If Japan Is Fascist, Then So Are You

Last week, the conservative periodical “National Review” took time out from calling Donald Trump a fascist to take a swing at America’s most important ally in East Asia with an article by Josh Gelernter called, “Japan Reverts to Fascism”. The author wrote with great alarm that Shinzo Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party and the coalition it leads recently won a large enough majority in both houses of the legislature to amend the Japanese constitution, the constitution which Japan has had since the end of World War II and which has never been amended to date. He describes all of the ways that, in his mind, Japan is reverting to a fascist state which seems an odd thing for a conservative American magazine to say about a conservative government that is America’s staunchest ally in the region and easily one of our most important allies in the world. Calling someone a “fascist” is usually the trademark of the left. In fact, today, about the only definition of a fascist is anyone who the left doesn’t like. It is a bizarre and inflammatory accusation to make just at the outset. But, he made it and so must back it up. What evidence does Mr. Gelernter present to justify such an accusation?

He begins by pointing out that Prime Minister Abe and many of his compatriots belong to a nationalist group called Nippon Kaigi which portrays the Japanese as the ‘good guys’ in World War II who were simply trying to liberate East Asia from the clutches of the wicked white race only to become the victims of the overpowering force of the Allies. This is, admittedly, his strongest point as a failure to understand and recognize the mistakes of the past leaves a country vulnerable to repeating them and World War II was certainly a mistake for Japan. The Empire of Japan was destroyed by it, so obviously that wasn’t good for Japan or anyone else. However, as troubled as people in the west have every right to be about being vilified, the effort to refute the vilification of Japan is not something that should be considered troubling or at all unusual. Western countries have done immense damage to themselves by indulging in a masochistic guilt-complex and Japan would be wise to avoid a similar mistake. Also, the fact that the Japanese would have a different point of view, whether you think it right or wrong, about World War II should not be considered that outrageous.

For the sake of a largely American audience, allow me to point to some examples that will best illustrate why this is a double-standard. Most Canadians have a very different view of the War of 1812 than most Americans. Most Mexicans think they were the ‘good guys’ in the War for Texas Independence and the Mexican-American War. Although it is not the case today, for much of American history, most British people had a very different view of the American War for Independence than most people in the United States. Does this bother anyone today? Again, until relatively recently, most Americans in the south still thought they were the ‘good guys’ and the United States were the ‘bad guys’ in the Civil War. It is actually normal for countries to have different points of view about conflicts depending on which side you were on. Now, Japan has not been entirely consistent on this point, particularly concerning the other Axis powers Japan willingly joined before the war started but it is perfectly natural for any country to give their own side the benefit of the doubt compared to others. I could also point out that China and Russia also both have different opinions about World War II compared to the western Allies but no one seems to mind that very much.

However, while that first exhibit on the part of Mr. Gelernter may have some, small, bit of merit to it as something America and other western countries should be concerned about, his case goes from that rather shaky bit of ground to fall headlong into a bottomless pit of ridiculousness. He says that the people in power in Japan are still mad about the Japanese Emperor being forced to renounce his divine status, which is something that is debatable but which, in any event, is something that anyone in Japan should have every right to be upset about. He mentioned fairly early in the piece, which I reserved bringing up until now, that part of the proposed amendments to the constitution that the Japanese government is seeking were described by the LDP with the words, “several of the current constitutional provisions are based on the Western European theory of natural human rights; such provisions therefore [need] to be changed.” Mr. Gelernter takes great exception to there being anything objectionable about “Western European theory of natural human rights”. However, isn’t one of those human rights the freedom of religion? Shouldn’t the Japanese be free to practice the form of Shinto, their own native faith, however they choose? Don’t they have the freedom to believe in the divinity of their Emperor just as other people believe in the divinity of Jesus? Isn’t this one of the main points of the version of human rights he’s defending?

