Ongoing Political Battle of Okinawa, Japan

     Once again this author has to offer his apologies for the failure to write in these columns which has extended to almost six months this time.  The author would like to do so with his Season's Greetings for the Happy New Year 2019 to all of you.

     Probably the greatest development in the political field in Japan during this time concerned the new US gigantic Air Base at Henoko, Okinawa Prefecture, which the present Abe Shinzo Government of Japan wants to build there.  In fact the Government has begun to reclaim the adjoining sea by throwing in sand on 14 December last year, and the work has been going on for more than a month as of today.  They have brought 7103 truckloads of sand already with enormous amount of time and money.  The work has been on in spite of the strong expression of opposition against the construction by the residents of Okinawa including the newly elected Governor, other Japanese nationals, and even some people of other countries, and ignoring various laws, ordinances, and orders of the Okinawan Prefectural Administration.

     I have to stress here, however, that it would be impossible for the Abe Government  and their agencies to complete the work.  It takes 21 million cubic metres of sand to finish the entire reclamation covering 160 ha of sea.  During the first phase, which would take 20 months, in which they wish to reclaim 6.3 ha, about 4% of the total, they need 137,500 cubic metres, only 0.7% of the total needed.  If 20 months is only for the 4% of the total sea to be reclaimed, how long would it take to cover the entire area?  Moreover, a good deal of the land at the bottom is said to be extremely soft.

     It is obvious that the people of the country in general is waking up to the reality surrounding the construction.  Already at the poll survey conducted soon after the work began, in the middle of December, 60% of the respondents expressed their opposition to it, with only 26% supporting it.

     We will keep an eye on the ongoing development.       

Hiroshima Day and Nagasaki Day, 2018

     This year also, the newly dead were reported at the ceremonies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on 6 and 9 August, respectively.  In the case of the former, the number of confirmed dead because of the Atomic Bomb in the past year was 5, 393, bringing the total to 314, 118.  For Nagasaki, the figures were 3,511 and 179, 226.  We are again impressed that almost half a million have passed away because of just a couple of bombs.  The present number of survivors are 154, 859, and their average age is 82.

     In their speeches at the ceremonies, known as the Declaration for Peace, both the Mayors of the two cities have described the cruelties caused by the bombs.  At the same time both have called our attention to the year-old Non-nuclear weapons Treaty, and the Nobel Peace Prize for 2017 having been conferred on the International Campaign for the Abolition of the Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).  Both have expressed their pleasure that the situation in the Korean Peninsula has been changing. 

     Mr. Matsui of Hiroshima said that the idea of nuclear deterrence and nuclear umbrella is to take pride in the destructive capabilities of the nuclear weapons and to maintain the status quo.  Mr. Taue from Nagasaki said that the leaders of the nuclear powers and those who depend on the umbrella should remember that the United Nations in its first General Assembly resolution decided to abolish nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.  He must have been sorry that Mr. Onaga, Governor of Okinawa and a stalwart against the construction of the new US Airbase there had passed away the previous day.

     We are happy that Mr. Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary General, participated in the ceremony at Nagasaki last week.  Earlier he had sent a message to Hiroshima.  Also he had a very informal talk with some of the atomic bomb survivors at Nagasaki.  Several years ago his predecessor, Mr. Ban, had visited Hiroshima and participated in the ceremony.  Mr. Guterres also talked about the above mentioned Treaty.  He concluded his address by saying that let us make Nagasaki the last place of such terrible destruction.     

Japan and the DPRK

     We have reached our final question, for the moment, which is ; what is Japan going to do with the DPRK?

     This question has already been taken care of by the 2002 Declaration at Pyongyang of Japan's PM Koizumi and Korea's General Secretary Kim(the present Chairman's father), which aims at the normalization of the relations between the two.  But that has not been followed so far.

     The reasons are obvious and we do not have to repeat them here.  But, needless to say, the transformation of the Ceasefire into the Peace Treaty, coupled with a new politico-diplomatic superstructure will greatly change the atmosphere.  The remaining problem is the political will on the part of the Japanese.  We should at least start probing/sounding them as quickly as possible.  On what?  Investment in the grass-root basic infrastructure and public health plus compensation will take precedence.  For that, both sides should open a small diplomatic office in each other's capital city for intense negotiation and to set a timetable, say for two years.

