Category: Politics

The future of China (or, exactly what is realist?)

That Tom Barnett interview I mentioned is creating some dissension within our cousin blog Coming Anarchy.

The authors of CA (correction: two of them), as you might know, are fans of Barnett, but bigger fans of Robert Kaplan (hence the title). Barnett and Kaplan are divided on how the U.S. should deal with China, and their divide really represents two views that are fighting for prevalence in Washington.

Kaplan’s view, which is more in line with official Defense Department policy since the Cold War (and also gets lots of nods on the Japanese right), is that China is an emerging military threat that the U.S. has to contain with ships, airplanes, and missiles. Barnett’s view is that the U.S. has to become partners with China, as the economies of the two countries dictate, rather than let political concerns screw up the countries’ mostly-beneficial symbiosis.

Which view prevails will necessarily determine the future of U.S. policy toward Taiwan. A Kaplan view means that the U.S. has to defend Taiwanese sovereignty at all costs, as a roadblock to Chinese ambition in the Pacific. A Barnett view leads to the U.S. maintaining the status quo in Taiwan until the two countries can be united without force, either through incorporation in a democratic China or as part of a larger EU-style Asian community.

It hurts to admit this, because I’ve been a Taiwan supporter for some time now, but Barnett has a good point. Is it worth it to antagonize China when the U.S. is dependent on China and China is dependent on the U.S.? Wouldn’t it be easier if both countries could focus resources on their own problems, rather than needlessly breathe down each other’s throats? Do we really need to be bracing for World War III right now?

These are all tough questions that Bush and Rumsfeld should be asking themselves. Perhaps the best answer is to do as Barnett advises: maintain the status quo until China and Taiwan have evolved to the point where they can discuss their differences without threatening to lob bombs at each other. I think this is more likely to happen if and when we see closer business ties and more transparent democracy on both sides.

Where do you draw the line?

[N]o sooner do we depart from sense and instinct to follow the light of a superior principle, to reason, meditate, and reflect on the nature of things, but a thousand scruples spring up in our minds concerning those things which before we seemed fully to comprehend. Prejudices and errors of sense do from all parts discover themselves to our view; and, endeavoring to correct these by reason, we are insensibly drawn into uncouth paradoxes, difficulties, and inconsistencies, which multiply and grow upon us as we advance into speculation, till at length, having wandered through many intricate mazes, we find ourselves just where we were, or, which is worse, sit down in a forlorn Skepticism.

– George Berkeley, The Principles of Human Knowledge

In daily life, we assume as certain many things which, on a closer scrutiny, are found to be so full of apparent contradictions that only a great amount of thought enables us to know what it is that we really may believe. In the search for certainty, it is natural to begin with our present experiences, and in some sense, no doubt, knowledge is to be derived from them. But any statement as to what it is that our immediate experiences make us know is very likely to be wrong.

– Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy

The passages above describe eloquently an idea that has long lingered troublingly in the back of my mind, but remained unarticulated due to principally to my own laziness in fleshing it out. I don’t expect to exorcize all of my demons on the subject here, but at least it will be a start.

I’ve never perceived myself as being the type to fall easily into one camp or another on things. Consequently, I either find myself taking a position of devil’s advocate in order to participate in a conversation, or find myself sinking into a disappointed indecision. If I’m around conservatives, for example, I usually feel myself inexorably being pulled in the opposite direction. When around liberals, the opposite is true.

In either instance, I am left wondering, “how can this or that person be so sure about himself or herself?” Furthermore, I wonder, “how can I be so unsure of myself?” Granted, I may be objecting to attitudes more than to opinions in the aforementioned examples, but the questions still remain unanswered.

It’s not that I lack the ability to construct a logical argument and follow through on the conclusion. But on what basis are such conclusions ultimately derived?

Consider the following question: Is abortion right?

Now consider the following two answers to this question:

– Life begins at conception.
– The taking of a life is wrong.
– Abortion takes a life.
– Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Fine, but what about this:

– A fetus is part of a woman’s body.
– A woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases.
– Therefore, if she wishes to have an abortion, she is justified.

They are both simplified examples to be sure, and while I’m no logician, they suit my purposes here. There appears to be no problem with the arguments themselves; the rub lies in the assumptions. Then we are forced to ask: which assumption is right? That just leads to another argument, founded on other, more basic assumptions.

But if we keep digging, what eventually remains? I wonder how often people stop to ask themselves this question. It seems possible that one could rely on “sense and instinct” clothed in the type of arguments above without ever considering the soundness of their assumptions. For practicality’s sake we must we draw a mental line somewhere if we are to avoid a slippery slope that leads to relativism or worse. We can’t go around denying the existence of tables all day long. But where and when should that line be drawn?