This is why I say that, by the logic of Josh Gelernter, if the Japanese are fascists, then so are you, so am I, so is almost everyone reading these lines. Does wishing to worship according to your own beliefs make you a fascist? He goes on from there to point to such things as people flying the Japanese naval ensign, aka “the Rising Sun” flag which was formerly the flag of the Imperial Japanese Navy, is currently the flag of the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force and so has been in use long before World War II and is still in use today. Does flying a flag of your country make you a fascist? Probably the most absurd thing he points to as evidence, however, is the Japanese national anthem. He seems to have an obsessive paranoia about this song, the lyrics of which are the oldest national anthem in the world so, again, something that was around long before World War II, long before fascism ever existed. It is a song wishing for a long reign for the Emperor which makes it about as “controversial” as the British national anthem, “God Save the Queen”. Does singing your own national anthem make you a fascist? If you think that is a silly question, why does this only seem to apply to Japan whereas in every other country, flying a historic flag or singing your national anthem is considered the most basic and inoffensive forms of patriotism and nothing sinister at all?

He also points to certain words and international rankings about the media to imply that freedom of the press is being restricted in Japan. He warns that the NHK, the state broadcasting network, is a mouthpiece for the government, implying that it spouts nothing but right-wing propaganda. Anyone can watch the NHK (it has an English-language channel) and see for themselves that this is ridiculous. If anything, the content on NHK is viewed by most Japanese on the political right as being skewed toward the left. This should not be considered surprising given that anyone with any honesty will say the same about the BBC in Britain, the CBC in Canada or the ABC in Australia. In the United States, given what is put out by the likes of CNN, MSNBC or FNC, I have a hard time taking such concerns about Japan seriously. The media itself is the biggest threat to a free press these days given how widespread, around the world, dishonesty and bias is. There is a reason why most Americans, in a country that prides itself on its free press, considers the media extremely dishonest and untrustworthy.

Finally, he also mentions the changes regarding the armed forces in Japan and the degree to which Japan has recently been strengthening the Self-Defense Forces. For an American conservative magazine to make an issue of this is appallingly ignorant. The United States has been urging Japan for decades to strengthen itself so as to be a stronger ally. A strong ally is a help whereas a weak ally is liability. That is a fact so basic that anyone should be able to grasp it. Japan is also in a very dangerous neighborhood. Russia still occupies Japanese territory, North Korea is constantly firing missiles in their direction and Communist China has been building up its military forces at an alarming rate while also making claims to Japanese territory. Any other country in the world with any sense at all would be doing everything they could to strengthen themselves in such a position. I will say again, if flying a flag, singing the national anthem and wanting a strong military is evidence of fascism, then almost every other country in the world would be considered fascist as well.

No, there is obviously a double-standard at work here and it just might have to do with those “Western European” theories about human rights Mr. Gelernter is so fond of. The nations of Western Europe and North America have, sadly, adopted a very liberal, internationalist mindset and guilt-complex that is destroying western civilization. An entire people seems bent on suicide and the people of Japan would only be showing great wisdom in wishing to take a different path. Are we holding up these same values at all anymore anyway? Freedom of religion is one Mr. Gelernter does not seem willing to extend to Japan and in the west it seems these days that some religions have more freedom than others. Freedom of speech also seems to be ever more restricted these days. Freedom of assembly doesn’t seem to be evenly applied anymore, it depends on what you are assembling for. Did anyone notice that the Bush family boycotted the recent Republican National Convention? I know, they oppose Donald Trump but it certainly paints an odd picture that a man like George W. Bush who would go to war to spread democracy would stay home and pout when the democratic process in his own party does not go the way he wanted it to.

The left, and now apparently the National Review, has become so fond of labeling anyone they disagree with a “fascist” that the term has effectively lost its sting. Taking a righteous pride in the symbols of your own country, like your flag or your anthem, to revere your monarch, to want strength and security for your nation and, yes, even to defend the honor of your forefathers should not be considered negative things and the fact that some would shows only that there is something very wrong with them, not with Japan. Of course, anyone can agree or disagree with certain points taken by the Japanese government, one can agree or disagree with their views on World War II but to make such accusations as this article does, for the reasons that it does, is simply disgusting and more alarming than anything coming from Tokyo. To love your country, to wish it to be strong and secure and to take your own side in an argument is natural and would previously have been accepted by everyone as simple common sense. If, however, that is the current measure of what it means to be a fascist, then, all I can say, is that the western democracies must owe a profound apology to the spirit of Mussolini.