      

Toward a Peaceful Far East

     As far as an Infantry Division and other US forces are in South Korea, and a Marines Division and other US forces are in Japan, both of these countries are bound to function as the US bases.  It is particularly so in the case of Japan, as the Peace Treaty together with the Security Treaty were signed during the Korean War itself, enabling the whole country to be used as the US bases to support the UN forces under the US command in the Korean Peninsula.  The legal framework has remained as it was.  Both of these Treaties with Japan were signed right in the middle of the Korean War and were meant for the anti-DPRK and anti-Chinese purposes.

     Suppose an ASEAN-like superstructure comes into sight in the East Asia.  What are the uses of the US Infantry or the Marines?  Is there any need for the US forces to defend South Korea or Japan, and against whom, let alone to move to other places to fight new enemies?  The main US objective when having a Peace Treaty with Japan in 1951 was to find ways and means of maintaining and freely using their military bases in Japan, thus to continue the situation of occupation of Japan.  That need has disappeared now, or is going to before long.  Where is the need, for example, for constructing the gigantic Henoko Air Base at Okinawa, which is said to serve for 200 years?

     It may sound idealistic, but this is no longer the time for the Security Treaties and the foreign bases.  These are the things which are blocking the countries like Japan and South Korea from becoming really independent ones.  It is many years now since the DPRK has been free from foreign troops and foreign bases and in that sense she is far ahead of others like Japan.

     For the Japanese the foremost question would be where is Japan going to place itself in the new Far East, particularly in connection with the DPRK.  We will talk about it tomorrow. 

       

From the Peace Treaty to What?

     Suppose the terms of the Peace Treaty are agreed to, who are going to sign it?  By definition the US and North Korea to begin with.  What about China?  It was not China as the state, that is the PRC, that signed the Ceasefire.  But China cannot be outside.  And Russia, and Japan.  And of course South Korea, even though it did not sign the Ceasefire either.  All the countries composing the Six-party Conference should be the participants.  Then what?  What sort of organization should be built upon the terms of the Treaty?  It would be desirable to describe them in the Treaty itself.  It should be something like, say, NATO?  Oh, no.  It should be, if we are to select something out of the existing ones at present, much more like ASEAN.

     But here opinions will get divided, and very sharply.  It will be on the US forces now in the Far East.  What will happen to them?  At the moment, 28,500 US troops are stationed in South Korea.  19,200 of them are the Army, mostly the Second Division.  They are usually not on move, but are stationed there to be ready to fight on the spot itself.  After the Treaty, are they still needed there, to fight the DPRK Army?

     Similarly 47,050 US troops are in Japan.  A great difference is that 20,700 of them are Marines, mostly the Third Marines Division.  They are not there to defend Okinawa, their major bases, or Japan as a whole.  They are there as a stepping stone, always ready to move elsewhere to fight whoever is the enemy.  After the Treaty are they still needed there, for jumping to somewhere else?  For my answer see tomorrow.  

From Ceasefire to Peace Treaty

     In his speech on 23 June, Mr. Onaga Takeshi, the Governor of Okinawa Prefecture, said that the ongoing construction of a huge air force base for the US at Henoko, Okinawa, will not serve any peaceful purpose and goes against the present stream of things we are watching in East Asia.  He further said that in the coming years Okinawa should play the role of a bridge between Japan and Asia.  What then are the present streams of things flowing?

     First of all, it is a great possibility that as the result of the two summits, one between President Moon and Chairman Kim on 27 April, the other President Trump and Chairman Kim on 12 June, the ceasefire, yes, only a ceasefire, which has been the legal framework covering the whole of the Korean Peninsula for the past 65 years ever since 1953, may change into a peace treaty.

     Indeed the Korean War which was started in 1950, no matter who did it, was a decisive factor in making the Cold War a permanent phenomenon in not only the East Asia but almost the whole world.  Take Japan, for instance, which seems to be outside the involvement of the war.  The conclusion of the Peace Treaty of 1951, and the simultaneously of the Security Treaty, would not have been possible without the war.  And those Treaties themselves became an important factor in conditioning the situation in the Far East.  We will look at it tomorrow.   

Emerging Trend for Peace in East Asia

     On 23 June we commemorate one thing every year.  It is concerned with Okinawa Islands.  It is not at all a happy occasion.  It is supposed to be the day when organized fighting by the Japanese on these islands, particularly the Main Island, came to an end in 1945.  Japan surrendered two months afterwards.

