|

Keep Abe’s hawks in check or Japan and Asia will suffer

by Debito Arudou

On Jan. 1, The Japan Times’ lead story was “Summer poll to keep Abe in check.” It made the argument that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party alliance falls short of a majority in the Upper House, so until elections happen this summer he lacks a “full-fledged administration” to carry out a conservative agenda.

I believe this is over-optimistic. The LDP alliance already has 325 seats in Japan’s overwhelmingly powerful Lower House — safely more than the 320 necessary to override Upper House vetoes. Moreover, as Japan’s left was decimated in December’s elections, about three-quarters of the Lower House is in the hands of avowed hard-right conservatives. Thus Abe already has his mandate.

So this column will focus on what Abe, only the second person in postwar Japanese history given another chance at PM, is up to this time.

Recall how Abe fluffed his first chance between 2006-7 — so badly that he made it onto a list of “Japan’s top 10 most useless PMs” (Light Gist, Sept. 27, 2011) on these pages. The Cabinet he selected was a circus of embarrassments (e.g., after his corrupt agriculture minister claimed ¥5 million for “office utility expenses,” the replacement then claimed expenses for no office at all, and the next replacement only lasted a week), with gaffe after gaffe from an elitist old-boy club whittling away Abe’s approval ratings.

Abe himself was famously incapacitated with diarrhea (spending hours a day on the john) as well as logorrhea, where his denials of wartime sexual slavery (i.e., the “comfort women”) were denounced even by Japan’s closest geopolitical allies. Finally, after the LDP was trounced in a 2007 Upper House election, Abe suddenly resigned one week after reshuffling his Cabinet, beginning a pattern of a one-year tenure for all subsequent Japanese PMs.

However, Abe did accomplish one important conservative reform in 2006: amending the Fundamental Law of Education. The law now clearly states that a right to education in Japan is restricted to “us Japanese citizens” (ware ware Nihon kokumin — i.e., excluding foreigners), while references to educational goals developing individuality have been removed in favor of education that transmits “tradition,” “culture” and “love of nation.”

In other words, building on Japan’s enforced patriotism launched by former PM Keizo Obuchi from 1999 (e.g., schoolteachers and students are now technically required to demonstrate public respect to Japan’s flag and national anthem or face official discipline), vague mystical elements of “Japaneseness” are now formally enshrined in law to influence future generations.

That’s one success story from Abe’s rightist to-do list. He has also called for the “reconsideration” of the 1993 and 1995 official apologies for wartime sexual slavery (even pressuring NHK to censor its historical reportage on it in 2001), consistently denied the Nanjing Massacre, advocated children’s textbooks instill “love” of “a beautiful country” by omitting uglier parts of the past, and declared his political mission as “recovering Japan’s independence” (dokuritsu no kaifuku) in the postwar order.

Although LDP leaders were once reticent about public displays of affection towards Japan’s hard right, Abe has been more unabashed. Within the past six months he has made two visits to controversial Yasukuni Shrine (once just before becoming LDP head, and once, officially, afterwards). Scholar Gavan McCormack unreservedly calls Abe “the most radical of all Japanese post-1945 leaders.”

Now Abe and his minions are back in power with possibly the most right-wing Cabinet in history. Academic journal Japan Focus last week published a translation of an NGO report (japanfocus.org/events/view/170) outlining the ultraconservative interest groups that Abe’s 19 Cabinet members participate in. Three-quarters are members of groups favoring the political re-enfranchisement of “Shinto values” and Yasukuni visits, two-thirds are in groups for remilitarizing Japan and denying wartime atrocities, and half are in groups seeking sanitation of school textbooks, adoption of a new “unimposed” Constitution, and protection of Japan from modernizing reforms (such as separate surnames for married couples) and outside influences (such as local suffrage for foreign permanent residents).

Abe alone is a prominent leader (if not a charter member) of almost all the ultra-rightist groups mentioned. Whenever I read rightwing propaganda, Abe’s face or name invariably pops up as a spokesman or symbol. He’s a big carp in a small swamp, and in a liberal political environment would have been consigned to a radical backwater of fringe ideologues.

But these are dire times for Japan, what with decades of stagnation, insuperable natural and man-made disasters, and the shame of no longer being Asia’s largest economy. The glory of Japan’s regional peerlessness is gone.

