Ken: Certainly things are tense between NK and Japan (and the rest of the world) but I think what is being missed here is how restrained the Japanese have been about the NK issue. If Japan were a ‘normal’ nation one would expect they would have at least discussed the nuclear option by now. All we have at the moment is a discussion about whether or not there should be a discussion, and any debate that does eventuate will probably reach the conclusion that Japan doesn’t need nukes anyway. The media got things a little wrong, I think, when they focussed on Nakagawa as the initial proponent of a discussion on nuclear weapons capability for Japan. Ishiba Shigeru had already talked about this, and reached the conclusion that discussion would be useful because it would prove to the Americans that Japan does not want nukes and therefore that they would not come out from under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Such a stance, according to Ishiba, would strengthen the Alliance.

M-bone: excellent point. The ‘jingoistic Japan’ sells better than the “Japan that stroves for peace.” At the same time, I think it would be hard to keep on keepin on striving for peace when the DPRK continues its agression and the nation actually feels threatened (and the threat escalates) every couple of years. There was no way that the ‘98 DPRK, who launched missiles over Honshu, was nuclear capable. They couldn’t have made such a move had they been. Now it would be a different story. When they suddenly said in June that they were not going to let the annual 50 Americans in for the games in October, it was obvious that something was up. The Army 8th Division keeps up its 24 on/24 off shifts on the DMZ for a reason; there is a real threat that need constant assessment, even through a small scope. Nowhere else in the world is this shift still active in a zone without ongoing hostilities.

Ace – I agree that much of the reporting about Japan in English is typical left scare stuff. People don’t necessarily see how run of the mill it all is. I also agree that Japanese have been hearing about the “shift to the right” since 1945…. The same type of miltiary scare reporting that we are seeing now existed in the 1960s and Nakasone’s day in the 1980s. I’m sick of all of it. We really need to hear more varied voices. People who can be left on one issue and right on another. Otherwise, reporting just follows ideological lines. I think that a lot of recent stuff in Chuokoron and other digests is pretty centrist. This is a good devlopment. I just want to see reporting in English show the same type of variety on one hand and reason on the other.

About Onishi:
He writes about Japan as any Japanese liberal journalist would.
His pieces are resembling too much of what I read from Asahi or Mainichi .It’s been said our correspondents in the U.S has been snatching bit piece from NYT here and WaPo there or the New Republic for the punchlines.Onishi simply does the same with liberal Japanese media.
The real concern is that we in Japan used to read’Fascism is coming at our doors ’
kind article from the very day we’ve got literacy,while people outside read about Japan as seriously lacking selfcriticism and shifting toward right and that would bring huge perception gap.
The other thing I feel is since Onishi is of a Japanese descent,he must hold tough stance to things Japanese,while visible sympathy to things Korean or Chinese.
Perhaps the growing influence of Asian immigrants require that kind of attitude to be a succesful reporter for a Japanese canadian,and declining interest to Japan among American media enforce the correspondents to be an asia specialist not just a Japan specialist.
Anyway I would do exactly the samething if I were to be destined to work for U.S media.

In his dealings with the media, he has been overly vague and has attempted to connect things that make no sense. His initiatives don’t seem to do much in the way of dealing with actualy problems at hand. With education? Structural reform is necessary, and people within the education ‘business’ need to be consulted with, yet that seems not to have happened. Legislation was passed to benefit Abe and his legacy, not the nation’s children. I think people see the difference.

Like the Patriot Act had no meaning after 9/11, moving the defense agency to ministry status (I move I personally support), has no meaning in the current context. It does nothing to put pressure on North Korea. They are simply not worried about Japan, unless it is the lapdog Japan they drone on about. What is hurting Abe is that Japan is becoming less relevant in international politics (other than Oshima’s role in the aftermath of the NK tests in October), especially within the 6 Party Talks. Abe promised to put the abduction issue on the table, and look where that got them last week: pushed away from the discussion.

M-Bone: the lurch to the ‘right’ in Japan is the paranoia of Onishi, the New York Times’ Tokyo bureau chief. His writings on Japan just don’t hold water. I think you’re very correct in saying that the NK issue will blow over. However, we all know it’s not past the DPRK to blow it back over the other way.

Hats halfway off to the DPJ. I don’t think they’re doing enough, and when they do, they screw it up. The no-confidence move on Aso wa a great idea, but to extend it over the cabinet just made it look petty. They are finally playing the role they should. The only problem is that Ozawa, who is very good at pushing issues and keeping them on the agenda, is not a telegenic and charismatic leader in the voters’ eyes. I’d like to see them to a co-presidency with Ozawa pushing things in Nagatacho and someone more into the PR side of things out doing the campaigning.