     In the tragic and disastrous fighting, for the Japanese, nearly 100, 000 soldiers and about an equal number of private citizens lost their lives.  The dead on the US side was 12, 520.  Japan did not try to defend the Islands with any definite plan or objective.  It was simply to gain time, the time to fortify the main Honshu and Kyushu Islands against the expected US and the Allied landing.  Okinawa had been victimized in that sense.  As a matter of fact it is said that the US forces were planning to land Kyushu sometime in November.

     It is 73 years since then, and there are still many and large-scale US military bases there on these Islands, most of the US bases in Japan.  They are there in accordance with the Japan-US Security Treaty.  Why is this necessity?  We have to talk about the Korean War to explain why, equally a tragic and disastrous war which began on this very day, 25 June, 1950, and is still casting a long shadow over East Asia.  Let me please postpone it till tomorrow to discuss the present-day East Asia.

Mr. Pence Comes to Japan

     Mike Pence, the US Vice-President, came to Japan yesterday on his way to South Korea, where he is leading the US delegation to the Winter Olympics to be held from tomorrow.  This is the first Winter Olympics to be held in the Korean Peninsula.  A Summer Olympics, by the way, was also held in South Korea as far back as in 1988.

     This time, the North(DPRK) is also sending a delegation.  It is to be seen how often and on what occasions the two Koreas will use the flag showing them together as one united Korea, and what impact it is going to have on the peoples of the two.  It has just been announced that Chairman Kim's younger sister is also visiting the South at this time.  Strictly speaking it is apart from the Olympics.  But she is expected to attend the Opening Ceremony.

     Now Mr. Pence, at a joint press conference with PM Abe, after the two met for more than two hours yesterday, said several things concerning the Asian situation.  In particular he stressed that the DPRK is not trustworthy, making one promise after another but breaking them later.  Therefore for the US the 'strategic patience' is now over.  What he said here is closely backed by the new US nuclear policy announced at Washington on 2 February.

     But where is that path likely to lead us?  Who can deny that the North, under the US military pressure, may shoot first?  The US may be probably safe.  But both the Koreas may be instantly ruined, and the time in the Peninsula will go back to 1950 when the Korean War broke out.

     Mr. Pence should have come as a messenger of peace, a negotiator, even an honest broker.           

Beatrice Fihn's Japan Visit, January 2018

     Ms. Beatrice Fihn, the Swedish-born Executive Director of the Geneva-based International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons(ICAN), visited Japan in mid-January of this year.  She was the one who received the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of her organization at Oslo, Norway, last year.  ICAN was awarded the Prize as it was instrumental in having the Non-Nuclear Weapons Treaty approved by the UN in July of the same year. 

     She first visited Nagasaki as she came at the invitation of Nagasaki University.  After that she also visited  Hiroshima and Tokyo.  I was happy to see that she was meeting the hibakusha(radioactivity-affected persons, those who had survived the bombs), experts on the different aspects of the subject, the Press, and the people of the civil society wherever she went.  But the discussion that she had with the Members of the Parliament on 16 of the month was also as important.  As many as ten political parties sent their representatives both from the government and the opposition sides.  I must add, to my regret, that the Prime Minister has apparently avoided meeting her.

     The most important points that she made at the above meeting with the MPs were probably two.  She strongly suggested that Japan should join the Treaty as the theory of nuclear deterrence that the Japanese government believed in was powerless.  It was only a myth.  She also said that even in the presence of the DPRK's nuclear threat, it would be much more realistic to adhere to the Treaty to arrive at a peaceful solution.

     One more point she made and which strongly impressed me was what she said in reply to a question at the Press Conference at Tokyo.  When asked if she could be optimistic on the ratification of the Treaty when only three countries had ratified it so far, she said, in essence, that the very fact showed that the US is putting pressure on even the small countries in Africa and elsewhere not to ratify it, which itself shows that the Treaty is going to be a serious threat to the nuclear powers.
After this Mexico has ratified as the 4th country.

     At the moment there are 9 nuclear powers and about 30 militarily allied countries.  They are not easily expected to support the Treaty.  Japan belongs to the latter category.  But even in some NATO countries in the latter group, like Norway and Italy, some movement may get started to support it.  Japan may well  join such a movement.   The number of the countries that voted for the Treaty was 122, which is by far the big majority and shows the new winds of change.  A Happy New Year to you all.