That’s why I have little doubt that the LDP saw this perfect storm of 3/11 disasters (which, given how corrupt the unelected bureaucracy has been after Fukushima, would have led to the trouncing of any party in power) as perfect timing to reinstall someone like Abe. Why else, except for Abe’s thoroughbred political pedigree (grandson of a suspected Class-A war criminal turned postwar PM, and son of another big LDP leader whose name is on international fellowships) and sustained leadership of back-room interest groups, would they choose for a second time this jittery little man with a weak stomach?

Why? Because LDP kingpins knew that people were so desperate for change last year they would have elected a lampshade. After all, given the nature of parliamentary systems, people vote more for (or, in this case, against) a party, less for an individual party leader. Moreover, Abe, at first glance, does not seem as extreme as the “restorationists” (Shintaro Ishihara et al) who wish to take Japan back to prewar glories by banging war drums over territorial sea specks. So, the lesser of two evils.

But look at the record more closely and these “liberal democrats” and restorationists are actually birds of a feather. Now more powerful than ever, they’re getting to work on dismantling postwar Japan. Abe announced on Jan. 31 that he will seek to amend Article 96 of the Constitution, which currently requires a two-thirds Diet majority to approve constitutional changes. That’s entirely possible. Then the rest of Japan’s “Peace Constitution” will follow.

So I end this month’s column with a caution to outside observers:

The current Abe administration is in pole position to drive Japan back to a xenophobic, ultra-rightist, militaristic Japan that we thought the world had seen the last of after two world wars. Abe can (and will, if left to his own devices) undo all the liberal reforms that postwar social engineers thought would forever overwrite the imperialist elements of Japanese society. In fact, it is now clear that Japan’s conservative elite were just biding their time all along, waiting for their rehabilitation. It has come.

One of the basic lessons of chess is that if you allow your opponent to accomplish his plans, you will lose. If Abe is not kept in check, Asia will lose: Japan will cease to be a liberal presence in the region. In fact, given its wealth and power in terms of money and technology, Japan could become a surprisingly destabilizing geopolitical force. Vigilance, everyone.

Debito Arudou and Akira Higuchi’s bilingual 2nd Edition of “Handbook for Newcomers, Migrants, and Immigrants,” with updates for 2012′s changes to immigration laws, is now on sale. Twitter @arudoudebito. Just Be Cause appears on the first Community Page of the month. Send your comments to community@japantimes.co.jp .

  • Jim Di Griz

    Well done Debito. A thoughtful and interesting insight into the real goals held by Abe, and the interests he represents, and the dangers therein.
    ‘Taking back Japan!’….all the way to the (imagined) 1930′s, it would seem.

  • Edohiguma

    Seems that Debito wants the same old pointless, useless, faceless, back and forth nonsense to continue. No surprise there. he’s American, his grasp of Japanese history is, as shown on multiple occasions, thin to say the least.

    Abe’s hawks are the problem? Really? Who has been utterly aggressive? China. Who has covered up atrocities? South Korea. North Korea. Even Taiwan.

    Article 9 is worthless paper. It’s like Austria’s neutrality. It’s on paper. In reality it’s completely worthless. In case the Cold War would have gone hot Austria would have been the battlefield. We have evidence for that. Hard, cold facts. In the case of Japan, the same is true. Article 9 means nothing. By following it to the letter Japan can’t even operate the JSDF. That is utterly laughable.

    Japan has the right to maintain a military to defend herself, like any other sovereign nation. Any attempt to link this to the 1930s is utterly ridiculous and shows that, whoever is doing it, needs a few history lessons.

    The so called “Peace Constitution” has failed, which is hardly a surprise. Again, history shows that it could only fail.

    • Jim Di Griz

      ‘he’s American’
      No. He’s Japanese.

      • https://profiles.google.com/havill Eido INOUE

        American can refer to an ethnicity or cultural background, not necessarily citizenship. (just like the word “Japanese”)

        Debito himself has described himself as “American-Japanese” on many occasions on his own blog. Nobody is doubting his citizenship. Culturally, he lives in the U.S. and communicates almost exclusively in American English. He also is an inhabitant of the western hemisphere, which is another definition of “American” in the dictionary.

