After spending time on World War Two, particularly on the Japanese "kamikaze" pilots, I am now going to flip back some seven centuries to the time of Mongol Invasions of Japan. It was at this time, during the two invasions, that the name, "kamikaze" or divine wind was applied to a typhoon or typhoons that helped to destroy the invasion fleet, not once, but twice!
During the reign of Kublai Khan, the grandson of Chingis Khan, the Mongols had subjugated just about all of the known world, certainly most of Asia. Some countries they conquered militarily, others they took under control through alliances and simple threat of military invasion. Korea at that time was under Koryo Dynasty and was no match on the battle field for the Mongol army, but they would have caused problems for the invaders. So, Kublai simply married one of his daughters to the Crown Prince of Koryo. Through marriage, Koryo (Korea) became subjugated to the Mongol Empire. However, there was still Japan, the island country, that was not part of the Mongol Empire.
Kublai sent emissaries to Japan and offered them a chance to become part of the empire without risking a war and possible total destruction . However, the Japanese rebuffed the Great Khan, which angered him greatly and so he decided to invade the offending country.
The first invasion took place in 1274 with 800 large and small ships and 24,000 troops. About a 1/3 of the invading force was Mongol, another 1/3 Chinese, and 1/3 Korean. But the invasion got off badly. As the ships approached the Japanese shores a strong typhoon struck the southwestern tip of Kyushu where the invasion force was landing. Much of the Mongol fleet was destroyed. Those that managed to land were cut down by the Japanese defenders. The invaders were in a hopeless situation, no reinforcements or supplies could follow them since the fleet sank in the typhoon, and so the first invasion was repelled.
Kublai was furious and he didn't forget the Japanese rebuff nor the disastrous invasion. He waited seven years, then in 1281, launched even a larger invasion with about 150,000 troops. But as luck would have it, an even greater typhoon struck just about the time the ships were landing the troops and the whole invasion turned into a disaster. Some Japanese believed that god was on their side and sent the typhoons to protect them, therefore, they called those typhoons "divine winds" or "kamikaze." At this time there was a Buddhist monk by the name of Nichiren who was going around Japan trying to promote his type of Buddhism. He insisted that all other forms of Buddhism were wrong, incorrect, and that his was the only one that properly interpreted the great Buddha's teachings. He also went around suggesting that he had called upon the "great winds" (typhoon means great wind) to defend Japan and that these typhoons were indeed "divine winds."
Nichiren Buddhism seems to always surface when Japan is in dire circumstances and needs help, divine or otherwise. Just about the time the war started going badly for Japan in 1944, the Nichiren Buddhism resurfaced with a new name, Sokko Gakkai. It attracted a lot of followers who, particularly following Japan's defeat, felt hopeless and sought some sort of help and support. Sokko Gakkai grew into a powerful lobby in the Japanese government. Although it has gone through numerous scandals (including the time it allied itself with Manuel Noriega in the 1970s!) and has lost considerable favor among people, it is still a political/religious group to contend with in Japan.
The name "kamikaze" was revived during the waning days of World War Two as Japan desperately tried to find a way to defend itself. Some though that by giving the suicide planes the title of "kamikaze," that Japan would somehow be saved from foreign invasion, as those typhoons of long ago helped to defend Japan. No Buddhist monk went around this time saying that he had called upon divine intervention.
Monday, July 28, 2014
Friday, July 25, 2014
"Boy Soldiers 2"
As Japan became more and more desperate for war material and manpower, by late 1944 they began to draft young high school students and those previously considered physically unfit for military service. Most of the Japanese high schools at the time had at least some sort of military training like the Junior ROTC programs. The better schools had better programs such as pre-flight training. Those kids that attended schools with pre-flight training, besides receiving all the ground training, learned to fly gliders. It was in a sense, a fairly short step for them to start flying real planes.
Kids from high schools that had pre-flight training were drafted as early as age 15 or 16, Japan was desperate for more pilots!
It isn't quite certain as to who or when the so-called kamikaze or the Tokkubetsu Kokkekitai (Special Attack Units) program formally started. But it started sometime in the late Fall of 1944 when volunteers for the "Special Attack Units" were sought. The method that was used to get the young men to "volunteer" were frankly dishonest and criminal in some respects. The "volunteer" selection would begin by having a large "assembly" held with all of the new, young recruits that had just completed or were about to complete their basic training in the Imperial Army Air Corps or Imperial Navy. During the "assembly" various officers would make patriotic speeches and possibly even a propaganda film would be shown. The speech makers talked at great length about the glory of fighting for the Emperor and Japan, and how it was their duty to protect their country and loved ones. At the end of all the speeches and movies, an announcement was made that the Imperial Army or Navy, whichever the case, was seeking volunteers for a Special Attack Unit, the Tokkotai. All those not wishing to volunteer for this "honor" of serving in a Special Attack Unit were to come forward and stand in front, facing the assembly. Given such circumstances, what teenager or young man would step forward and stand facing the large assembly as the one not wishing to volunteer?
Incredibly, apparently there were some independent thinking young men who did step forward. Many of these non-volunteers were killed, treated horribly by the cadre and to some extent, shunned by their peers. However, for the most part, it was a mass "volunteering" assembly! Once they "volunteered," they were shipped off to secret air bases for training. Their training was absolutely brutal. There were those who wanted to quit the program. If they announced that they were quitting, they were treated even more brutally, and many of them died at the hands of the cadre. The cadre members carried baseball bats with the words "yamato damashi" (Japanese spirit) written in large letters. Whenever a trainee was thought to lack true "spirit" the bat was used to instill the spirit. The brutality ended only after they finished their training and were considered ready to go and die. However, their treatment by superiors was still very harsh.
For propaganda purposes, films were made of tokkotai drinking sake and willingly going off to their deaths. What drove them to their final act was not the desire to seek glory, it was simply conformity and duty, two of the most important elements in Japanese culture that had been literally pounded into their heads since childhood. A Japanese parent chastising a child for bad behavior would invariably say, "Think what others will say about you!" or "Don' bring shame on the family." Sometimes they would even use the entire community and say, "Think of the shame that you are bringing on everyone!" A very different perspective is developed by a young Japanese child from that of his western counterpart. A young tokkotai plunged to his death because he didn't want to disappoint his family or society in general, and because he was duty bound to honor them!
I've given somewhat of a simplistic explanation. I didn't mean to make any less of the very complicated and different perspective that these young men had. But the bottom line is that for the most part, they were not some glory seeking, fanatical, samurai warriors. They were simply young men, kids, who were under tremendous societal and peer pressure to do as they were told, to conform.
Things have changed considerably now. The young Japanese of today is not going to think and act the same way. More than likely they would simply refuse to do what they think is unreasonable. But back in the 1940s, there was no other way.