      

Japan blindly following the US

     This is what follows yesterday's. 

     The fact that Japan voted in favour of the above-mentioned resolution on both the occasions does not mean at all that Japan is beginning to be critical of the US.  Japan is following the US almost blindly, without thinking with her own brains and without standing on her own.

     The US world policy has been shown in her Statement on the US Security Policy document published on 18 of this month.  Three pillars are to be noticed.  First, the US is trying to keep distance from China and Russia.  This has made her approach Japan, Australia and India more intensely.  Then the US look at the DPRK and Iran as enemies.  Mr.Trump has recently said that the US will 'totally destroy' the DPRK.  Negotiations aimed at peace seem to be out of the agenda with them.  Then thirdly the international terrorist organizations are also the enemies.  These three are the major threats facing the US.

     Unfortunately Japan has accepted practically each and every item of these as her own.  It means Japan's foreign policy is becoming more and more of a military character.  It also means that Japan is importing more and more of the latest weapons, mainly from the US.  When Mr.Trump visited Japan early in November, he came as if he was a salesman of the weapons.

     Our Asian neighbours are watching these processes with apprehension.  For us the Japanese, on top of all those there is one critical issue.  It is that PM Abe is keen on revising the Constitution, so that the present Self-Defence Forces will be constitutionally legalized and authorized as the ordinary military services.  It is as if the DPRK, and sometimes China also, are giving Abe a big helping hand by augmenting and modernizing their weapons, thereby threatening the mind of the average Japanese.  2018 is going to be the first year of the crucial political battle in Japan.  May it be a Very Happy Year.   

       

Japan's Position as against the US

     On 18 December, 2017, there was a voting in the UN Security Council on the resolution sponsored by Egypt to virtually annul Mr. Trump's decision to change the status of Jerusalem.  The result was 14 to one.  The US was the only opposing country.  Still it was a veto.  But it showed the tendency in the world opinion on the issue.

     Then a practically the same resolution, this time sponsored by Turkey and Yemen, was put before the General Assembly on 21.  It should be remembered that prior to the voting the US Ambassador to the UN sent a letter to each delegation warning against voting for the resolution.  It amounted to an intimidation, reminding us of the gunboat diplomacy of the olden days.

     So we are not in a position to know what the voting pattern would have been in the absence of such an intimidation.  As the matter stood, it was passed by 128 to 9, with 35 abstentions and 21 absences. 

     We may presume that the latter two would have been smaller in number in the case of no such intimidation.  What is clear, however, is that the US is not going to listen to the world opinion as was represented by the voting.  She is going to cut her contribution to the UN by a quarter or so, a very mean policy.

     How did Japan vote on those two occasions.  On both occasions Japan voted for the resolution.  Does it mean Japan is keeping distance from the US in her foreign policy?  That is, unfortunately, not the case.  We will look at it from a different angle.    

Six US Experts to President Trump

     Today I have had an access to the full text of a joint letter sent by six American experts on the US-North Korean relations addressed to Donald Trump dated on 28 June 2017.  The six include George Shultz, a former Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, or William Perry, a former Secretary of Defence under Bill Clinton. Therefore it is a by-partisan team.

     The letter strongly requests Trump soon to start negotiating with North Korea. It says that the the leadership on the other side has not yet lost reason.  It also says that China will give a helping hand on such an occasion.

     The experts have admitted that even in isolation the North has shown it possible to advance missile and nuclear technology.  They are sure that, unless diplomatic effort is made to stop such advance, there is little doubt that they will succeed in developing long-range missiles to deliver nuclear warheads to America.

     I believe that these six experts are speaking with a wide background and from a large viewpoint.  I therefore heartily support and welcome the letter.  I strongly hope that Japan's government would also support it.   

Hibakusha as against the PM

     Once again, for 72nd time, the anniversaries of the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have come, and gone, on 6 and 9 August, respectively.

     At the commemoration ceremonies held on these days,  a list of 5,530 names was dedicated who have passed during one year out of the radioactivity-survivors (Hibakusha) of Hiroshima, and of 3,551 names for Nagasaki.  These figures have brought the number of the total dead to 308,725 for Hiroshima, and 175,743 for Nagasaki, nearly half a million if put together.  There are 164,621 survivors at present.  Their average age is 81.41 years old.