Makiko Tanaka is amusing

I’m binging on rotten.com tonight, and came across the following brief anecdote in their profile of President Bush (scroll to bottom):

17 Jun 2001 – Japanese Foreign Minister Makiko Tanaka returns to German Town High School in Philadelphia, where she studied for two years as a high school student. During a conversation with her former classmates, Tanaka gives her concise assessment of President George W Bush: “He is totally an asshole.”

I offer a cash reward to anyone who can find audio or video of this.

The next Prime Minster? or, crazy rightwingers say the darndest things

For those who haven’t been keeping track of Japanese politics, a brief introduction courtesy of online Bloomberg news.

Japan’s Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi appointed Shinzo Abe, Taro Aso and Sadakazu Tanigaki as members of his final cabinet. All three are considered favorites to succeed him when he steps down in September.

“It is essentially a three-man race” to see who can replace Koizumi next year, said Noriko Hama, professor of economics at Doshisha University in Kyoto and former chief economist at Mitsubishi Research Institute. “The posts they’ve been given do harbor risks so any mistakes could be damaging. They will certainly jostle and compete with each other.”

Earlier today, Curzon emailed us a link to this brief news item on Yahoo Japan reporting a statement that Aso made on the 17th of October, at the opening of the Kysushu National Museum

Japan is one nation, one civilization, one language, one culture, one race, none of which can be found in any other country.

This could be a surprise to the Ainu, Okinawans, Zainich Korean and Chinese minorities, and the hundreds of thousands of other foreigners legally residing in Japan, as well as the Japanese communities overseas. Come on, we have a Ninja restaurant in New York now, what more counter evidence do you need?

A couple of Aso’s other greatest hits, as translated from the Japanese Wikipedia entry by Adam:

* Claimed Koreans wished to change their names to Japanese names during colonial rule (an attempt to justify the Aso Zaibatsu’s colonial-era actions). Also claimed Japan helped spread the use of Hangul writing.
* When inaugurated as MIC Minister in 2003, made the bold prediction that office paperwork would disappear with the development of information technology and that everything would be done by magical new floppy disks in the future.

If only being this much of an idiot would disqualify him as a candidate for the Prime Ministership.

Separating shrine and state: why you shouldn’t expect a court to stop the Yasukuni visits

Article 20 of the Constitution of Japan says that “freedom of religion is guaranteed to all. No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the State, nor exercise any political authority… The State and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity.” Article 89 further states that “no public money or other property shall be expended or appropriated for the use, benefit or maintenance of any religious institution or association, or for any charitable, educational or benevolent enterprises not under the control of public authority.”

Like the First Amendment in the United States, these rules are just full of fun! If you think about it, they could make the Emperor illegal. (I don’t actually agree with this notion; it’s just one interpretation that could be drawn.) But they won’t make the Emperor illegal, nor will they make Koizumi’s visits to Yasukuni Shrine illegal… and even if the visits could be considered illegal, the courts aren’t going to stop them! More detailed explanation after the jump.
Continue reading Separating shrine and state: why you shouldn’t expect a court to stop the Yasukuni visits

Nobody saw this one coming (UPDATED 10/21/05)

Update: I was obviously kidding about the comment below that, “all Chinese and Koreans should at all times maintain attitudes of extreme outrage towards the past aggressions of the Japanese and express these attitudes verbally, physically, and if possible even through pantomime.”

However, I attended a meeting a few days ago in which a Chinese academic suggested that Japan should, “always show sincere repentence voulnatily, without a time frame.” You could almost smell the smoke rising from the ears of some of the Japanese in the room.

Content from one of three links in MOFA’s latest e-newsletter:

Visit to China by Mr. MACHIMURA Nobutaka, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan

October 18, 2005

With regard to Minister MACHIMURA’s visit to China, a minister in the Embassy of Japan in China was contacted by the Deputy Director-General of the Department of Asian Affairs in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China in the afternoon on 18th October, and the Chinese side informed the Japanese side that it is difficult to receive Minister MACHIMURA in China under the current situation, as the atmosphere is not favorable.

(END)

And since Joe’s last post on Koizumi’s Yasukuni visit attracted so much attention in the comments section, let me just say that I think all Japanese should visit Yasukuni at least three times daily, every single day of the year! And, all Chinese and Koreans should at all times maintain attitudes of extreme outrage towards the past aggressions of the Japanese and express these attitudes verbally, physically, and if possible even through pantomime! And, Rummy should skip Japan on every visit to Asia! And, God doesn’t exist, the death penalty rocks, all abortion should be illegal, and your parents lied to you about Santa.

