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 !