     The atmosphere of these ceremonies was a bit different from the previous ones, as the Treaty banning the nuclear weapons, all of them, without an exception, was passed at the UN in July this year.  It has greatly encouraged the hope in that direction. Both the Mayors of the two cities have also expressed the hope in their speech, and appealed to the Japanese Government, who had not participated in the move, to join the tide and sign the Treaty.

     The one who was adamant not to do so was the Prime Minister himself.  Mr.Abe Shinzo said, in almost identical terms on the two occasions, that the Treaty will widen the gap between the nuclear powers and the non-nuclear powers. According to him, both of these groups should participate for such a programme to be effective, and he will make an effort to bridge the two sides, thus attacking the Treaty and justifying his indifference.

     Nobody has expressed dissatisfaction with such a view more strongly than the several groups of Hibakusha who met the PM at Nagasaki after the ceremony. They asked Abe straightaway of which country he was the Prime Minister?  Of course they were entitled to do so.             

Banning the Nuclear Weapons

     7 July 2017 was a memorable day.  First of all it was a day when two stars, deeply in love with each other, met, as they used to do once on this day every year.  Children all over the country wrote down their wishes on a piece of paper and hung them on a bamboo tree.

     Secondly, it marked the 80th anniversary of the beginning of Japan's war with China, in 1937, which developed into a war with the USA and Britain after four years, ending on 15 August 1945.  The latter war itself was the outcome of China's strong resilience against Japan.  But on this, some other time.

     Finally, on this day, the UN passed a new Treaty.  It banned the use or threat of nuclear weapons, their experiments, production, or transfer.  It is comprehensive. It is the first such ban on the nuclear weapons, an international law, and the fruit of the long-time endeavour of countless number of people across the globe for this purpose.  They include many of the survivors in Japan of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 'hibakusha', and the Preamble of the Treaty explicitly refers to the pains they have endured so far.

     The idea and the draft of this law has been discussed during March, and then June to July, in the UN according to the resolution passed by the General Assembly in December the last.  It does not bind all the member countries.  Out of 124 countries, however, who participated in the Conference, 122 said yes to the final draft.  The civil society in general all over the world, and particularly many NGOs representing it, have been largely behind this overwhelming stream toward banning the nuclear weapons.

     As expected, all the Five nuclear powers did not join this stream.  Quite regrettably, the Japanese Government was also absent.  Some one has put a paper crane, symbolizing peace, in the seat of the Japanese representative, to a great discredit of our Government.  They say that it is of not much use to be at such a meeting because it would not narrow the distance between the big Five and the many.  Which is a poor excuse for not doing anything meaningful for the cause of the nuclear-free world.

War Clouds in Asia?

     In his 100 days' commemorative speech, Mr. Donald Trump once again talked of a strong America and a great America.  His Administration is going to increase the military budget for the next year by over 10 %.

     Not only this.  A huge aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson has travelled all the way into the Japan Sea(which name is not liked by some nations in Asia, for example both Koreas, who prefer to call it the East Sea).  The mighty ship has not just been travelling.  Even on her way she has been escorted by two Japanese destroyers, which was in itself an exercise in joint naval operations.

     These Japanese ships, by the way, are officially called 'escort ships'.  Escorting what?  We have at last got a clear image that they are for escorting US carriers, to make up powerful air-and-sea strike forces.  The idea must have been in the brains of some far-sighted strategists of both countries, in spite of all that our Constitution says on non-possession of military potential.  The idea itself was a product of Japan's rearmament.

     Needless to say, Carl Vinson has come as a probable restraint against North Korea who has been experimenting missiles and rockets for the past months, and presumably is also planning to experiment nuclear weapons.  Where would you place China?  Mr. Trump has called Chairman Xi a good man in the above  speech.
DPRK to the contrary has openly criticized China for following the US.  Have the battle lines been drawn then? Not necessarily.  Mr. Trump has suddenly said he would like to meet Mr. Kim.  As another good man?  More importantly, three new US Secretaries have issued a statement which called for peaceful means to be adopted as well.

     There is a model called the Six-nation Conference for the non-nuclearization of DPRK.  The reconvening of something like this must be the immediate aim.  China is its Chair-country, but she is not confident enough at present.  So is Russia or South Korea.  The US is almost a one-man show, unpredictable, with most of the political appointments yet to be made.  Japan is simply a US follower with no independent initiative of her own.  A diplomatic vacuum prevails in the Far East.