Kids from high schools that had pre-flight training were drafted as early as age 15 or 16, Japan was desperate for more pilots!
It isn't quite certain as to who or when the so-called kamikaze or the Tokkubetsu Kokkekitai (Special Attack Units) program formally started. But it started sometime in the late Fall of 1944 when volunteers for the "Special Attack Units" were sought. The method that was used to get the young men to "volunteer" were frankly dishonest and criminal in some respects. The "volunteer" selection would begin by having a large "assembly" held with all of the new, young recruits that had just completed or were about to complete their basic training in the Imperial Army Air Corps or Imperial Navy. During the "assembly" various officers would make patriotic speeches and possibly even a propaganda film would be shown. The speech makers talked at great length about the glory of fighting for the Emperor and Japan, and how it was their duty to protect their country and loved ones. At the end of all the speeches and movies, an announcement was made that the Imperial Army or Navy, whichever the case, was seeking volunteers for a Special Attack Unit, the Tokkotai. All those not wishing to volunteer for this "honor" of serving in a Special Attack Unit were to come forward and stand in front, facing the assembly. Given such circumstances, what teenager or young man would step forward and stand facing the large assembly as the one not wishing to volunteer?
Incredibly, apparently there were some independent thinking young men who did step forward. Many of these non-volunteers were killed, treated horribly by the cadre and to some extent, shunned by their peers. However, for the most part, it was a mass "volunteering" assembly! Once they "volunteered," they were shipped off to secret air bases for training. Their training was absolutely brutal. There were those who wanted to quit the program. If they announced that they were quitting, they were treated even more brutally, and many of them died at the hands of the cadre. The cadre members carried baseball bats with the words "yamato damashi" (Japanese spirit) written in large letters. Whenever a trainee was thought to lack true "spirit" the bat was used to instill the spirit. The brutality ended only after they finished their training and were considered ready to go and die. However, their treatment by superiors was still very harsh.
For propaganda purposes, films were made of tokkotai drinking sake and willingly going off to their deaths. What drove them to their final act was not the desire to seek glory, it was simply conformity and duty, two of the most important elements in Japanese culture that had been literally pounded into their heads since childhood. A Japanese parent chastising a child for bad behavior would invariably say, "Think what others will say about you!" or "Don' bring shame on the family." Sometimes they would even use the entire community and say, "Think of the shame that you are bringing on everyone!" A very different perspective is developed by a young Japanese child from that of his western counterpart. A young tokkotai plunged to his death because he didn't want to disappoint his family or society in general, and because he was duty bound to honor them!
I've given somewhat of a simplistic explanation. I didn't mean to make any less of the very complicated and different perspective that these young men had. But the bottom line is that for the most part, they were not some glory seeking, fanatical, samurai warriors. They were simply young men, kids, who were under tremendous societal and peer pressure to do as they were told, to conform.
Things have changed considerably now. The young Japanese of today is not going to think and act the same way. More than likely they would simply refuse to do what they think is unreasonable. But back in the 1940s, there was no other way.
Saturday, July 19, 2014
The Battle of Okinawa
The Battle of Okinawa, which began as The Invasion of Okinawa on April 1, 1945 and lasted for 82 days, was the longest and the bloodiest military operation of World War Two. If you ask an average American what was the biggest military operation of World War Two, no doubt the answer will be the Normandy Invasion, the D-Day! There is no denying that the Normandy Invasion played a key role in defeating Nazi Germany. But the invasion launched by the combined U.S., British, and British Commonwealth forces paled in comparison to the size of Soviet forces fighting on the eastern front. The bulk of the German army was on the eastern front and the Soviets had been fighting the Germans since Germany's invasion of Russia several years earlier. However, there is no denying that the allied invasion of Normandy played a key part in the victory over Nazi Germany, and the contribution and sacrifices made by those brave fighting men will forever be honored and remembered.
On June 6, 1944, 73,000 U.S. troops and 83,000 British, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand troops invaded Normandy, a total of 156,000 ground forces. There were also smaller Free French and Polish Brigades, but the total of ground forces did not exceed 160,000 men. It took them about 44 days to reach their final objectives of the initial invasion, that of capturing the town of Cherbourg on June 26 and Caen on July 21. With the capture of Caen, the Normandy Invasion was over and allies had firmly established foothold in France. In the process the allies suffered about 10,000 casualties.
The Battle of Okinawa was fought for almost twice as long, 82 days, from April 1 until June 21, 1945 when Okinawa was finally under U.S. control. The Invasion of Okinawa on land was conducted exclusively by U.S. troops, 102,000 Army, 88,000 Marines, and 18,000 Navy (SeaBees) for a total of slightly over 200,000 U.S. ground personnel. That's almost three times more U.S. personnel and about 50,000 more than the total allied ground force for the Normandy Invasion. The U.S. forces faced roughly 100,000 firmly entrenched Japanese troops, of which about 25,000 were non-combat work battalions made up of native Okinawans, Koreans, and Formosans. The Japanese combatants were about 75,000. It was by far the bloodiest, and costliest in human lives of all battles during World War Two. The U.S. casualties numbered over 65,000, over 80,000 including non-combat injuries and illness. The U.S. death toll was over 12,000, the highest number was suffered by Navy personnel. almost 4,907 deaths from kamikaze attacks! Army had 4,675 deaths and Marines 2,938 deaths. Over 12,000 deaths in the space of 82 days! There were more U.S. deaths on Okinawa than total casualties in Normandy.
The Japanese suffered about 70,000 deaths, and the Okinawan civilian casualties were horrendous, around 150,000 according to Okinawan census. When you consider that the population of Okinawa at the time was around 300,000, that means at least 1/3 of the population was wiped out! There were horrible atrocities committed on both sides, but mostly by the Japanese who treated the Okinawan population very cruelly and harshly. All of this information is documented in the Okinawan War Museum on Okinawa, it isn't something that was just made up. Most of the information was provided by Japanese scholars who had done extensive research.
There are no shortages of Hollywood movies about the D-Day, the Normandy Invasion. The epic movie The Longest Day made in the 1960s with just about who's who in Hollywood certainly made everyone aware of the Normandy Invasion! More recently Tom Hanks made the movie Saving Private Ryan and the TV blockbuster The Band of Brothers, all involving the Normandy Invasion. Strangely enough, there has not been a single movie of note that was about the Battle of Okinawa. There were movies that included some mention of Okinawa or a comedy, such as the Tea House of the August Moon, which is really the aftermath of the war. But nothing about the biggest and bloodiest battle of World War Two. I find that kind of strange, don't you?