A Vision for the Future of Japan

The State of Japan today faces a number of challenges in terms of domestic and foreign policy. In a way, perhaps the biggest problem is a reluctance to address and deal with the most important issues Japan faces. However, if this reluctance can be overcome, I want to believe that there is hope for a bright future for Japan and for a return to a position of leadership in the East Asian region of the world. Probably the most critical long-term issue for Japan is demographic. The death rate is higher than the birth rate and this is causing cultural losses, societal problems and economic problems as the tax base grows ever smaller while the elderly population requiring government support grows massively larger. Unfortunately, when it comes to demographics, there is not much one can recommend in terms of policy. The only solution is the “natural” solution. Because of the ballooning national debt, something will have to be done and it will absolutely involve some pain and hardship to cut unnecessary expenditures. However, my vision for Japan includes some proposals that might help that situation in the long-term.

There must be a cultural revival in Japan to combat what the noted journalist Yoshiko Sakurai called “spiritual statelessness”. As she wrote, “That we Japanese alienated ourselves from the origin of our culture and civilization has been the single biggest cause of this condition that continues to plague us today”. That must be corrected through state action in education and privately in society with campaigns to reacquaint the public with the founding stories and ancient history of the country. There must also be an emphasis on traditional values, particularly family values which, hopefully, would lend itself to encouraging larger families. Obviously, the monarchy would be central to such an effort and this ties in with another major proposal which is constitutional reform. There are many changes that should be made but one that I would highlight is for HM the Emperor to be officially recognized, once again, as the Head of State. Conferring sovereignty would probably be unrealistic in this day and age and may not even be of much practical use but recognizing, in law, the Emperor as Head of State would be a major positive step.

In addition to this, the Self-Defense Forces should be reformed as a formal military (rather than an outgrowth of the police) with the Emperor as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. I have no doubt that virtually every member of the JSDF currently considers this the case in their hearts anyway but it should be made official in law for the sake of cohesion as well as tradition. A constitution that embodies the Japanese spirit and which has its roots in Japanese history and legal tradition is what is called for. Some streamlining would also be extremely helpful to cut through the tangle of bureaucracy that exists today so as to make changes for new situations easier. Certainly if the existing Constitution is to be maintained (as opposed to having a new one which might be just as well) it is essential to make it easier to amend with public support than is currently the case. Too often, the Diet is where ideas go to die, where measures to address a current crisis are strangled or delayed to the point that they are no longer useful by the myriad committees and sub-committees that all proposals have to circulate through. While I would like to see the House of Peers restored, this is probably unrealistic but it should at least be possible to see the old aristocratic titles restored to legal recognition.

As for the peace provision of Article 9, that may be retained. Doing away with it would probably be unrealistic and it is not absolutely necessary anyway. It does provide for taking action in self-defense, it is only that this should be used more energetically and not interpreted as meaning that Japan can never fight no matter what the circumstances. No country should want to be aggressive but there should be no hesitation in taking action against real threats nor should there be any hindrance in coming to the aid of a friend and ally that is in danger. This is largely what the current re-interpretation by the Abe government has been about and that should definitely continue. It would certainly be essential for the vision I have for Japanese foreign policy going forward.

