Terror in Paris

     The great terror struck into the mind of the people of Paris and elsewhere, which started with an armed attack on a weekly newspaper on Wednesday, 7 January 2015, has not come to an end.  I would like to join all the others who are mourning the death of the victims.  I would also like to express my solidarity with those who are making a determined condemnation of the violence.

     I would like to make it clear, however, that I am not able to bring myself to support the view that the way the weekly newspaper was publishing under the name of satire should be defended in the name of the freedom of expression.  The freedom of expression should be certainly defended.  As a matter of fact it has been fought for and won by the efforts of the numerous people.  But is it worth the name, the glorious name, of that freedom to publish whatever one wishes to, even if it offends many innocent people?  And knowingly?

     And it is no ordinary minority of people.  There are said to be five to six million Muslims in France alone.  Some of them must be devout followers of the faith, many others must be secular.  However that may be, is France, meaning the ordinary French people, going to live with them in the many years to come or not?  If yes, is it not necessary for the French to come to terms with them by adjusting some of the traditional ideas they have been entertaining?  Even if they do so, it would not amount to the repression of the freedom of expression, which is part of the universal values of the mankind.  But perhaps they would have to modify their interpretation of it if necessary.  What is currently going on is a case in point.

     Many French would ask, why there are so many Muslims they have to cope with in their own country?  But it is the end-result of their own colonial history in the past, and they are reaping what they have sown for a long time.  They would have to take into consideration that many of those immigrants are in a disadvantageous condition.  Moreover, they are facing the rapid rise in recent years of the extreme Right in French politics who should not be there in a country of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.

     There is one more thing I would like to say here.  It is the relationship among the ordinary French, the immigrant Muslims, and the Jewish in France.  The terrorists have also attacked a Jewish supermarket.  Needless to say this was an unprovoked action, and it is likely to enhance hostility among the Jewish toward the Muslims.  It will also damage the position of the Palestinians.  What I would add here is that the Muslim immigrants are also facing the strong pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim prejudice in the Jewish-Muslim spectrum.  Take, for example, what the French Prime Minister said on the street this time.  He said, 'We are all French Jews'.  Beautiful words if seen as the expression of solidarity with the victims.  But why not some words of solidarity with the ordinary, innocent Muslims at the same time, who must be deeply hurt by the terror and are badly in need of those words?                 

Year-end Lower House Elections in Japan, 2014

     A Happy New Year to you all.  Let us hope, and we are entitled to hope, that the world will be more peaceful, with less socio-economic inequality, at the end of the year.

     Japan's Prime Minister Abe dissolved the Lower House of the Parliament much ahead of the end of its term, and the elections were held on 14 December.  We will take up three prominent features out of the results.  But why did he decide to go to the electorate to begin with?

     In short, in this writer's view, he lost confidence in his ability to manage economy.  It had been taken for granted that the economic performance would prove to be poor in the April-June quarter because of the hike in the consumption tax from 5 to 8 % on 1 April.  But contrary to the forecast, the downward trend continued in the July-September quarter, inviting sharper criticism of the "Abenomics".  The share prices continued to go up, but that was the only positive-if we may say so-upward trend in the economy, and its benefit was apparently limited to a very small stratum which includes lots of foreign buyers.  Almost every opinion poll would indicate that the great majority felt that the benefit of Abe's policies had not reached them.  He had been compelled to postpone the next stage of the hike to 10 % scheduled for 1 October 2015.

     The first prominent feature of the election results was that, in spite of all the above, Abe's Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), together with its coalition partner, Komei Party, got a little more than two-thirds majority of the 475 seats in the House.  The voting rate was the lowest ever, 53 %.   A poll conducted soon afterwards says that only 11 % replied that it was because Abe's policies were highly valued by the electorate, but an astounding 72 % was of the view that it was because the opposition parties could not present viable counter measures.  The disaffection with the Abenomics was more clearly shown in the near wiping out of some of the opposition parties positioned more to the right of the LDP.  The foreign media called it the winning by default, and they were right.

     Another aspect of this was that, while the LDP got 75 % of the seats in the single-member constituencies, accounting for the majority of the seats, with only 48 % of the votes, they could get only 33 % of the party-wise proportional representation.

     The second feature was that the Communist Party of Japan nearly doubled their votes in the proportional representation to 11 %, and thereby increased its seats dramatically from the mere 8 to 21.  

     The third was the fact that in Okinawa Prefecture, where the main issue was whether to construct a new air base for the US forces stationed in Japan by the US-Japan Security Treaty, the candidates of the opposition alliance defeated the LDP candidates in all the four single-member constituencies.   This was also an epoch-making event, which took place on the heels of the anti-Abe, anti-LDP victory of the opposition alliance in the elections both for the Governor of Okinawa and the Mayor of Naha, its major administrative city, on 16 November, just four weeks previously.

     How will the Japanese politics move on from these points this year 2015?  Has the pattern in Okinawa shown the shape of things to come?  And will Abe and his LDP try to go ahead with their two-thirds majority in the Lower House in the direction of the Constitutional Amendment?                

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.