On June 6, 1944, 73,000 U.S. troops and 83,000 British, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand troops invaded Normandy, a total of 156,000 ground forces. There were also smaller Free French and Polish Brigades, but the total of ground forces did not exceed 160,000 men. It took them about 44 days to reach their final objectives of the initial invasion, that of capturing the town of Cherbourg on June 26 and Caen on July 21. With the capture of Caen, the Normandy Invasion was over and allies had firmly established foothold in France. In the process the allies suffered about 10,000 casualties.
The Battle of Okinawa was fought for almost twice as long, 82 days, from April 1 until June 21, 1945 when Okinawa was finally under U.S. control. The Invasion of Okinawa on land was conducted exclusively by U.S. troops, 102,000 Army, 88,000 Marines, and 18,000 Navy (SeaBees) for a total of slightly over 200,000 U.S. ground personnel. That's almost three times more U.S. personnel and about 50,000 more than the total allied ground force for the Normandy Invasion. The U.S. forces faced roughly 100,000 firmly entrenched Japanese troops, of which about 25,000 were non-combat work battalions made up of native Okinawans, Koreans, and Formosans. The Japanese combatants were about 75,000. It was by far the bloodiest, and costliest in human lives of all battles during World War Two. The U.S. casualties numbered over 65,000, over 80,000 including non-combat injuries and illness. The U.S. death toll was over 12,000, the highest number was suffered by Navy personnel. almost 4,907 deaths from kamikaze attacks! Army had 4,675 deaths and Marines 2,938 deaths. Over 12,000 deaths in the space of 82 days! There were more U.S. deaths on Okinawa than total casualties in Normandy.
The Japanese suffered about 70,000 deaths, and the Okinawan civilian casualties were horrendous, around 150,000 according to Okinawan census. When you consider that the population of Okinawa at the time was around 300,000, that means at least 1/3 of the population was wiped out! There were horrible atrocities committed on both sides, but mostly by the Japanese who treated the Okinawan population very cruelly and harshly. All of this information is documented in the Okinawan War Museum on Okinawa, it isn't something that was just made up. Most of the information was provided by Japanese scholars who had done extensive research.
There are no shortages of Hollywood movies about the D-Day, the Normandy Invasion. The epic movie The Longest Day made in the 1960s with just about who's who in Hollywood certainly made everyone aware of the Normandy Invasion! More recently Tom Hanks made the movie Saving Private Ryan and the TV blockbuster The Band of Brothers, all involving the Normandy Invasion. Strangely enough, there has not been a single movie of note that was about the Battle of Okinawa. There were movies that included some mention of Okinawa or a comedy, such as the Tea House of the August Moon, which is really the aftermath of the war. But nothing about the biggest and bloodiest battle of World War Two. I find that kind of strange, don't you?
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Warrior Culture/Traditions or Militarism?
Japan's warrior culture and traditions are generally misunderstood and misrepresented by the non-Japanese writers, movie makers, and even politicians. Few outside of those who lived in Japan for a long time or had done extensive research, seem to understand what constitutes Japanese warrior culture and traditions. It is easy enough to simply lump everything into sword fighting, karate, on to the kamikaze pilots of modern era. In the process everything gets muddled and warrior culture appears to be nothing but militarism and vice versa. In today's western literature and movies, even the Japanese gangsters, the yakuza, are portrayed as having strong ties to warrior culture, which is totally untrue! The yakuza, like the mafia, have their own code. Perhaps they borrowed some things from the warrior code, but it is not a warrior's code! Japanese themselves often portray various violent manga and anime characters as abiding by some sort of code. It seems that anything to do with warrior culture/tradition sells, so why not exploit it!
The ancient Japanese warrior's code, the Bushido (the Way of the Warrior - Bushi is warrior and do is the way), has many strict guidelines by which a true warrior is supposed to conduct himself and live life, or meet death. However, it is highly unlikely that anyone has lived by this code for over several hundred years! When the militarists took over Japanese government in the 1930s, the military leaders in Japan corrupted the code of Bushido and tried to use it to their advantage. Initially they said that all Japanese soldiers, regardless of their social status before, were now warriors (samurai), therefore, they were subject to this code of the warriors, which they conveniently modified to suit their needs. This way, they were convinced, the Japanese Imperial military will have a very high esprit de corps and make for a better fighting force.
When the war started going badly for Japan and the invasion of homeland was anticipated, they declared that all Japanese were subject to this warrior code for it was a Japanese code! No doubt there were some people who bought into this, but vast majority did not. Still, why did so many Japanese commit suicide by jumping off the so-called "suicide cliff" on Okinawa or died in caves by exploding grenades? Most of these civilian deaths had nothing to do with warrior culture or tradition, it was simply fear of more horrible suffering and death at the hands of the enemy, which Japanese propaganda insisted would take place if they were captured.
What of the kamikaze pilots who went to their deaths trying to ram their planes against enemy ships? Vast majority of kamikaze pilots were young kids, mostly of high school age. They were heavily indoctrinated into this "new warrior's code" and told that it was their duty to die for Japan. But, most of these young men simply followed orders. They had been conditioned since childhood to obey the rules of the society, and their military society told them that they had to crash their planes. Their actions were not driven by some desire to abide by the ancient code of warriors or anything like that. It was much more complicated in a sense, since it is all tied-in with Japanese cultural behavior, not anything to do with bushido. The ancient way of the warriors, the culture and traditions, died a long time ago. What survived during World War Two was militarism that was forced upon the population under the guise of the ancient code of warriors and warrior traditions. Don't believe the stuff about how the Japanese businessman has adopted the warrior's philosophy etc. It makes for interesting reading, but has no basis in fact. The ancient Japanese warrior culture and traditions died a long time ago, even before the Meiji Restoration! What remained in the first half of the 20th Century was an attempt by the military leaders of Japan to mix militarism with the warrior code.
The ancient Japanese warrior's code, the Bushido (the Way of the Warrior - Bushi is warrior and do is the way), has many strict guidelines by which a true warrior is supposed to conduct himself and live life, or meet death. However, it is highly unlikely that anyone has lived by this code for over several hundred years! When the militarists took over Japanese government in the 1930s, the military leaders in Japan corrupted the code of Bushido and tried to use it to their advantage. Initially they said that all Japanese soldiers, regardless of their social status before, were now warriors (samurai), therefore, they were subject to this code of the warriors, which they conveniently modified to suit their needs. This way, they were convinced, the Japanese Imperial military will have a very high esprit de corps and make for a better fighting force.
When the war started going badly for Japan and the invasion of homeland was anticipated, they declared that all Japanese were subject to this warrior code for it was a Japanese code! No doubt there were some people who bought into this, but vast majority did not. Still, why did so many Japanese commit suicide by jumping off the so-called "suicide cliff" on Okinawa or died in caves by exploding grenades? Most of these civilian deaths had nothing to do with warrior culture or tradition, it was simply fear of more horrible suffering and death at the hands of the enemy, which Japanese propaganda insisted would take place if they were captured.