It is based on the proposal made by two Catholic priests, Bishop James E. Walsh and Father James M. Drought who tried to reconcile the United States and Japan in 1940 and 1941. The proposal was for a Japanese “Far Eastern Monroe Doctrine”. My proposal would be slightly different of course, taking into account the considerable changes since 1940, particularly the end of European colonialism. Most simply it would mean that Japan would take a leadership position in East Asia and assume responsibility for safeguarding peace and stability in the region. If any threats arise it would be Japan that would handle them with no interference from outside powers (which would not exclude, of course, requested assistance provided with Japanese authorization). In 1940, the proposal of the two American Catholic priests was aimed primarily at stopping the spread of communism in China. Bishop Walsh was a very experienced missionary in China, understood the threat very well and was, in fact, the last missionary in China after the communist takeover. Today, such a doctrine would be aimed primarily at containing the communist threat as mainland China has become increasingly expansionist. Under this doctrine, Japan would stand ready to contain such aggression and assist any country targeted by the Chinese government.

Obviously, Japan would have to adopt a new and more assertive attitude and strengthen considerably to take on such a responsibility but it is not unrealistic that this could be accomplished. Naturally, China, Russia and Korea would oppose such a doctrine but there is no point in giving them much consideration as they practically oppose Japan simply drawing breath. However, one provision that would hopefully allay fears at least on the part of Korea would be that no existing alliances would be affected by this new policy. That would mean that the United States could retain its current defense agreements with Korea which would hopefully act as a ‘security blanket’ to reassure the South Korean government and mitigate any fears they harbor toward Japan. Long-term, it may also help alleviate tensions particularly on the part of South Korea and Taiwan by emphasizing the necessity of working with Japan for the sake of their national security and the stability of East Asia. As countries such as Mongolia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam have all been threatened by Chinese expansion, a strong deterrent force is needed and Japan is uniquely positioned for such a role.

In 1940, the United States did not recognize the danger of communism (as Tokyo did) in China but, although they would never admit it publicly, it has shown by American policy to have realized this was a mistake by supporting Japan and opposing China. So, because of the lessons of history, what America and other western countries would have opposed in 1940, they are willing to support today. This is illustrated by how supportive the United States and Australia have been on the subject of the reinterpretation of Article 9 by the Abe government. If the Japanese public has the will to embrace such a leadership role, there would be no better time to do it. Currently, Japan has in the United States the most militarily powerful country in the world as an ally and so can strengthen the Japanese armed forces (as they should be re-designated) in safety until Japan is fully prepared to take on this responsibility with the support of countries on both sides of the Pacific. Should problems arise with China, Japan, particularly the strong naval tradition and very advanced warships of even the current JMSDF, would be strategically placed to cooperate with Taiwan and the Philippines to cut off the exports that the Chinese economy so heavily depends on. Also, with naval mastery, Japan is ideally placed to respond quickly to a crisis in almost any East Asian country.

The primary goal which must be achieved to bring this about is a change in the attitude of the Japanese public, on both sides of the political divide. The mainstream right seems most prepared but the left must be persuaded to discard the mentality of idealistic pacifism and dependency while the far-right must stop trying to re-fight the Second World War. Both are equally detrimental to Japan moving forward as a leader on the world stage, the one by trying to appease current enemies and ignore the Japanese spirit and cultural heritage, the other by holding on to past grudges that would retain and even encourage the hostility of countries currently unfriendly toward Japan while also adding to that by making enemies of current allies. In the years since 1945 Japan has rebuilt and become one of the most prosperous countries in the world, even with all of the current debt problems still the third leading economy on earth. It is simply improper for a country that has achieved such a level of success to continue to refrain from accepting a position of leadership and responsibility on the world stage.

The possibilities are almost boundless considering what Japan has achieved in the past combined with all the additional potential Japan has today with a much larger economy and far better relations with virtually every major world power other than the Sino-Russian bloc. Japan has a higher GDP than any country other than China and the United States, the Self-Defense Force is one of the most advanced in the world and Japan has a military alliance with the United States and security pacts with Australia and India. There has never been a better time for Japan to begin the move towards a position of regional leadership in East Asia. This, combined with a cultural revitalization of the national spirit would allow Japan to become a world leader in a mature and balanced way that was never attained in the past. The future can be the period of the greatest glory for Japan and all that is required is to strengthen militarily, cut down the debt, reform or replace the constitution, revive the national spirit and have more babies. None of these things are impossible, it is only the will to undertake this challenge that must be motivated.