        • Ron NJ

          American being an ethnicity is a completely laughable concept – it’s a nationality and nothing more, unless you’re speaking about the natives. No one of noticeable European descent should be classified as “American” ethnically, which is precisely why such an option does not appear on census forms.

      • Jim Di Griz

        I love the ‘down’ votes this comment is getting. What are they voting down? The fact that Debito is legally a Japanese citizen? How racist is that? Proves all Debito’s points about how exclusionary Japan is, and how apologists have sold out. Keep voting!

    • http://www.facebook.com/genkiguy Christopher Glen

      Disagree with you here. Japan still continues to whitewash its history. Fact: The “comfort women” did exist, and some are still alive. Fact: Japan used POWs as slave labour at some factories and mines in Japan (Not to mention the treatment of wartime POWs. Japan has made some amends for that)
      Fact: The Nanking massacre took place. Maybe not as many people as China claims were killed, but a great many nonetheless. Plenty of western and neutral observers witnessed it.
      Fact: Japan used poison gas against Chinese people. The Emperor Hirohito even authorised its use on occasion, although under pressure from the militarists. Maybe.
      Fact: The Emperor was not held accountable for the atrocities of WW2. We can blame MacArthur for this. He didn`t even have to reisgn. As a result, as he didn`t take responsibility from the very top, ordinary Japanese have difficulty taking responsibility even now. But that`s what needs to happen.
      When Japan is honest and comes clean about all the above points, only then would I support amending the constitution.

      • https://profiles.google.com/havill Eido INOUE

        You can find individuals (including politicians), not just in Japan, but in every country, such as the United States and Australia, that deny ugly parts of history. For example, just because a politician in Australia says something racist about the aboriginals doesn’t mean that’s the official position of Australia and how all Australians think. Just because a politician in America says something denying that the Civil War had anything to do with slavery doesn’t mean that’s the U.S. official position.

        You see, unlike some European countries, the United States and Japan have Constitutionally protected Freedom of Speech (and Australia, with its protection of political speech) — which includes outrageous and extremely offensive speech. This means no matter what the official position of a country is, anybody, including politicians, can say something that is unofficial and offensive. They always have. They always will, no matter what the amount of education. Doesn’t mean it represents the official position of Japan or anybody else or represent how most people think.

        Japan’s official position on the Nanking Massacre, according to and published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is exactly the same as what you wrote:

        The Government of Japan believes that it cannot be denied that following the entrance of the Japanese Army into Nanjing in 1937, the killing of a large number of noncombatants, looting and other acts occurred.However, there are numerous theories as to the actual number of victims, and the Government of Japan believes it is difficult to determine which the correct number is. Japan candidly acknowledges that during a certain period in its history, Japan, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of Asian nations, and holds a firm resolve to never repeat war again and to advance the path of a peaceful nation with feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology always engraved in mind.

        There are many other official positions, such as the recognition of comfort women, the the acceptance of the rulings and punishments of the IMTFE military tribunal (which covers poison gas), which are also covered by MoFA.

        So if you claim that “Japan” isn’t honest about these points because of the statements of a politician or two or a celebrity or a random individual, then I think it’s fair that we judge the entire country of Australia by the statements of Pauline Hanson (voted as 100 most influential Australians of all time, by the way) and the One Nation party.

  • duGarbandier

    there seems to be a China sized elephant in this room. There is an enormous amount of military spending going on in the region, and not primarily in Japan. With the United States becoming weaker, is it surprising that there is pressure for Japan to change its constitution? The right wingers may be distasteful, personally and politically, but to consider them in isolation risks misunderstaning the regional picture

    • Jim Di Griz

      China is just an excuse, and fear of China is a ‘phoney war’ that the right-wingers are using to convince the Japanese people to give up civil liberties. Just like the ‘war on terror’ and the Patriot Act.

      • tangxin

        An excuse for what, exactly? What’s the Japanese Patriot Act? Are they planning on war?

  • Bullpucky

    I find it hard to imagine how Abe can be both “a jittery little man with a weak stomach” who spends entire days in the restroom while also a strong leader who will bring about the rise of “a xenophobic, ultra-rightist, militaristic Japan.” Perhaps the author believes the revolution will be lead from the can?