What of the kamikaze pilots who went to their deaths trying to ram their planes against enemy ships? Vast majority of kamikaze pilots were young kids, mostly of high school age. They were heavily indoctrinated into this "new warrior's code" and told that it was their duty to die for Japan. But, most of these young men simply followed orders. They had been conditioned since childhood to obey the rules of the society, and their military society told them that they had to crash their planes. Their actions were not driven by some desire to abide by the ancient code of warriors or anything like that. It was much more complicated in a sense, since it is all tied-in with Japanese cultural behavior, not anything to do with bushido. The ancient way of the warriors, the culture and traditions, died a long time ago. What survived during World War Two was militarism that was forced upon the population under the guise of the ancient code of warriors and warrior traditions. Don't believe the stuff about how the Japanese businessman has adopted the warrior's philosophy etc. It makes for interesting reading, but has no basis in fact. The ancient Japanese warrior culture and traditions died a long time ago, even before the Meiji Restoration! What remained in the first half of the 20th Century was an attempt by the military leaders of Japan to mix militarism with the warrior code.
Saturday, July 12, 2014
The Last Samurai?
Since Japan's post-war constitution was drafted in 1947, there have been protests by some about Japan's lack of military force to properly defend itself. The first protests and criticism took place in 1950 when U.S. troops were emptied from Japan and sent to Korea. Many Japanese felt that with the U.S. military presence reduced to minimum, Japan was completely defenseless, since at that time there was no domestic military force of any kind. To pacify those critics, the Jiei Tai, the Japan Self Defense Force was created, but it was bound by very strict rules that did not allow it to perform any function that could be interpreted as offensive action, it was strictly a self defense force, as its name implied, and its activities were confined to the Japanese islands only.
There were those who objected to Jiei Tai's confined and restrictive role as a military force. But they were branded as extremists, militarists who were trying to bring Japan back to its pre-war state of being! Perhaps some of them were militarists and perhaps some were not. Most critics of Japan's military force's role claimed that Japan was emasculated, that its ancient traditions and culture were being ignored. One such critic was a politician/journalist by the name of Shintaro Ishihara who went on to become a member of the Japanese Diet (parliament) and held a number of political positions such as Minister of Defense and Mayor of Tokyo. Ishihara, throughout his career was a proponent of a stronger military for Japan. Ishihara was a militarist.
But perhaps no one person was able to bring attention to this situation, i.e., Japan's lack of proper military force, than a very popular writer with controversial views by the name of Yukio Mishima. Mishima, possibly the most celebrated and widely read Japanese writer of his generation, was known for his controversial views on politics and eccentric behavior. Mishima created his own army, called it Tate no Kai (the Blue Shield Society) after a patriotic samurai organization of the historical past. He created his "mock" army to rub the nose of the Japanese government and its, at the time, very ineffectual Jiei Tai. Mishima's "army," though small, was better dressed, and better "motivated" than Jiei Tai. They were all followers of Mishim's philosophy, that of Japan's need to return to its traditional warrior culture.
Mishima, throughout his writing career, tried to express his views on the subject of Japan's need to return to its roots, the warrior culture. His popular novella, Patriotism, was even made into a movie, produced, directed and starring Mishima himself! Patriotism was about Ni Ni Roku Jiken, the February 2, 1936 Incident in which a group of army officers rebelled, committed gekokujo and assassinated the Prime Minister. It was the turning point in Japan, changing its government from civilian to military dominated and controlled. Mishima obviously was very much taken by the gekokujo of 1936. He often talked about it and hinted that perhaps that is what Japan needed to snap out of its, what he considered, a malaise.
On November 25, 1970, Mishima, along with some members of his Tate No Kai, went to visit the commanding general of Jiei Tai (army) headquarters in Tokyo. The general was a personal friend of Mishima so access was easy. There they overpowered the general and tied him to a chair. Then Mishima addressed the gathered troops from a balcony. He urged them to revolt, to follow him in a gekokujo, to arise and return to Japan's warrior past and abandon western materialism, etc. Of course no one listened to him. He was booed by the soldiers and called a fool. No doubt Mishima knew this was going to happen. He returned to the office and in the presence of the horrified general committed ritual seppuku by disemboweling himself (just like the character in his best selling novella Patriotism) with an ancient sword. He had one of his Tate No Kai members cut his head off. This was a perfect example of life imitating art rather than art imitating life! This horrific and senseless incident was immediately tagged by the media as the "Mishima Incident" or Mishima Jiken!
Although Mishima's manifesto and speech from the balcony may have seemed confusing and somewhat muddled, he knew exactly what he was doing. Mishima was not seeking Japan's return to its pre-war militaristic past. Rather, he was thinking more of the age of samurai, the ancient past, rather a foolish and romantic view. Whatever the case, it was not militarism that he sought. There is much confusion by those unfamiliar with Japanese culture about the difference between warrior culture and militarism. To most, the two are the same when in reality, they are distinctly different.
Mishima chose the day of his death very carefully. November 25th was the anniversary of the Shinpuren Incident, a 19th century event in which sword wielding samurai fought against rifles and machineguns of the modern Japanese army. This incident was the basis for the movie The Last Samurai with Tom Cruise. Shinpuren Incident was essentially a clash between warrior culture and modern militarism. In a twisted sense, Mishima with his gekokujo, was the "last samurai."
There were those who objected to Jiei Tai's confined and restrictive role as a military force. But they were branded as extremists, militarists who were trying to bring Japan back to its pre-war state of being! Perhaps some of them were militarists and perhaps some were not. Most critics of Japan's military force's role claimed that Japan was emasculated, that its ancient traditions and culture were being ignored. One such critic was a politician/journalist by the name of Shintaro Ishihara who went on to become a member of the Japanese Diet (parliament) and held a number of political positions such as Minister of Defense and Mayor of Tokyo. Ishihara, throughout his career was a proponent of a stronger military for Japan. Ishihara was a militarist.
But perhaps no one person was able to bring attention to this situation, i.e., Japan's lack of proper military force, than a very popular writer with controversial views by the name of Yukio Mishima. Mishima, possibly the most celebrated and widely read Japanese writer of his generation, was known for his controversial views on politics and eccentric behavior. Mishima created his own army, called it Tate no Kai (the Blue Shield Society) after a patriotic samurai organization of the historical past. He created his "mock" army to rub the nose of the Japanese government and its, at the time, very ineffectual Jiei Tai. Mishima's "army," though small, was better dressed, and better "motivated" than Jiei Tai. They were all followers of Mishim's philosophy, that of Japan's need to return to its traditional warrior culture.
