|

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

by

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.

    • 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.

    • Jim Di Griz

      ‘The so called “Peace Constitution” has failed’.
      Failed? Really? Please tell me, what countries has Japan invaded since 1945? None, right? Then it’s a success.

    • Toolonggone

      >Abe’s hawks are the problem? Really? Who has been utterly aggressive?

      He was in his previous term. He didn’t have to, but his temptation got the better of him and vented his spleens, only to receive mounting criticism from both domestic and overseas. His cabinet aides were completely basket case. They said something stupid in the media and got sacked in less than six months.

      >China. Who has covered up atrocities? South Korea. North Korea. Even Taiwan

      Which one are you referring to?

    • GIJ

      Failed? Uh, not one Japanese soldier has died in an overseas military conflict since 1945. Compare this to the 100,000 plus American soldiers who have died overseas since 1945 in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, fighting ultimately for Northrup Grumman, McDonnell Douglas, and Halliburton. Compare Japan’s airports and railway stations with what you see in any other country on earth, and then tell me that the Peace Constitution has failed. The peace dividend–it’s real.

  • 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

  • Sam Gilman

    I don’t like Shinzo Abe. He was a dreadful Prime Minister last time around, and he has some very dodgy friends in politics. So it takes a special kind of klutz to drop the ball in an attack on him. Debito Arudou is not unique here – a whole lot of western coverage has been pant-wettingly frantic, as if it’s only a matter of months before the airwaves are filled with patriotic marches and and the bellowing of anti-Chinese propaganda. He does go the extra mile, however. In saying “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”, he simply comes across as a little unhinged.

    It’s also surreal to accuse modern-day Japan of being the main source of aggression and instability in the region. I’m not sure if Debito Arudou understands how international law works, but “specks” like these imply access to fishing, oil and other commodities, as well as influence over shipping lanes. Chinese “historic” claims of ownership are very shaky indeed, and the government in Beijing appears to be engaged in a cover-up over just that, as reported in this paper. Is he suggesting that Japan just roll over and surrender because China says so? Is it that he prefers to support a real authoritarian militarist regime to an imaginary one?

    There are a few errors too: While some of his political friends have, I don’t believe Abe himself has ever publicly denied the Nanjing massacre, let alone “consistently”. The constitution also requires a referendum before it can be amended, not just supermajorities in both houses. Logorrhea does not mean “saying unwise things” (Abe’s words were planned, not logorrheic). Foreign children in Japan are not excluded from schools (very odd idea that).

    I am deeply uncomfortable with Abe’s associations, his statements on history, and his past attempts to introduce compulsory patriotism. But I’m pretty sure he’s not planning to invade Manchuria.

  • http://www.facebook.com/alex.kan.735 Alex Kan

    I’d have to agree with Debito on this one. Abe’s motivations are clear enough for a toddler to see. What’s even more revealing is the fact he was voted in by the people of Japan — they have requested this type of government. A strong swing to the right.

  • Fight Back

    Debito has long been a crusader for NJ rights in Japan. His track record speak for itself and he is the primary reason we NJ have the limited freedoms we have in Japan now. When people choose to bicker over some the points he makes, I feel it is setting back the progress we need to make as a community. I think Debito has earned the right to be free from criticism, especially from those who enjoy the freedoms he has worked so hard to secure for us.

  • 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?

  • StevenStreets

    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.

  • Apologist

    ‘Japan swings to the right’. Has there ever been a time when foreign pundits haven’t trotted out this tired old trope? I first arrived in Japan during the bubble period. The trade friction with the U.S. at the time was then described as a heightened display of nationalism. Shintaro Ishihara’s bellicose ‘The Japan That Can Say No’ was published. Pseudo-academic studies of Japan’s alleged uniqueness were popular. All ascribed to a resurgent nationalism. A shift to the right, echoing pre-war Japan we were led to believe.