  • http://twitter.com/StevenStreets Steven Streets

    Fractional Reserve Central banking is what made America a warlike Nation. It violates our Constitutions wisdom of legal tender power vested in elected State Governments. It destroyed the check and balance of two, two, 2 precious metal only legal tender mandate in Article One sections 8 and 10. PM Abe wants to depreciate Yen and that nexus between Nationalism and finance fuel the drive for military debt spending. Be careful Japan. Next thing you know, you will be borrowing money from communist China to build warships and planes just like USA. No one really wants their sons fighting and dying for banks and their beneficiary body politics.

    God bless the Bank of Japan for all the good they do. There are better ways to keep a country in perpetual debt than war.

    If something isn’t broke don’t try to fix it, when life has so many other pressing survival issues than to afford the added burden of war.

  • iago

    “Debito … is the primary reason we NJ have the limited freedoms we have in Japan now.”

    While I can certainly understand the sentiment, it does seem rather unfair to put the blame entirely on him.

    • Jim Di Griz

      ‘it does seem rather unfair to put the blame entirely on him.’
      Why not? Isn’t that what apologists do? Scapegoat and victimize their own, in order to gain a scrap from the masters table?

      • http://www.dadsarmy.co.uk/ GMainwaring

        I do not think that word (“apologists”) mean what you think it does. And using the same tired arguments and language as “fight back” – did you login under the wrong alias while sockpuppeting again?

        • Fight Back

          I’m sure it’s possible for Mr Di Griz to share the same sentiment and disappointment that I feel myself when considering the actions of apologists who attack their fellow NJ for a pat on the head at their local Izakaya, where I’m sure they wholeheartedly spout the anti-China nonsense and hysteria that Abe has created.

          Only the apologists with their various ‘characters’ and non de plumes seem to live in a paranoid world where they suspect everyone to be someone else. And yet recently it was proved on Debito’s website that many of these ‘characters’ were the work of a single person. I wonder if you are somehow involved with that.

  • tangxin

    I find anything written by debito to be disingenuous. I am ethnic Chinese living overseas, and I can agree that Abe’s vision is not the way for Japan. But this is not debito’s concern.

    Debito falls into the category of white expat who, upon having a negative experience in some foreign country, takes it on himself to find and agree with every criticism there is about that country, yet actually expects people to believe his words are meant constructively. I have seen more than a few of this type in China as well.

    No, sorry. I don’t believe Abe will do anything extreme regardless of what he believes in. Non-asians and foreign opinions not needed.

    • Jim Di Griz

      ‘Non-asians and foreign opinions not needed.’
      Non-asians, and foreigners? Debito is legally a Japanese citizen, and while the current constitution lasts, is entitled to free speech just as much as the black van sound trucks. Gee, racist much?

      • http://www.dadsarmy.co.uk/ GMainwaring

        What about non-citizens? You were just agreeing with “Fight Back” when he said “It’s time to purge this Apologist nonsense that has gained so much traction through the sheer art of noise.” So apparently you support free speech, but not for all? Somehow I am not surprised in the least.

    • Toolonggone

      >Debito falls into the category of white expat who, upon having a negative experience in some foreign country, takes it on himself to find and agree with every criticism there is about that country, yet actually expects people to believe his words are meant constructively. I have seen more than a few of this type in China as well.

      It’s not the matter of positivity or negativity that makes one’s argument real deal. It’s one’s ability to construct argument from solid evidence and reasoning to make it compelling. That’s what you/we are supposed to do if you are to join in the public forum for constructive discussion. If not, then, forget it. That’s what few people in Japan understand properly. You don’t have trouble understanding what this means, since you are living abroad, do you?

      >No, sorry. I don’t believe Abe will do anything extreme regardless of what he believes in. Non-asians and foreign opinions not needed.

      Contrary to your assumption, many people in your home country see it otherwise. They know who Abe is. He’s the one who likes to vent his spleens. And your last sentence is problematic regarding that many Chinese/Koreans who are eligible to live in Japan permanently are indeed silenced by wacky right-wingers and Japanese employers. Explain to me how you frame these people in your perspective and why.