Mishima, throughout his writing career, tried to express his views on the subject of Japan's need to return to its roots, the warrior culture. His popular novella, Patriotism, was even made into a movie, produced, directed and starring Mishima himself! Patriotism was about Ni Ni Roku Jiken, the February 2, 1936 Incident in which a group of army officers rebelled, committed gekokujo and assassinated the Prime Minister. It was the turning point in Japan, changing its government from civilian to military dominated and controlled. Mishima obviously was very much taken by the gekokujo of 1936. He often talked about it and hinted that perhaps that is what Japan needed to snap out of its, what he considered, a malaise.
On November 25, 1970, Mishima, along with some members of his Tate No Kai, went to visit the commanding general of Jiei Tai (army) headquarters in Tokyo. The general was a personal friend of Mishima so access was easy. There they overpowered the general and tied him to a chair. Then Mishima addressed the gathered troops from a balcony. He urged them to revolt, to follow him in a gekokujo, to arise and return to Japan's warrior past and abandon western materialism, etc. Of course no one listened to him. He was booed by the soldiers and called a fool. No doubt Mishima knew this was going to happen. He returned to the office and in the presence of the horrified general committed ritual seppuku by disemboweling himself (just like the character in his best selling novella Patriotism) with an ancient sword. He had one of his Tate No Kai members cut his head off. This was a perfect example of life imitating art rather than art imitating life! This horrific and senseless incident was immediately tagged by the media as the "Mishima Incident" or Mishima Jiken!
Although Mishima's manifesto and speech from the balcony may have seemed confusing and somewhat muddled, he knew exactly what he was doing. Mishima was not seeking Japan's return to its pre-war militaristic past. Rather, he was thinking more of the age of samurai, the ancient past, rather a foolish and romantic view. Whatever the case, it was not militarism that he sought. There is much confusion by those unfamiliar with Japanese culture about the difference between warrior culture and militarism. To most, the two are the same when in reality, they are distinctly different.
Mishima chose the day of his death very carefully. November 25th was the anniversary of the Shinpuren Incident, a 19th century event in which sword wielding samurai fought against rifles and machineguns of the modern Japanese army. This incident was the basis for the movie The Last Samurai with Tom Cruise. Shinpuren Incident was essentially a clash between warrior culture and modern militarism. In a twisted sense, Mishima with his gekokujo, was the "last samurai."
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
The Aftermath, so far.....
The aftermath of Abe government's decision to change the constitution, so far, has not been very good, both at home and abroad. In less than a week after Abe made the announcement to change the constitution, protests erupted all over Japan. These were not major protests that would cause the government to stop or disrupt any major functioning of the nation. But they were large enough, including the incident in Shinjuku, Tokyo, where a man set himself on fire in protest. Also, within a week of the announcement to change the constitution, Abe's approval rating dropped from 58% down to 48%, a whole 10% reduction in approval! It is still too early to tell if his approval level will keep dropping and if the protests will continue to any extent. However, it is quite apparent that there is a sizable Japanese population that does not like what has happened. There are even constitutional scholars in Japan that insist that the latest move to change the constitution is unconstitutional!
Perhaps the more annoying thing to Abe's government are the constant barbs being directed at Japan by China. Yesterday, on July 7, the PRC held a large ceremony in Beijing to commemorate the 77th Anniversary of the "Marco Polo Bridge Incident" and the start of the Sino-Japanese War in 1937. The ceremony was attended by various dignitaries, headed by the President Xi Jinping. Xi made a speech condemning Japan's refusal to acknowledge its wartime crimes and to offer an apology to its victims. Once again he brought up the subject of Japan's use of "comfort women" and the "The Rape of Nanking." He pointedly accused Japan of trying to revert to militarism in their latest attempt to change the constitution.
China, it seems, has been sticking barbs at Abe's government ever since they got wind of the fact that Japan was planning to change its constitution. It began with an elevated dispute over the small islands off Taiwan that Japan claims as its own. The dispute over these islands (Senkoku Islands) has existed since the end of World War Two, but it has been elevated lately. Then China began to raise the issue of the official apology for "comfort women" and other atrocities such as the "Rape of Nanking."
More recently China rubbed Japan's nose by creating a memorial for the Korean patriot Ahn Jung Un who assassinated the Japanese Governor General of Korea in Harbin, Manchuria. This was quickly followed by the unveiling of a huge memorial in Xian, for Korean Freedom Fighters against Japan. Each time the Japanese government responded by making a protest statement, but really, there wasn't much that they could do. Korea, which has its own grievances against Japan, especially in the "comfort women" issue, has remained quiet more or less. Korean president did say that until Japan offers an official apology and pays restitution to the surviving comfort women, she will not meet with Abe one on one. Korea was also somewhat mum over Japan's plan to change the constitution, unlike China which has been pretty loud and demonstrative in its protest.
In some ways, Japan is caught in the proverbial "between a rock and a hard place." It is unrealistic to think that Japan can continue to only develop its economic power and rely on the U.S. to provide the so-called "nuclear umbrella." Japan spends less of its GNP on defense than any other developed nation! That is one reason why Japan has prospered so since the end of World War Two. But it must find a way to become more self reliant in defense, it cannot depend on another power to defend it indefinitely!
No doubt Abe and his cabinet think that changing the constitution will allow them to build a defense that can be more self reliant. Yet, if Japan's own history is any indication, then "red flags" should be raised if the constitutional change does take place. Truly a tough and difficult decision for the Japanese. They can't just stick their heads in the sand and say, "that's all right, no one will attack us, and if anyone does, U.S. will protect us." The world is very different from the way it was even 20 years ago. Keep in mind that Japan is literally surrounded by military giants in the form of Russia in the north and China to the west. Aside from Russia and China, there is always that unpredictable, schizoid, North Korea immediately to the northwest, within easy striking distance of its missiles! Japan does need to become more self reliant in defense. But at what cost? Will militarism take over, as many fear? I guess no one will really know until everything plays out itself.
Perhaps the more annoying thing to Abe's government are the constant barbs being directed at Japan by China. Yesterday, on July 7, the PRC held a large ceremony in Beijing to commemorate the 77th Anniversary of the "Marco Polo Bridge Incident" and the start of the Sino-Japanese War in 1937. The ceremony was attended by various dignitaries, headed by the President Xi Jinping. Xi made a speech condemning Japan's refusal to acknowledge its wartime crimes and to offer an apology to its victims. Once again he brought up the subject of Japan's use of "comfort women" and the "The Rape of Nanking." He pointedly accused Japan of trying to revert to militarism in their latest attempt to change the constitution.
China, it seems, has been sticking barbs at Abe's government ever since they got wind of the fact that Japan was planning to change its constitution. It began with an elevated dispute over the small islands off Taiwan that Japan claims as its own. The dispute over these islands (Senkoku Islands) has existed since the end of World War Two, but it has been elevated lately. Then China began to raise the issue of the official apology for "comfort women" and other atrocities such as the "Rape of Nanking."