Yasukuni revisited

We kind of knew it was coming: Koizumi went again. Protests broke out in Beijing and Hong Kong. Best dismissal EVER:

Koizumi told reporters in Tokyo that he made his visit as a private citizen and not in an official capacity, saying that “China and South Korea will eventually understand.”

The angry reactions in China and Korea are covered in more depth in AFP’s article.

UPDATE: Another great Koizumi jab: “In principle other people should not meddle with matters of the heart… much more, foreign governments should not say ‘you should not’ when the Japanese are offering sincere condolences to the war dead from Japan and other parts of the world.”

West Japan Daily Editorial: PM Should Think of National Interest when Deciding Yasukuni Visit

After seeing some takes on the Yasukuni issue over at Japan Media Review Weblog, I figured I’d let my own organization, Fukuoka-based West Japan Daily (a typically liberal regional newspaper), put in their two cents in English:

On the subject of the Yasukuni visit issue, Prime Minister Koizumi is repeating the same old line of “I will decide appropriately when I go there.”

And to his critics, Japan and Korea, expresses his strong distaste: “It is not for other countries to interfere with a shrine visit that is derived from my own beliefs.”

If Mr. Koizumi were a mere denizen of Japan, no one could disagree with him. However, the Prime Minister is a public figure, the highest leader representing Japan. This problem won’t be solved just by insisting that no one can quibble with personal belief.

Why is visiting Yasukuni Shrine sparking such resistance from China and Korea? The PM should think more seriously about this as the representative of this country.

We also do not think that the recent anti-Japan protests in China are justified. Particularly, not apologizing after we forgave the anti-Japanese demonstrators for attacking a Consul General and the sudden cancellation and return of Vice Premier Wu’s meeting with Koizumi were, diplomatically speaking, extremely rude.

However, the enshrinement of A-class war criminals who led the Pacific War along with the war dead is at the root of China’s criticism of Koizumi’s visits.

Even looking at the first official visit to Yasukuni, made in 1985 by then PM Yasuhiro Nakasone but not made again after the next year, the decision was made to cancel further visits because considering Chinese criticism and not going to Yasukuni was seen as stabilizing the Sino-Japanese relationship and working in the Japanese national interest.

That same Nakasone said of Koizumi’s visits, “It is commendable to stick to one’s beliefs, but it is also important to think of how this affects the whole country’s interests.”

This is what we would like Koizumi to consider. Sticking to one’s own beliefs without listening to China’s criticism has a direct effect on the Japanese people’s interests.

The fact that Lower House Chairman Youhei Kono, who conferred with five former PMs, said to Koizumi on May 7 that based on the conference, “You should take the utmost care when considering visiting Yasukuni,” was yet another expression of crisis consciousness that worsening Sino-Japanese relations any more than they are would be detrimental to our interests.

Komeito head Takenori Kanzaki has also demanded a stop to the visits, saying, “If the visits continue this will have a bad effect on the basis for our coalition.”

The Prime Minister should understand more than anyone how important stable relations with China are. Despite this, he maintains the attitude that, “It is one of the PM’s roles to pay memorial tribute to the war dead enshrined at Yasukuni.” We understand his beliefs and feelings. That attitude is one reason why the PM enjoys stable popular support.

However, current popular opinion polls show that a majority of people think that “The PM should cancel his plans to visit Yasukuni Shrine.”

Koizumi can believe what he wants, but a Prime Minister’s job is to put a priority on breaking the current deadlock between Japan and China. That would not be a capitulation to China’s criticism in the slightest. Most Japanese would agree, I’m sure.

“Ritual” Pro Wrestling at Yasukuni Shrine: ＺＥＲＯ－ＯＮＥ　ＭＡＸ


From SANSPO:

Yasukuni Shrine in Kudan, Tokyo, held the first “ritual” pro wrestling match “Yamato Land of the Gods Strength Festival” in 44 years on April 10th.

Six matches were held by the ZERO1-MAX wrestling league in the outdoor compound, where the burning flames lit up the fully bloomed night cherry blossoms. The main event, AWA heavyweight world champion Omori Takao (35) successfully defended his title for the second time. Ogawa Naoya (37) of UFO and Takefuji Keiji (42) of AJPW made guest appearances, exciting the 3627 fans crowded into the shrine. “It’s wonderful to be at such a special place,” gushed ZERO1 Representative Otani Shinji (32).

The last ritual match was held in April 1961 with Rikidozan protegees Giant Baba and Antonio Inoki. 5000 people came to see it back then. There was also an historic March 1921 mixed styles wrestling match at Yasukuni between American pro wrestler Ad Santel and Judo star Shoji Hikoo.

ZERO1-MAX would like to make the “ritual” pro wrestling a yearly spring tradition at Yasukuni.