A Priestly Plan for Japanese and East Asian Security

Bishop Walsh

Prior to the outbreak of the Greater East Asian War, an attempt at Japanese-American reconciliation was made on the initiative of two Catholic priests; Bishop James E. Walsh, (a veteran of much missionary work in China) Superior General of the Maryknoll Society, and his assistant Father James M. Drought. It is important to note the experience Bishop Walsh had in China and his understanding of the threat posed by the communist insurgency (something which many in the United States did not understand). These two men were convinced that the rising tensions between Japan and the United States were ill-founded and unnecessary and that a lasting peace could be arranged by reasonable men on both sides of the Pacific. Knowing the threat posed by the communists in China and recognizing that Japan was the only power placed to deal with this crisis, they hoped that the Roosevelt administration in Washington DC could be shown that, far from being a problem, Japan was the solution in East Asia that America should support.

The two priests traveled to Tokyo and met with Tadao Ikawa, one of the directors of the Central Agricultural and Forestry Bank. They presented him with a memorandum which proposed a Japanese “Far Eastern Monroe Doctrine”. This, of course, was a reference to the Monroe Doctrine which established the American foreign policy that the United States would be neutral to existing European colonies in the Americas but would resist any effort by European powers to interfere in the affairs of the Americas to expand their colonial rule or hinder the newly independent countries established in Central and South America. It laid the ground work for the “special relationship” between the United States and Great Britain and essentially said that if there were any problems or threats in the Americas it would be the United States that would deal with them and not any non-American powers. The two Catholic priests proposed something similar with the Empire of Japan taking the position in East Asia that the United States took in the Americas.

Look! The cruel injustice of the Communists!

This would mean that the colonial holdings of Europe (the only American holding being The Philippines which was being given its independence) were not to be molested but could not be expanded and that no non-Asian powers could meddle in the affairs of East Asian countries. The Empire of Japan would be responsible for maintaining peace and order in the region and if any problems in East Asia should arise it would be Japan that would deal with them with no interference by non-Asian powers. If this should have also led to a “special relationship” between Japan and the United States, that would probably have been something the priests would have looked forward to. However, there was no doubt that the first problem that had to be dealt with was the spread of communism in China and the two Catholic clerics were adamant that Japan should be supported in taking the initiative to stop this “corroding social disease”, as the memorandum called it, before it became an “epidemic”. Ikawa had worked in the United States as part of the Finance Ministry and was impressed by the idea and confident that Japan would agree to it.

Colonel Iwakuro

The priests assured the Japanese officials that they had the support of leading men in America, which the Japanese assumed to mean President Roosevelt, which was not true, nonetheless Ikawa took the priests to meet with Prime Minister Prince Konoye and Foreign Minister Matsuoka. The Prince sent them to the War Ministry to speak to Colonel Hideo Iwakuro who was known for his position that an alliance with America would be the key to success for Japan. He was also an expert intelligence officer who had set up the Nakano School for intelligence agents and who had saved the lives of five thousand Jewish refugees by allowing them into Manchuria, persuading the Kwantung Army leadership that as it had been a Jewish-American firm that loaned Japan the money needed to win the war against Russia, abandoning them would be dishonorable. He introduced the priests to General Akira Muto, head of the Military Affairs Bureau who approved of their plan and gave it his full support.

At the start of 1941 the two priests returned to America in the hope of finding as much support in Washington as they had in Tokyo. Their first supporter was the Postmaster General, Frank C. Walker, one of the most prominent Catholics in America. He arranged for the priests to finally meet with President Roosevelt and Bishop Walsh presented his memorandum to the President. Unfortunately, when it came to Japan, Roosevelt seemed unwilling to ever take any action without the approval of his Secretary of State Cordell Hull who had an undeniable prejudice against Japan. Hull voiced skepticism in a note written by his senior advisor on Far Eastern Affairs Dr. Stanley Hornbeck who was one of the most anti-Japanese and pro-Chinese members of the administration. Still, Roosevelt empowered Walker to act as his agent in pursuing the idea. Likewise, in Japan, Colonel Iwakuro was dispatched to the United States with the support of General Hideki Tojo. He went to St Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City and met with Bishop Walsh where he was met with the disappointing news that the Roosevelt administration had decided that the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy prevented any such American agreement with Japan and Japan would not betray German and Italy. Colonel Iwakuro was also met with resistance by the Japanese diplomats in America who saw his actions as the Imperial Army interfering in matters that should be handled by their own office.