More recently China rubbed Japan's nose by creating a memorial for the Korean patriot Ahn Jung Un who assassinated the Japanese Governor General of Korea in Harbin, Manchuria. This was quickly followed by the unveiling of a huge memorial in Xian, for Korean Freedom Fighters against Japan. Each time the Japanese government responded by making a protest statement, but really, there wasn't much that they could do. Korea, which has its own grievances against Japan, especially in the "comfort women" issue, has remained quiet more or less. Korean president did say that until Japan offers an official apology and pays restitution to the surviving comfort women, she will not meet with Abe one on one. Korea was also somewhat mum over Japan's plan to change the constitution, unlike China which has been pretty loud and demonstrative in its protest.
In some ways, Japan is caught in the proverbial "between a rock and a hard place." It is unrealistic to think that Japan can continue to only develop its economic power and rely on the U.S. to provide the so-called "nuclear umbrella." Japan spends less of its GNP on defense than any other developed nation! That is one reason why Japan has prospered so since the end of World War Two. But it must find a way to become more self reliant in defense, it cannot depend on another power to defend it indefinitely!
No doubt Abe and his cabinet think that changing the constitution will allow them to build a defense that can be more self reliant. Yet, if Japan's own history is any indication, then "red flags" should be raised if the constitutional change does take place. Truly a tough and difficult decision for the Japanese. They can't just stick their heads in the sand and say, "that's all right, no one will attack us, and if anyone does, U.S. will protect us." The world is very different from the way it was even 20 years ago. Keep in mind that Japan is literally surrounded by military giants in the form of Russia in the north and China to the west. Aside from Russia and China, there is always that unpredictable, schizoid, North Korea immediately to the northwest, within easy striking distance of its missiles! Japan does need to become more self reliant in defense. But at what cost? Will militarism take over, as many fear? I guess no one will really know until everything plays out itself.
Sunday, July 6, 2014
" If we had....."
Hindsight is always at least 20/20.....sometimes even better, like Superman's X-ray vision! It is with this though in mind that I would like to revisit some of the issues that have been discussed and covered earlier in some of the blogs.
As I have mentioned before, during World War Two, the Kuomintang (Nationalist Chinese) government in Chunking urged the U.S. to recognize the Korean Provisional Government, the KPG. The Chinese thinking was that the war was going to end and inevitably, Japan would be the loser. When that happened, Korea would have a ready made government in place, a government that if supported by the U.S. would be pro-U.S. Considering that we gave millions in aid to the Nationalists and listened to their advice on just about all things involving northeast Asia, it is all the more puzzling that we stubbornly refused to listen to them on the Korean issue.
If we had recognized the KPG as the legitimate government of Korea (in exile, of course), no doubt all our allies would have fallen in line. It is very doubtful that the Soviet Union would have objected. In fact, Soviet Union supported an element of KPG and KLA, so they would have been in agreement, thinking that their influence would eventually win out and Korea would become communist.
If we had recognized the KPG, on August 15, 1945, when Japan surrendered, KPG would have taken over and Kim Ku, the chairman of KPG would have assumed the role of the president of the new, free Korea. No doubt arrangements would have been made for a nationwide election a few years down the road, and Syngman Rhee may have very well become the president as he did in 1947 when he cheated Kim Ku out of the presidency with a rigged election. Be that as it may, Korea would have been one country, not split. There may have been a communist instigated civil war down the line, but there would not have been the all-out Korean War which was so costly to everyone in lives!
Going down south to the Indochinese peninsula, a different scenario could have taken place and the Vietnam War could have been avoided all together. What if we had kept our promise to Ho Chi Min and backed him for a free independent Vietnam, rather than turning our back on our promise and supporting the French in a losing proposition. Ho was a communist, but as many of our own experts had said, his form of communism was not like the Soviet communism. These same people said that we could work with Ho's type of communism. I guess they were right, we are "working" with the Vietnamese now.
Probably the biggest "what if" in this category is what happened in China after the war, during the Chinese civil war. The so-called "Dixie Mission" was dispatched to take a close look at Mao and his movement against the Nationalists. Reports from the field suggested that we should support Mao, that he was the future for China. Again, as with Ho, reports indicated that Mao's form of communism was different from the Soviets and that it would be possible for us to cooperate in commerce as well as other areas. If we had listened to the likes of John Service, Edgar Snow, etc., just think how different the world would have been. Soviet Union would not have had a powerful ally in the form of PRC during the cold war. It would have been the other way around! Of course, with no PRC to support North Korea or North Vietnam, there would not have been the Korean War or the Vietnam War, even if those two countries were split.
That is an awful lot of "what ifs," and of course, it is now all in the past. But let's just for a moment take the "back to the future" look of possibilities. I know the whole exercise may seem rather silly, based on "what ifs," but you must admit that it does give food for thought!
Let's just assume for a moment that the current so-called rise in Japanese nationalism leads to militarism. Then the fears of those Asian countries (primarily China and Korea) will be realized. Japan is a country whose culture is steeped in warrior tradition. There are those, both Japanese and non-Japanese scholars who scoff at the idea, claiming that the warrior culture is but a small part of overall Japanese make up. That may very well be true, but the warrior culture and traditions happen to be very influential part of Japanese culture. Anyone who denies it or refuses to see it is being unrealistic. I think all you need to do is look at Japan's history and see the constant aggression by Japanese warlords and others in position of power! I don't mean to suggest that all Japanese are warlike and constantly want to go to war. On the contrary, the current demonstrations and protests against the newest change in Japanese constitution clearly shows that many, many Japanese abhor and deny the warrior tradition. However, it has always been the few that led many. Throughout world history it has always been the few that forced others to their will. So, what if there appears a strong, charismatic, nationalistic leader in Japan? What if this new leader happens to have a militaristic bend?
All of the above, the "if we had...." and the future "what if...." are but tidbits of food for thought. Although the saying goes, "history repeats itself," let's hope it does not in case of the latest developments in Japan. There is nothing that we can do about what has already happened in the past, but hopefully we can prevent future disasters, having learned from history......or am I being too optimistic?
As I have mentioned before, during World War Two, the Kuomintang (Nationalist Chinese) government in Chunking urged the U.S. to recognize the Korean Provisional Government, the KPG. The Chinese thinking was that the war was going to end and inevitably, Japan would be the loser. When that happened, Korea would have a ready made government in place, a government that if supported by the U.S. would be pro-U.S. Considering that we gave millions in aid to the Nationalists and listened to their advice on just about all things involving northeast Asia, it is all the more puzzling that we stubbornly refused to listen to them on the Korean issue.