     One thing more.  Unless the present nuclear powers get really serious with their nuclear disarmament, DPRK would not be willing to talk.      

       

Mr. Trump's Speech

     Mr. Donald Trump spoke on his policies in the joint session of the US Congress for about an hour on 28 February, his first in the Congress.  Let me extract a few relevant passages from there and place them in the broader question of peace and security in Asia-Pacific.

     He has confirmed his plan to build a gigantic wall along America's southern border, but we will not go into the problems of the Western hemisphere here. More familiar to our region is his determination to 'protect our nation from radical Islamic terrorism'.  He also talked about new sanctions on Iran, and firm alliance with Israel.  I wonder, however, if, to be fair, in the eyes of an unarmed people of Palestine, Israel does not owe its existence to its armed might, call it terrorism if you like, assisted mainly by the US and Britain.  I wonder also if the Muslim countries including Iran have not been invaded either by the US or US-sponsored countries in recent history.  These issues have been discussed in these columns more than once, and let me not repeat them right now.

     Let me call attention to the phrase, 'My job is to represent the United States of America'.  Looks innocent, ordinary, and normal, in the first appearance.  But read it together with what he says on America's 'partners' in Europe, Middle East, and the Pacific having to increase their defence expenditure, upto, say, 2% of their GDP.  Almost simultaneously he declared that he wants to increase the American military expenditure by $ 5 billion, and the number of the US aircraft carriers from the present 10 to 12.

     What for?  The US is forcing Japan, or rather the present obedient(what a shame!) Japanese Government, to build a huge air and naval basis at Henoko, Okinawa.  They are similarly pressurizing the South Korean Government to build an enormous naval base at Cheju Island, off the main Peninsula.  They are selling a large amount of weapons to Taiwan.  Would it be possible, under the circumstances, to think of any other country than China, PRC, as their main target?  And naturally the now economically resilient China is trying to counter the move by building their own carrier task forces, leasing many ports around the Indian Ocean(presumably a part of their plan of encircling India also), and other measures.  Thus the military expenditure has been increasing all over the Asia-Pacific.  China's figure at the moment is about a quarter of that of the US, although there is a lot of talk on its transparency.

     Mr. Trump has complained in his speech that the US has spent $ 6,000 billion on the Middle East at the expense of maintaining her own infrastructure in good shape.  But why not spent it the other way round?  He has devoted a considerable time of his speech to mentioning and introducing various categories of the US patriots and their families.  They must deserve it.  But why did he take so much time when he should have mentioned and introduced his main policies?  Not to let the people to take the heavy doses once again?         

"America First" vs. "Japan-US Relations First"

     When Mr. Trump stresses "America First" the implications are that the interests of every other country should be subjected to this single standard.  In Mr. Abe's case, however, as his policy slogan "Japan-US Relations First" would show, Japan's interests have been made subservient from the beginning, namely before the US-Japan summit, held at Washington on 11 of this month, Japan time.  The dialogue was not on an equal footing.  It was held under the US tutelage.  I am deeply ashamed of it, and so are many of my fellow countrymen/women.

     It was said that the alliance between the two is a cornerstone for peace, prosperity and freedom in the Asia-Pacific region.  Has the statement said anything about the possibility of peaceful solution of whatever problem may prop up?  No. It refers to the security situation in the Asia-Pacific becoming more serious, but it provides only for military measures to cope with it.  It also approves the construction of the huge airbase at Henoko, Okinawa, which goes against the view of by far the majority of the residents there.

     Mr. Abe is happy that the US has reiterated its intention to apply Article 5 of the Security Treaty to the Senkaku islands, that is, to defend them.  Who else is going to threaten the security of these islands but China?  Similarly the statement talks about the freedom of navigation and other matters in the East and South China Seas.  These words are meant only for China.  But strange to say, Mr. Trump had a very cordial telephonic conversation with the Chinese Chairman only the previous night.  Then what are these policies for?  Or are they mostly with DPRK in mind?   Mr. Trump is going to increase the defence budget by a huge sum, but again for what? There is no real military threat in the Asia-Pacific, and the strengthening of the US-Japan military alliance itself is increasing the tension in this region.  In this sense the summit was a complete failure, making no contribution to the peace of this area.    