  • Yamatosenkan

    As others have pointed out here, it is strange that Debito thinks Abe and his people are a throwback to the 1930′s and 1940′s Japan. They have no aspiration whatsoever to expand territorially. On the contrary, it is China that is expanding. Instead of focusing on Japan, Debito would also do well reading some Chinese newspapers that talk of “defending the sacred motherland” and “teaching the Japanese a lesson.” Chinese television now frequently features Chinese military folk and “experts” who predict on war with Japan and the U.S. China today has a lot more in common with Japan in 1941 than Japan has.

  • http://www.dadsarmy.co.uk/ GMainwaring

    I see Mr. Arudou is up to his old trick of creating his own facts and hoping the rest of us are too lazy to actually look up his references. Or perhaps he himself does not understand the Japanese he is trying to translate for us?

    Arudou claims that the 2006 revision to the Basic Education Law “now clearly states that a right to education in Japan is restricted to “us [sic] Japanese citizens” (ware ware Nihon kokumin — i.e., excluding foreigners)”. Nonsense. Firstly, while the phrase “we Japanese citizens” does indeed appear in the text of law, it is in the preamble, where the reason for the promulgation of the law (creating a democratic and cultured nation, contributing to world peace and the welfare of mankind, etc.) is given. “We the People…” in other words. The phrase “Ware ware Nihon kokumin” replaces the word “Warera (We)” in the original 1947 law. Nothing more.

    Arudou then goes on to claim the revised law has removed goals for developing individuality. Apparently Arudou was too tired to read past Article One when comparing the new and old laws, or he might have noticed that while the bit about respecting individuality was indeed removed from Article One (where it existed in the 1947 law) it is right there in Article Two of the new law – which among other things adds in dangerous right-wing thought such as “equality of the sexes” and “value of life” as cornerstones, concepts which the original (and, we are to assume, more progressive law, according to Arudou) didn’t even touch on!

    Now since Arudou was apparently incapable of deciphering the squiggles on the page so far, I suppose he is to be forgiven when he claims that the revised law restricts the right to education to Japanese citizens only. After all, that bit is only covered further down, in Article 4 (not the preamble!) of the revised law, and is nothing more nor less than a copy-and-paste of Article 3 of the 1947 law, which says education must be provided to all “kokumin”, a word which Arudou is fond of pointing out has been determined by Japan’s Supreme Court (in the context of the Constitution) to mean “the people” irrespective of nationality.

    Cunning, those “hawks”, changing the law by moving Articles about! Well, they certainly seem to have fooled our man Arudou!

    • https://profiles.google.com/havill Eido INOUE

      The answer to your rhetorical question regarding whether Debito Arudou actually read the original 2006 Japanese Basic/Fundamental Education Law is linked in the sources for his blog version of this article: he cites an all-English article in the “The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus”. The reason Arudou may have not picked up on the “individuality” expression being simply moved to a different section may be because in the English translation that accompanies the Lebowitz/McNeill article, the one word concept is expressed in multi-word (English) phrases such as “[r]espect the value of individuals, develop their abilities, cultivate their creativity, and foster a spirit of autonomy and independence”.

      It is regrettable that Arudou apparently didn’t confirm by reading the original Japanese law, or even read the provided supplemental English translations accompanying his source more carefully, when he made this erroneous claim in this month’s column.

    • Toolonggone

      >Arudou claims that the 2006 revision to the Basic Education Law “now clearly states that a right to education in Japan is restricted to “us [sic] Japanese citizens” (ware ware Nihon kokumin — i.e., excluding foreigners)”. Nonsense

      Then, give me some evidence that Fundamental Education Law provides the clause for foreigners or non-Japanese. You’re talking about the interpretation of “We the people” in Japanese context. Does it apply to non-Japanese–or not? Explain it to me with specific reasons if you are 100% confident on your claim.

      • http://www.dadsarmy.co.uk/ GMainwaring

        Specific reasons – like the existence of foreign children in Japanese public schools, you mean?

        Article 4 of the new law specifically states “The people shall be all be given equal opportunities to receive education according to their abilities, and shall not be subject to educational discrimination on account of race, creed, sex, social status, economic position, or family origin.” Granted it does not specifically state “…or nationality”, but does any similar law anywhere state that? No reasonable interpretation of the law could conclude it explicitly states “Japanese Only”, nor that the intent was “Japanese Only”, nor is there any documented case of this law, or its predecessor, being used in practice to keep foreign children out of Japanese schools. Pressure from misguided school principals and/or teachers to place the child/children in international schools, yes. Absolutely. But anecdotally those cases are decreasing, not increasing, and when push comes to shove children have not been denied a chance for public education.