    Fast forward to the 90s. The Comfort Women and Nanjing Massacre issues arise and some Japanese statesemen want to mitigate Japan’s role. Once again, this is deemed a national mood swing towards a more militaristic, right-wing mentality. History textbooks are debated and a tiny minority of schools choose to use a revised text. Right on cue, it is deemed resurgent neo-nationalism. The Kimigayo and Hinomaru issue goes to court and gets a favourable decision. A shift to the right, it is called. Later in the decade the self-defence forces are sent abroad and Japan’s constitutional limitations are debated. Sure enough the foreign press chime in with claims of resurgent Japanese nationalism. The specter of a belligerent re-militarized Japan looms we are told.

    Now, the conservative LDP is re-elected. And guess how the foreign press chime in? Same old, same old. ‘The specter of resurgent neo-nationalism, a swing to the right’. The predictable fallback mantra of shallow foreign analysts. Yawn.

  • 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?

    • 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,

      Sorry he’s not the only one doing that. Take a look at articles by other writers– Colin P. Jones, Philip Brasor, Mike Hoffman, Roger Pulvers, etc. They may not be as overtly critical as Debito, but they are indeed critical of Japan regarding on the issues they discuss. And race doesn’t really matter to take a critical position on your country. Late Iris Chan is a good example. Some news writers publishing the articles critical of Japan are actually Japanese.

      Also, you said ‘every’ criticism? This means anything referring to Japan–i.e., politics, foods, lifestyle, consumption, environment, family, etc. Sure, some of Debito’s pieces are provocative and make readers offensive (I felt it that way, too.). But did he ever say it bluntly “Japan sucks almost everything” in any of his articles?

      >yet actually expects people to believe his words are meant constructively

      And this is exactly what you are supposed to do–speaker/writer’s responsibility. No exception. If you don’t like it, then, forget it. It’s like telling the difference from PBS New Hours to Fox News. Or sapient journalists like Gwen Ifill or Andrew Sullivan to rabble-rousing shock-jockers like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. You won’t have much difficulty in understanding this as long as you live abroad, will you?

      >I don’t believe Abe will do anything extreme regardless of what he believes in. Non-asians and foreign opinions not needed.

      Well, contrary to your opinion, I hear many people in your country believe Abe will do something crazy. And there are many Chinese people living overseas raising voices against him–but mostly ignored. Can you explain why this is the case?

    • Jameika

      While it’s clear that you have a serious lack of respect for other people’s ability to understand and think of things on their own. Plus, you’re clearly a racist.
      The you-don’t-belong-here argument never holds water. What would stop any resident of a place–regardless of his origins–from caring about where he lives and having an opinion? Even if it were only as simple as that.

      However, I’m failing to understand how your comments aren’t exactly what you’re complaining about.

    • 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!

    • johnny cassidy

      Thanks for filling in some gaps sir. Hope you can put some of this in a letter to the editor as well. But as Wilson would say, “You know sir, I can’t help feeling you’ve got a bit of a chip on your shoulder…”

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

      OK. Then, bring me some credible evidence suggesting that Fundamental Education Law indeed guarantees the rights of non-Japanese or anyone who doesn’t have Japanese citizenship. I have never seen any word or reference to foreign nationals or non-Japanese in any part of clause whatsoever. It’s like looking for the needle in a haystack.

      >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”,

      Explain the definition of “kokumin” in English. Is it equivalent to which — citizen or non-citizen? And why is that so?

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • azooisaprison4animals

    Late to the party that I am, I will be brief, and not sugar coat my message.

    Jim Di Griz – keep on keepen on brotha.

    eido inoue – you are a snob. You may very well speak Japanese/English better than others, but your complete lack of compassion is what disgusts me. You not only use your (apparent) language ability to justify your point of view, but at the same time you go out of your way to unnecessarily belittle and mock those with opposing points of view. Shame on you. No one is an expert at everything. Be humble. You just might learn something.

    Now, to the article: Regardless of what is written on a piece of paper, Japan should “man-up” and provide for its own defense (offense?). Lets face facts. The U.S. economy and military is in decline. Japan can no longer depend on “big brother” to protect it. Japan needs to grow its military, and fast.

    All this fear-mongering needs to stop though.

  • Garth Marenghi

    Keep up the good work Debito