If we had recognized the KPG as the legitimate government of Korea (in exile, of course), no doubt all our allies would have fallen in line. It is very doubtful that the Soviet Union would have objected. In fact, Soviet Union supported an element of KPG and KLA, so they would have been in agreement, thinking that their influence would eventually win out and Korea would become communist.
If we had recognized the KPG, on August 15, 1945, when Japan surrendered, KPG would have taken over and Kim Ku, the chairman of KPG would have assumed the role of the president of the new, free Korea. No doubt arrangements would have been made for a nationwide election a few years down the road, and Syngman Rhee may have very well become the president as he did in 1947 when he cheated Kim Ku out of the presidency with a rigged election. Be that as it may, Korea would have been one country, not split. There may have been a communist instigated civil war down the line, but there would not have been the all-out Korean War which was so costly to everyone in lives!
Going down south to the Indochinese peninsula, a different scenario could have taken place and the Vietnam War could have been avoided all together. What if we had kept our promise to Ho Chi Min and backed him for a free independent Vietnam, rather than turning our back on our promise and supporting the French in a losing proposition. Ho was a communist, but as many of our own experts had said, his form of communism was not like the Soviet communism. These same people said that we could work with Ho's type of communism. I guess they were right, we are "working" with the Vietnamese now.
Probably the biggest "what if" in this category is what happened in China after the war, during the Chinese civil war. The so-called "Dixie Mission" was dispatched to take a close look at Mao and his movement against the Nationalists. Reports from the field suggested that we should support Mao, that he was the future for China. Again, as with Ho, reports indicated that Mao's form of communism was different from the Soviets and that it would be possible for us to cooperate in commerce as well as other areas. If we had listened to the likes of John Service, Edgar Snow, etc., just think how different the world would have been. Soviet Union would not have had a powerful ally in the form of PRC during the cold war. It would have been the other way around! Of course, with no PRC to support North Korea or North Vietnam, there would not have been the Korean War or the Vietnam War, even if those two countries were split.
That is an awful lot of "what ifs," and of course, it is now all in the past. But let's just for a moment take the "back to the future" look of possibilities. I know the whole exercise may seem rather silly, based on "what ifs," but you must admit that it does give food for thought!
Let's just assume for a moment that the current so-called rise in Japanese nationalism leads to militarism. Then the fears of those Asian countries (primarily China and Korea) will be realized. Japan is a country whose culture is steeped in warrior tradition. There are those, both Japanese and non-Japanese scholars who scoff at the idea, claiming that the warrior culture is but a small part of overall Japanese make up. That may very well be true, but the warrior culture and traditions happen to be very influential part of Japanese culture. Anyone who denies it or refuses to see it is being unrealistic. I think all you need to do is look at Japan's history and see the constant aggression by Japanese warlords and others in position of power! I don't mean to suggest that all Japanese are warlike and constantly want to go to war. On the contrary, the current demonstrations and protests against the newest change in Japanese constitution clearly shows that many, many Japanese abhor and deny the warrior tradition. However, it has always been the few that led many. Throughout world history it has always been the few that forced others to their will. So, what if there appears a strong, charismatic, nationalistic leader in Japan? What if this new leader happens to have a militaristic bend?
All of the above, the "if we had...." and the future "what if...." are but tidbits of food for thought. Although the saying goes, "history repeats itself," let's hope it does not in case of the latest developments in Japan. There is nothing that we can do about what has already happened in the past, but hopefully we can prevent future disasters, having learned from history......or am I being too optimistic?
Thursday, July 3, 2014
"The Rising Sun"
Two days ago, on July 1, 2014, the cabinet of Prime Minister Abe of Japan agreed to change Japan's anti-war constitution to allow for "collective self-defense." A special committee was appointed immediately to start the process, to change the key wording in the constitution to allow for what is commonly referred to as "collective self-defense." This move may seem innocuous enough to a casual observer, and indeed, it may prove to be nothing but a change in semantics. On the other hand, it has alarmed some, particularly those countries that had suffered heavily under Japanese military aggression of the past, primarily, China and Korea. Surprisingly, Philippines, which had also suffered heavily under the Japanese occupation, announced that it was all for Japan's new change in constitution!
The term "collective self-defense," also at times referred to as the"right to self-defense," primarily refers to a country's right to take military action against another country if it feels that it is being threatened, even indirectly. For instance, a member of NATO whose neighbor, also member of NATO is being attacked, can launch an attack against the aggressor although its own country is not directly being attacked. The reasoning is that if the nation state feels that its safety is being threatened, that it can be affected by the aggressor's act, then it has a right to defend itself by launching a strike. It was through this particular "collective self-defense" that NATO became involved in Afghanistan, and earlier, some countries participated in Iraq. So, under the new re-written Japanese constitution, Japan would have a right to launch an attack against an aggressor in another country if Japan feels that its own security is being threatened. That is a very simplistic explanation, but it is the gist of the so-called "collective self-defense" or the "right to self defense."
This shift in Japan's policy toward more militaristic approach is not something new. It has been discussed and had been brewing for a couple of decades now. The U.S. has been the strongest supporter of this shift and had been encouraging Japan to build up its military capability for decades! Although Japan's involvement in Iraq was strictly of humanitarian nature, it gave Japan an opportunity to test its ability to move troops rapidly long distance. Half of the Japanese troops in Iraq were from non-combat units, an engineering battalion. But the other half was a battalion from their Airborne Brigade. Of course, they were there to provide security for the engineers, but nevertheless, a combat unit was deployed and tested.
To US this move on Japan's part is seen as a way of relieving some of it's security burden in Asia. In short, should trouble arise with North Korea, China, or even Russia, Japan would not only provide US with much needed bases, but it could theoretically participate actively as well. At least that is the hope of the supporters of this change. To China and Korea (both North and South), this is a disturbing turn of events. Both countries had suffered terribly under Japanese military aggression and feel that they know only too well what Japan is capable of doing, if it so decides. Perhaps they are being paranoid, unnecessarily concerned about something that may come to nothing. Proponents and supporters of Japan's new shift to a more aggressive stance seem to think so, but try telling that to the Chinese and Koreans!
I am rather surprised that so little coverage was given to this important change in Japanese constitution and policy by US media. There were some snippets in CNN world news coverage, but practically nothing from our three big networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC. There was constant coverage of our soccer team's efforts in Brazil, but nary a word about Japan's new shift! Now, as I said earlier, it may come to nothing, just some changes in wording in the constitution. But then again, it may start a dramatic shift in Japan's policies. In Japan, there have been numerous demonstration by opposition to this new change. Some demonstrations turned violent, and one man set himself on fire after pouring gasoline all over - shades of Vietnam and protesting Buddhist monks! So, the Japanese, apparently have not taken it so lightly, at least not the ones who oppose this change! The ROK, our strongest military ally in northeast Asia, has had numerous meetings with PRC, including a state visit by PRC leader to Seoul, supposedly to firm up economic ties. It seems that ROK is trying to strengthen its ties with PRC! On the other hand, our Secretary of Defense announced (yes, there was that bit of news coverage!) that it was a good thing for Japan and the US. therefore, for the region!