        The law very clearly does *not* state, contrary to Arudou’s assertion, is that “only Japanese nationals are eligible for public education”. If anyone needs to present evidence of their claims it is the writer of this article, not I.

  • KetsuroOu

    Three quick points:

    1) The “Gaijin Hanzai Ura Fairu” was a privately published magazine, and not an official piece of legislation. It was not responsible for anyone’s “persecution”.

    2) By suggesting that it’s unfortunate that you “also have to struggle for the rights of the apologists” you suggest that all foreigners are equal, but some are more equal than others.

    3) You don’t know what the word “apologist” means, do you?

  • Fight Back

    Readers who are new to this site may not be aware that many of the negative responses to Mr Arudou’s column are in fact orchestrated by a small clique of Apologists who spend an inordinate amount of time on-line trying to sully Mr Arudou’s reputation.

    Apologists and their ilk are often NJ who have, by hook or crook, gained themselves a slice of the small pie that is meted out by the Japanese to certain obsequious individuals who are then obliged to denounce and denigrate other NJ in order to keep their tenuous ‘social position’ and hold on to the scraps of dignity they are thrown from their host’s table.

    What Debito Arudou represents, is a fair deal for each and every NJ, regardless of the need for desperate brown-nosing or the one upmanship that dominates the Apologist discourse.

    Of course this column is merely astute political observation, but it has been unfairly politicized by those who feel threatened by the fairness and everyman ethos that Debito represents. A fair deal for all and a call to be vigilant in the face of rampant Japanese nationalism makes eminent sense to me and most of the intelligentsia of the NJ community. It’s time to purge this Apologist nonsense that has gained so much traction through the sheer art of noise.

    • James Reilly

      Fight Back, I very much doubt that there is a conspiracy by a shadowy “clique” to flood this comments section with negative responses. It strikes me that many of those
      responses are instead simply the product of well-reasoned criticism of the many flimsy points in this article, such as GMainwaring’s astute exposure of Arudo’s lack of research on the Basic Education Law. Contrast this with the currently few comments that directly support the article’s thesis; the silence says much about the strength of Arudo’s conclusions.

      It is debatable whether Arudo has done anything that substantially bettered life in Japan for foreign residents who are truly victimized by racism, but that topic should not displace this article as the focus of discussion, nor should Arudo’s activities shield his publicly stated opinions from criticism—indeed, the
      purpose of a comments section is to provide a forum for intelligent debate.

      Unfortunately, this article amounts to little more than scaremongering. If we were to take Arudo’s hyperbole at face value, we would expect to see mobs of Japanese citizens smashing the windows of Chinese-owned restaurants and droves of young people
      enlisting in the Self-Defense Forces. This, however, has yet to be seen. Certainly, there are Japanese politicians who can be classified as sabre-rattling hawks, but without an equally hawkish populace to back them up, they won’t be marching on Beijing anytime soon. The rightists’ black trucks come and go as they always have, and pretty much all Japanese on the street ignore them, as they always have. I suspect that Arudo’s living outside of Japan has put him out of touch with the country’s real public sentiment.

      If Arudou really believes that Japan is on the path to becoming a military state a la the 1930s, I should think that he, as a Japanese citizen and an activist, would
      want to try to change this dangerous course by warning the people who are in a position to change it— his fellow citizens and the Japanese government—and by offering constructive solutions. Instead, he directs his warning to “outside observers” and offers one-liners about a man’s bowel trouble in place of constructive suggestions. The territorial dispute between Japan and China is a serious issue
      that needs to be resolved amicably as soon as possible, but I see nothing in this article that contributes toward such a solution.

      • Fight Back

        I strenuously disagree. Debito Arudou is a well-respected academic in his field and a columnist for the Japan Times. If he says it’s a fact then it’s a fact. I think we can all do the courtesy of trusting in the one person who has been a bulwark for human rights in Japan for over 20 years.