As negotiations went on the original intent of the memorandum, of the Japanese “Far Eastern Monroe Doctrine” was all but forgotten as the focus shifted almost entirely to China and the proposal that Japan withdraw all troops from China in exchange for the Republic of China recognizing the independence of the Empire of Manchukuo and forming a sort of coalition government with the rival regime of Wang Ching-wei. The American State Department, under Hull, rejected the proposal almost completely. To make matters worse, however, Hull gave the Japanese ambassador, Admiral Nomura, the impression that the proposal would be a basis for future negotiations when in fact he had no intention of doing so and the result was a long, fruitless series of negotiations or attempted negotiations that achieved nothing but to increase bitterness in Japan that the Roosevelt administration was not acting in good faith but was simply trying to put off the Japanese while Japan grew weaker and American forces in the region grew stronger. Which was, sadly, entirely correct. However, why does this history matter to us today? What can we learn from the peace efforts of two Catholic priests in 1941?

The relevance of this to the present time is that the basic idea put forward in their memorandum, of a “Far Eastern Monroe Doctrine” supervised by Japan is a viable foreign policy position today. In fact, there is far more likelihood of such a policy being workable today or at least in the near future than there was in 1941. The biggest question today would be whether or not the Japanese people are willing to take up the responsibility for East Asia. If there is the will in Japan to pursue such a policy, there is no reason why it could not be implemented. Unlike in 1941, there seems little doubt that such a move would have the full backing of the United States, Great Britain, Australia and most of the Southeast Asian countries. Of course, colonialism is no longer an issue but those portions could be replaced with similar assurances dealing with existing defensive alliances. Also, just as in the original memorandum, the preeminent focus of such a doctrine would be the communist forces in China who, unhappily, now happen to control much more than they did in 1941. Suppressing them would not be immediately possible but such a doctrine would allow for the containment of their expansionist impulses and a revived and involved Japan would be the power best placed to do it.

The biggest difference between today and 1941 is that the danger of Communist China has been demonstrated. In 1941, few of the major powers other than Japan took the threat seriously. The United States, most importantly, saw the China Incident only as the Japanese on one side and China on the other whereas, in fact, the Japanese government stated a willingness to make peace with the nationalists, even for the United States to broker that peace, and withdraw from China (Manchukuo being independent) so long as Japanese forces remained where necessary to deal with the communist insurgency. The United States chose to take the side of China and oppose Japan, the other major powers following along. However, though the American government would never openly admit it, American policy and actions have demonstrated that they understand that this was a mistake because today the United States supports Japan and opposes China, even more so than the Republic of China on Taiwan. Whereas in 1941 the Roosevelt administration was suspicious of Japan, today both the major political parties in the United States have welcomed the new policy of collective self-defense proposed by Prime Minister Abe and have encouraged Japan to strengthen the Self-Defense Forces. Today, the United States wants Japan to play a larger part in ensuring the peace and stability of East Asia.