Nationalism has been on the rise in Japan in the last quarter of a century or more, since the 1970s when we returned Okinawa to Japan. A telling point was when the Prime Minister of Japan at the time made a comment to the effect that the troubles we were having in Detroit with our auto industry in the 1970s was due to lack of proper work ethic and spirit, unlike the Japanese! Of course he had to apologize almost immediately, saying that it was not what he meant, etc. I remember well, at that time, thinking that the seeds of Japanese nationalism had not died with World War Two, they were just dormant for a few decades.
Since the 1970s, Japan has steadily increased the strength of its Jei-tai, the Japan Self-Defense Force, a name that their military took on after World War Two to send a signal to everyone that they were not an aggressive force. Today, it is a small but a very powerful, well armed and well trained military force of 250,000 men. The new constitution would no doubt allow for dramatic increase both in manpower and weaponry. Being a completely self sufficient force, armed with all Japanese made weaponry, they only purchase some jet fighters from us, finding it cheaper to do so than to build their own.
By supporting Japan unconditionally more or less, siding with Japan in its dispute with PRC over some islands in East China Sea and supporting Japan's new constitutional change, we have sent a clear message that we will be behind Japan, no matter what. That is good, it is good to stand behind your friends, providing you keep your word! But at the same time, it has created a problem. We have alienated to some extent our closest military ally in the region, ROK, and our largest trading partner and biggest debt holder, PRC, driving the two closer, not a good thing for us!
Only time will tell if the newly rising Japanese nationalism will take the form of the former militarism that led to problems for the rest of the world or if it will just be a passing fancy, so to speak. Only time will tell if the change in the constitution will bring about a dramatic increase in Japanese military and aggressive military adventures as some fear, or if things will remain at status quo and the constitutional change will only be an exercise in semantics.
The term "collective self-defense," also at times referred to as the"right to self-defense," primarily refers to a country's right to take military action against another country if it feels that it is being threatened, even indirectly. For instance, a member of NATO whose neighbor, also member of NATO is being attacked, can launch an attack against the aggressor although its own country is not directly being attacked. The reasoning is that if the nation state feels that its safety is being threatened, that it can be affected by the aggressor's act, then it has a right to defend itself by launching a strike. It was through this particular "collective self-defense" that NATO became involved in Afghanistan, and earlier, some countries participated in Iraq. So, under the new re-written Japanese constitution, Japan would have a right to launch an attack against an aggressor in another country if Japan feels that its own security is being threatened. That is a very simplistic explanation, but it is the gist of the so-called "collective self-defense" or the "right to self defense."
This shift in Japan's policy toward more militaristic approach is not something new. It has been discussed and had been brewing for a couple of decades now. The U.S. has been the strongest supporter of this shift and had been encouraging Japan to build up its military capability for decades! Although Japan's involvement in Iraq was strictly of humanitarian nature, it gave Japan an opportunity to test its ability to move troops rapidly long distance. Half of the Japanese troops in Iraq were from non-combat units, an engineering battalion. But the other half was a battalion from their Airborne Brigade. Of course, they were there to provide security for the engineers, but nevertheless, a combat unit was deployed and tested.
To US this move on Japan's part is seen as a way of relieving some of it's security burden in Asia. In short, should trouble arise with North Korea, China, or even Russia, Japan would not only provide US with much needed bases, but it could theoretically participate actively as well. At least that is the hope of the supporters of this change. To China and Korea (both North and South), this is a disturbing turn of events. Both countries had suffered terribly under Japanese military aggression and feel that they know only too well what Japan is capable of doing, if it so decides. Perhaps they are being paranoid, unnecessarily concerned about something that may come to nothing. Proponents and supporters of Japan's new shift to a more aggressive stance seem to think so, but try telling that to the Chinese and Koreans!
I am rather surprised that so little coverage was given to this important change in Japanese constitution and policy by US media. There were some snippets in CNN world news coverage, but practically nothing from our three big networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC. There was constant coverage of our soccer team's efforts in Brazil, but nary a word about Japan's new shift! Now, as I said earlier, it may come to nothing, just some changes in wording in the constitution. But then again, it may start a dramatic shift in Japan's policies. In Japan, there have been numerous demonstration by opposition to this new change. Some demonstrations turned violent, and one man set himself on fire after pouring gasoline all over - shades of Vietnam and protesting Buddhist monks! So, the Japanese, apparently have not taken it so lightly, at least not the ones who oppose this change! The ROK, our strongest military ally in northeast Asia, has had numerous meetings with PRC, including a state visit by PRC leader to Seoul, supposedly to firm up economic ties. It seems that ROK is trying to strengthen its ties with PRC! On the other hand, our Secretary of Defense announced (yes, there was that bit of news coverage!) that it was a good thing for Japan and the US. therefore, for the region!
Nationalism has been on the rise in Japan in the last quarter of a century or more, since the 1970s when we returned Okinawa to Japan. A telling point was when the Prime Minister of Japan at the time made a comment to the effect that the troubles we were having in Detroit with our auto industry in the 1970s was due to lack of proper work ethic and spirit, unlike the Japanese! Of course he had to apologize almost immediately, saying that it was not what he meant, etc. I remember well, at that time, thinking that the seeds of Japanese nationalism had not died with World War Two, they were just dormant for a few decades.
Since the 1970s, Japan has steadily increased the strength of its Jei-tai, the Japan Self-Defense Force, a name that their military took on after World War Two to send a signal to everyone that they were not an aggressive force. Today, it is a small but a very powerful, well armed and well trained military force of 250,000 men. The new constitution would no doubt allow for dramatic increase both in manpower and weaponry. Being a completely self sufficient force, armed with all Japanese made weaponry, they only purchase some jet fighters from us, finding it cheaper to do so than to build their own.
By supporting Japan unconditionally more or less, siding with Japan in its dispute with PRC over some islands in East China Sea and supporting Japan's new constitutional change, we have sent a clear message that we will be behind Japan, no matter what. That is good, it is good to stand behind your friends, providing you keep your word! But at the same time, it has created a problem. We have alienated to some extent our closest military ally in the region, ROK, and our largest trading partner and biggest debt holder, PRC, driving the two closer, not a good thing for us!
Only time will tell if the newly rising Japanese nationalism will take the form of the former militarism that led to problems for the rest of the world or if it will just be a passing fancy, so to speak. Only time will tell if the change in the constitution will bring about a dramatic increase in Japanese military and aggressive military adventures as some fear, or if things will remain at status quo and the constitutional change will only be an exercise in semantics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)