        The sheer fact is, that if it weren’t for Debito’s vigilance there would be no-one to stop Abe’s hawks rounding up, deporting, or even detaining NJ at will, a distinct possibility given Japan’s dramatic lurch to the far right. Many NJ in Japan have already felt the heat being turned up with more aggressive attitudes by the civilians and the requirement to join in anti-Chinese sentiment. Debito can lead us through this but he can’t do it alone. We need to be as vigilant as he says to.

        Social media is a tool we can all use to reach the English-speaking world and let them know what’s really happening in Japan rather than what’s being reported in the state-owned media. A no tolerance policy for apologism and apologists is also a logical step. I’m sure we all know one or two NJ who denigrate Debito, let’s make this unacceptable in today’s society. We need to move forward as a community, now not just for ourselves, but for the prosperity and security of Asia as a whole.

  • http://www.dadsarmy.co.uk/ GMainwaring

    A bit rich for a fictional character from a science-fiction novel series to complain about people using “pseudonyms”, now isn’t it?

    • Jim Di Griz

      Just as much as you using a handle from BBC’s ‘Dad’s Army’ Ken. Mainwaring was (IIRC) a fat old blustering bufoon. If the cap fits…

  • Sam Gilman

    It’s a terrible shame that the reasonable point you made originally about the author’s nationality has been entirely undermined and more by your bizarre resort to the language of racial paranoia. “One of their own”, “uncle Toms”, “scraps from the Master’s table” – you write as if criticising an article in the Japan Times is an act of race betrayal! (The mind boggles). Quite apart from the silliness of that, you appear happy to make an issue of Debito Arudou’s ethnicity when it suits you, but object vehemently when others do the same. If he is “Japanese”, then, surely, he is not “one of their own” to for foreigners to victimise. You can’t have it both ways. (Personally, I don’t think the kind of passport he holds matters as to whether he’s right or wrong.)

    It’s also disturbing (or perhaps just comical) that you support suggestions that critics of this article should be silenced and “purged”, and you yourself suggest they are less deserving of basic human rights. When Debito is arguing that Abe represents a return to Japanese fascism, the irony is glaring.

    As to your main charge, I don’t think any conspiracy forced Debito to make such wild exaggerations as to compare the current Prime Minister with wartime leaders (such as Hideki Tojo), nor to get the 2006 changes to education law horribly wrong, nor to get wrong what it is that Abe has controversially said about the war, nor to get constitutional procedure wrong, nor to wholly misunderstand the Senkaku dispute, nor – incredibly in 2013 – to write as if China’s military assertiveness doesn’t exist. That’s all his own work.

    Perhaps instead of paranoid name-calling (I echo another commenter who suggests you don’t understand what “apologist” means), you could address some of the criticisms made by what looks like a diverse group of people making a diverse range of comments. Otherwise Fight Back’s and your support of Debito looks autonomic and cult-like. A cult of personality perhaps?

    I wouldn’t have bothered writing this response (I actually thought at one point your praise of Debito was so effusive as to be sarcastic) if I hadn’t discovered that you and Fight Back are indeed genuine respondents on Debito Arudou’s personal website, and apparently quite typical of his school of thought. Perhaps you should invite him here to respond? He might make a better, less racially-charged fist of it than you.

    • Jim Di Griz

      Sam, I’m not saying that disagreeing with Debito’s JBC is an act of ‘Race-betrayal’ (as you put it), but rather than focusing on the contents of the JBC, the ’12′ sock-puppets who appear on the anti-debito slam site are here denigrating Debito for ‘not being Japanese’, or ‘being Japanese, but not being in Japan’. I’m saying they should debate the issue, not the man. If they can’t do that, then readers should be questioning their motives.

      • Guest

        Jim, as an epithet, if you use the term “Uncle Tom”, you are accusing people of race treachery. It’s as simple as that.

  • http://www.turning-japanese.info/ Eido INOUE

    I assume you’re replying to me pointing out that the original author did not thoroughly read his own sources that he provided. Debito revealed his source for his claim that the revision to the 2006 Fundamental Education Law removes individuality and education for non-Japanese, and it turned out that upon further inspection of that source, it said no such thing. I wasn’t the first, nor was I the only one, to notice this very bad oversight.

    If that makes me a “snob” for pointing out that the article in question has source comprehension and interpretation errors in it, then yes, I’m guilty as charged. I thought I was being generous to Mr. Arudou for assuming his error was due to not completely reading the original Japanese or the translated English which he provided; another possible explanation, that he read and understood all of it yet deliberately chose to mislead Japan Times readers, is a much more sinister accusation which I didn’t make.