This would be the perfect time for Japan to begin the shift to this new doctrine. The support for collective self-defense measures has been growing and more people on both sides of the Pacific have wanted Japan to take a more active part in its own self-defense. Japan is also protected by the most powerful and advanced military in the world, the United States, and so would be able to build up its own military strength in safety until fully prepared to take on this larger responsibility for the region. Australia has expressed its support for Japan strengthening the armed forces and other countries in the region could be expected to go along with it due to the growing fears of communist Chinese expansion. Under this doctrine it would be the duty of a revitalized Japan to keep communist aggression contained and to deal with any problems in East Asia that pose a threat to the security and stability of the region. The recent increased closeness between Russia and China would also be a reason why America and Europe would probably support such a doctrine for a more prominent Japan to keep watch over the region. To put it in terms that the two priests in 1941 might appreciate, Japan would be the “guardian angel” of East Asia in the same way that the United States is in the Americas and NATO is in Europe. Given the political climate of today, there is no reason why such a plan could not work, it would only require the Japanese public to be awakened to supporting a much larger and more assertive role for Japan on the world stage.

Moving Forward for Security

Recently, the communist bandit government in Peking sent personnel to exploit oil resources in the South China Sea which clashed with the forces of the communist bandit government in Hanoi as it happened in an area claimed by both the Chinese and the Vietnamese. Because of this increase in the centuries-old tension between China and Vietnam, the Vietnamese have struck back and mobs have attacked "Chinese" businesses in Vietnam (mostly around Saigon), harming, inadvertently no doubt, some Taiwanese and Japanese businesses and people in the process. This has caused some people in Japan to voice their moral support for the Vietnamese against the shared threat of communist China and that is perfectly understandable as the Vietnamese are clearly in the right in this situation. Vietnam has even drawn closer to the United States in recent years because of the increasing threat posed by Red China which seems set on a policy of expansion the likes of which has scarcely been seen before in Chinese history (a good clue that the post-imperial China is a totally different entity from the true, traditional China of yesterday). In the world of politics and international relations, such alliances of convenience are sometimes necessary but, of course, when it comes to a communist dictatorship like Vietnam, some caution is called for.

Remember that the communist Vietnamese have fought fellow communists before; they fought the Cambodian regime of Pol Pot and they fought Red China. They will do whatever is necessary to maintain their hold on power and that is the bottom line of all of these moves. In the past, they made common cause with the French to remove the forces of the Republic of China from North Vietnam and, it must not be forgotten, these are the successors of those same Vietnamese communists who made common cause with the United States in World War II to oppose the Empire of Japan and the traditional, legitimate, independent regime of the Empire of Vietnam which Japan had enabled to be established. Communist Vietnam will surely welcome Japanese support but it will never be returned so long as the Communist Party remains in power in Hanoi. If Japan is ever in danger, do not count on the support, moral or otherwise, of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. However, this does serve to highlight the increasingly dangerous world of the East Asia area due to the expansionist policies of Red China. It is, therefore, only reasonable that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe recently proposed a reinterpretation of the constitution to allow for collective security measures to be taken by the Japanese Self-Defense Forces.

When this news was made public, it was interesting to note the response of two major powers: the United States of America voiced support for Japan taking a more direct role in its own security and the People's Republic of China denounced the idea as being part of the "negative actions" taken by Japan. The United States wants a stronger Japan, while Red China wants a Japan that is weak and dependent on others for security. This is an example of why maintaining good Japanese-American relations is important, in spite of what has happened in the past. What was done to Japan in the past, particularly by the regime of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, is appalling and the Japanese people should be aware of the details of it to restore their own national pride (as I have tried to do here). However, Japan should become like South Korea and become so obsessed with the past as to allow it to weaken Japan in the present and in the future. Even though most Americans are just as misinformed about the Second World War in East Asia (the Greater East Asian War) they still view Japan as a trustworthy friend and ally. What is ironic is that there are now people in the United States who support what the FDR regime had opposed Japan for in the 1930's.

America would like to see Japan become stronger and embrace collective security measures in order to stand guard, more independently, of East Asia as a responsible power because the United States is increasingly weary as the sole super-power in the world. This is ironically very similar to what some in Japan proposed in the 1930's which was for Japan to issue a "Monroe Doctrine" for East Asia. This was the idea that compared a proposed Japanese policy with that of the Monroe Doctrine in which the United States warned off the powers of Europe from any further involvement in the affairs of the Americas (basically the United States did not want European countries regaining control of the colonies which had recently declared themselves independent republics). If there were any problems in the Americas, according to the Monroe Doctrine, the United States would deal with them but everyone else was to keep "hands off". Some in Japan proposed the same sort of measure for East Asia, telling Europe and America to stay out of the region and that Japan would take care of any problems. At the time, such a notion angered the United States but now there is perhaps even more of a desire for something similar in America than in Japan. The United States would prefer for Japan to be stronger in containing the expansionist forces of Red China.