       

Resident Korean Baseball Players 1981

     May I take it that the readers are reasonably familiar with the rules of baseball.  A game is participated in by two teams, each consisting of 9 players-a pitcher, a catcher, four infielders and three outfielders.  It is played for nine innings.

     From almost the time immemorial there has been an annual national tournament in baseball of high schools.  Hundreds of them take part.  In 1981 the final game, to decide what team comes to the top of the whole high school baseball world in the country, was fought between Hotoku Gakuen High from Hyogo Prefecture and Kyoto Commerce High.  The daily Asahi has started writing a column for 20 consecutive days on this game for entertainment starting today, 21 February.  The following is based on the first installment which appeared today.

     What I would like to tell here, however, is not the game itself(Hotoku beat Kyoto by 2-0).  I was rather keenly interested to know from the above that, the two teams put together, as many as seven of the players were of Korean origin(not seven out of eighteen but of fifty or so including the substitute players). Moreover, two of them from Kyoto were there by their real, namely the Korean, names.  This was unheard-of, when many of the resident Koreans were living under adopted Japanese names, although some of those names would suggest the national origin of their users.  Those two with the real Korean names were particularly popular with the Korean audience, receiving phone calls as well as letters from those unknown to them.

     Thirty-six years on, and I am hereby expressing my respect to the courage that the above seven, especially the two, faced the prejudice by the Japanese from which we are yet to be free.     

Mr. Trump Inaugurated

     Mr. Donald Trump was inaugurated as the new US President on 20 January.  The messages he wanted to convey in his 16-minute speech were the following.  The transfer of power was taking place from Washington D.C. to the people.  From now on they are going to be of one heart, one home, one destiny.  The sad depletion of the American military will be restored.  Now we are looking only to the future, and its going to be only America First.  We will bring back our border, jobs, dreams.  For that buy American, hire American.  The civilized world will fight the radical Islamic terrorists to the finish.  He concluded by stressing that America will be strong again, wealthy again, proud again, safe again, and great again.

     There are some questions on the above.  Why did America lose so many jobs?  Are they able to create them when the import from China, Mexico and others have stopped?  If they have stopped importing, are they still able to export, and to where?  Expert opinion says that the loss of jobs in the US has been because of the progress in automation.  Are the US going back by several decades back?  And are the US not concerned with the possible loss of jobs in Mexico and other countries?

     Then why do the Americans have to be strong?  They are already strong enough.  Look at the US bases in Japan.  The residents around them, and there are millions, are harassed by the terrible noise of the newly introduced aircraft, one after another.  If the US wants to get still stronger, it must be against China, North Korea, and Iran.  China has been often mentioned by Mr. Trump during the elections and after.  The other two are mentioned in the official policy document published by the new White House.  Are they, the Americans, not taking non-military measures to solve whatever problems they see existing with these countries peacefully?

     Incidentally the said document maintains that the Second Amendment should be observed. We have heard this often enough as the ground on which people go against gun control.  Needless to say there is nothing about gun control in the speech, and the policy document.  But is the Second Amendment really the legitimate ground to be referred to for such a purpose?  Would it be wrong to say that it was a substitute at a time, in 18th Century, when the US had no regular army, and was a measure to strengthen the militia in the hands of the Federal administration?

     The speech talks about the Islamic terrorists.  This is the only distinct social group mentioned there.  It conveys the feeling that the Muslims as a whole are anti-American, anti-social, or at least suspicious.  At the same time the above document promises to build a wall along the Mexican border, suggesting that the Hispanics are also anti-American, anti-social.  The expressions like wealthy 'again' or great 'again' would suggest going back to the time when by far the majority of the Americans are whites.  Again, the personnel to man the new White House would strongly suggest that it would be pro-Israeli. All put together, it is difficult to think that the new Administration is going to be fair to all the communities comprising America, making it a unique, composite, multi-cultural society worthy of respect.

     Finally, on what Mr. Trump said about the media the next day at the CIA.  He said something like 'the most dishonest people'.  He said it on the media, or at least a part of it.  It was on a small issue, the number of attendance at his inauguration.  He had deliberately avoided, in the presence of many, to nominate a CNN correspondent in his press conference on the day before the inauguration.  Those are very un-statesman like, to say the least.  I am afraid such a behaviour, such an expression, such an attitude, would provide a very convenient model to follow by many authoritarian-minded politicians, now and in the future, around the world.