    I do expect that when you have a conclusion for an article, especially one that makes rather serious and controversial claims, that your supporting facts be correct and not misinterpreted or distorted. In the word of academia and journalism, it is expected that your facts be true and correctly interpreted, and it is expected that you will be criticized when you fail to live up to that core tenant. You don’t get partial credit for wanting something to be true so it can conveniently support your hypothesis or world view. In Debito Arudou’s world of academia and journalism, criticism of your work is invited and expected. I’m think that Mr. Arudou is actually grateful that people are proofing his theories for obvious errors, as this will help him with his research.

    Your last paragraph in your reply was the most interesting. Japan already has the Self-Defense Force (SDF), and compared to most (not superpower) militaries of the world, it’s actually quite capable (although not well tested outside of domestic emergency situations) given the percentage of GDP that’s put into its budget. As for an offensive force, well, that’s not constitutional according to most interpretations of Article 9.

    So it seems like you’re actually calling for an end to the Security Treaty Between the U.S. and Japan, which would probably mean Japan would need to increase the size, readiness, and capabilities of its forces to deal with regional threats in absence of guaranteed and unconditional U.S. support. If that’s what you’re in favor of, then it looks like you agree with Prime Minister Abe and the Liberal Democratic Party, and you disagree with parts of Debito Arudou’s opinion of the current administration.

    Anyway, thanks for your opinion!

    • azooisaprison4animals

      It is not what you said, it is the way you said it. And I did not base my accusation solely on one of your comments.

      If Japan’s military is “quite capable”, then why are there dozens of U.S. military bases spread throughout Japan?

      If Japan can defend itself, and the U.S. can’t afford to project power so far away from home, it is time for time for the treaty to be revised/revoked. Or maybe it is time Japan told the U.S. it is time to end the treaty?

      Abe and the LDP want to increase the military, which I am fine with, but they they lose my support when they and their supporters voice their hatred for China, Korea, foreigners, etc. They could love and defend their country w/o using hate, but they don’t. They will latch on to any event and spin it to their advantage.

      • http://www.turning-japanese.info/ Eido INOUE

        Japan has a military force that is sized and designed to be “quite capable” of protecting itself, with America’s help, from a local attack. But even if it changed its military power balance so that it could protect itself from attack without an allies’ immediate assistance, it still couldn’t constitutionally participate, get involved, or help in other countries’ defense (that “Self” in “Self Defense Force” is there for a reason) — something that the U.S. is capable of doing. The reason there are dozens of military bases throughout Japan is not just for its benefit.

        The U.S. has a vested long term economic interest in seeing that not just Japan, but all the countries near Japan, remain stable and peaceful. While Japan cannot get involved militarily, even for defensive purposes, with other countries due to its Constitution, the U.S. is often obligated (by treaty or agreement) to protect other countries relatively close to Japan, and many of these countries that have complex and difficult relationships with histories of military conflict with their neighbors. Taiwan and South Korea are two with U.S. defense pacts which come quickly to mind.

        Your statement about the U.S. not being able to afford to project power overseas anymore is a good one. However, the opposing opinion is that the U.S. cannot afford to not project power in this area, because if something major happened and the U.S. wasn’t within the figurative arm’s reach, it would cost the U.S. (and the world) far more — both in dollars and lives — in the long run. Not to mention the horrible thought of the worst case scenario: an escalation into multiple wars due to interlocked alliances or interests that might have be prevented or ended quickly by a strong local U.S. military superpower presence as a deterrent.

        Now, you can argue that some of the bases can be moved to other territories, including U.S. Pacific territories such as Guam, especially given that 21st century military technology allows for faster logistics and movements and quicker and farther projection of power. All of these are very good ideas, but are very complicated with no perfect or simple solutions and have their own set of pros and cons.

  • GIJ

    Uh, Japan is a parliamentary democracy. There was no national election for Abe, so besides the voters in just one of Japan’s 300 single-member districts, nobody directly voted for Abe. The only people he was voted in by were LDP members–as their leader. The LDP would have won the Dec. 16 election if their leader had been a potted plant.

  • Garth Marenghi

    Keep up the good work Debito