

     Not surprisingly he mentioned Thailand where Bangkok was in danger of being 'shut down'. Quite rightly he pointed out that the relation of Israel and Palestine is one of 'a perilous status quo' and the Israeli policy of building 'well over 1,000 settlement units' was both illegal and an obstacle to peace.  The situation in Sierra Leone has got better.

     Towards the end, he said the UN should move forward to 'disaster resilience' and 'a nuclear-weapon free world'.  That means a move to 'a safer, more just and prosperous world'.  He concluded by saying 'I am determined to make this a year of progress for people and the planet'.

     Best wishes, Mr. Ban !

Any Way Out in Thai Politics ?

     This writer knows next to nothing about Thai politics.  His knowledge of the country is also limited.  Apart from Bangkok, he has seen Chiang Mai in the north together with the 'Golden Triangle', and Hajai in the south, and practically nothing more.

     What is taking place in that country at present, however, drives me to produce something on it.  Because it is bound to have some impact upon the other Asian countries.  We are particularly concerned if the people of Thailand are paying, and are going to pay, respect to the principles of democracy.  The country has a long history of military rule.  Between 1973 and 76 there was a short break when citizens and students bought democracy with their blood.  A sociologist from Bangkok who came to Japan in '73 to attend the Asian Sociological Conference requested us to stand up and to mourn the dead students.  He later became the General Secretary of the Socialist Party, but was assassinated in the broad day-light in a few years' time.

     It is beyond our comprehension why both the Government and the opposition seem to be leaning on the shoulders of the military, even now.  And why the opposition refuses to take part in the General Elections already announced?  If they have demanded democratization of some sort, and the Government has announced Elections in their discretion, they should co-operate with them.  All this is none of my business?  But yes.  Whether there is going to be a military take-over in Thailand in the near future, as there was in Egypt last July, or whether the basic rules of democracy are to be followed, is a matter of vital importance to us and all of Thailand's neighbours.  The present situation is as if the opposition is requesting the military to come to their help.  Of course the parliamentary democracy may not be omnipotent.  But what is the democratic and non-violent alternative they can possibly choose?  If the opposition does not want to take part in the Elections because they are not likely to win, what is there to demarcate them from the mere mobs?   I hope I am terribly wrong and ignorant.    

Susumu Wins Over the Pro-Military Base Candidate

     Belatedly let me wish you all a Happy New Year 2014 !  Did I say the same thing for 2013 !?

     It was the voting day yesterday 19 January for the Mayoralty of Nago City, Okinawa Prefecture. Though there were less than 50,000 voters, it was an important election.    The Government, in collaboration with the US under the Security Treaty, wants to build there a US airbase with 2,500 metre V-shape airstrips by reclaiming beautiful coral sea.  The decision was taken in November 1997.  In the next month a residents' vote was taken and the majority voted against the plan. Since then there has been a continuing opposition for 17 years.  Mr. Inamine Susumu, 68, is the sitting mayor, and has stood again for a four-year term from the anti-base camp, with the only opponent backed by the LDP and the Governor of Okinawa.  The result was 20 to 16 thousand, with a distance of a little more than four thousand, a convincing victory.  Japan is not a federal polity, but Governors and Mayors have got certain administrative power.  It is not certain what the new Mayor will do, but with his firmness of mind and the backing of the majority of the voters he can do at least something to stop the building of the base.

     The voters were against noise, crimes, accidents, and environmental destruction.  Several factors have worked in favour of Susumu.  At the end of the last year the Governor, who had been expected to say No to the Government on this matter, expressed Yes, after he was offered the transfer of money by the Government more than he had expected.  Susumu said that he had never suspected this would happen.  It was called the Governor's betrayal.  People expected him not to sell the pride of Okinawa. The Prefectural Assembly has passed resolutions expressing opposition to the base, and demanding the resignation of the Governor.  The anger is still to be seen among the voters.  To make it worse, the LDP hinted at pouring a huge sum of money in return for the victory of their candidate, which kept many away.

     One thing more.  How will the result influence the relations with our neighbours which are not at their best?  Absolutely no harm.  On the contrary, it will hopefully be seen as a sign of Japan going less military-minded.  We hope that the US will also see it that way and accommodate herself with it.  After all they have a Peace-Prize laureate at the top！