The Communist Chinese, of course, want Japan to remain weak and dependent for others for security. They do this because they do not want Japan to be able to forge any real alliances with other victims of Red Chinese aggression and because they want Japan to be isolated. They can see that Americans are fast losing their desire to intervene in world affairs where the U.S. is not directly threatened and they hope that they can intimidate a weak Japan into bowing to their will, one issue at a time, due to the weakness of Japanese military forces and the idea that the American people have grown tired and frustrated with fighting on behalf of other people only to condemned and vilified for it. Red China wants Japan weak and most importantly isolated and they hope that if they can achieve that, they can obtain what they want from Japan without having to actually fight at all. They envision a quick strike to grab the Senkakus after which the Japanese government, isolated from any powerful supporters, will take no action but to protest to the UN or something like that and the issue will be dragged on indefinitely as a legal matter all the while China controls and exploits the Senkakus. That is the future China envisions and is working for.

This is why, not without learning the truth of history and standing by it, defending the integrity of the prior generations of Japanese and refuting falsehoods with facts, the Japanese should not give in hatred but instead to preserve the Japanese-American alliance that exists today. To encourage anger against America (and thus foster American anger against Japan) is to aid the Red Chinese, and even the South Koreans, in their cause to isolate Japan from the one country strong enough to deter China militarily. After all, why do you suppose the South Koreans put those Comfort Women statues in the United States when the issue does not involve America at all? They do it because they want to drive a wedge between America and Japan and to weaken and isolate the Japanese from American support. Please do not inadvertently assist these people! For the sake of future generations Japan must expand its population, strengthen its armed forces and take a strong stand internationally. However, until Japan is strong enough to deter any threat from Red China, there must be a strong solidarity with the United States to accomplish this together. America wants a stronger Japan, the people need a stronger Japan and East Asia needs a stronger Japan so the way forward is clear: strengthen now and quickly so Japan can move forward for security!

Constitution Memorial Day 憲法記念日

Today is the holiday set aside in Japan to remember the enactment of the current Japanese constitution in 1947. This is a delicate topic as, overall, the 1947 constitution has served Japan fairly well. When compared to other countries in the region, the Japanese government operates smoothly and protects the basic rights and personal freedom of the people. At the same time, there is really no getting around the fact that the current constitution was basically imposed on Japan by the occupying forces of the United States with the cooperation of certain very liberal elements within Japanese politics. Many would think of comparing it then to the United States Constitution, but that would be a mistake. The differences are profound and, in fact, reveal why it might be better for Japan to have a new constitution altogether. Perhaps one that took into account Japanese culture and values, encompassing the entirety of Japanese history and experience and one which did not preclude the country from properly defending itself. It would also be nice if it would make things less complicated. After all, when one thinks of Japanese products, be it cameras, computers or cars, everyone thinks of them as easy to use and efficient. Yet, the Japanese government is the exact opposite, being quite inefficient and frustratingly difficult to change.

Think of it like this; the United States has often been praised for its constitution, yet many who have tried to copy it, in various parts of the world, have not met with much success. That is because the American constitution was a natural development for the American people. It was drawn up by British colonists who drew heavily from the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom. The common law system is the same, basic rights are similar, tracing their line all the way back to Magna Carta. Even the government is quite similar; a House of Representatives much like the British House of Commons, a Senate much like the House of Lords (originally un-elected as well) and with a President who held much the same powers as the King (at least at that time, today of course the U.S. President has far more power and the British monarch virtually none at all). In short, the American constitution was a very natural sort of document for former British colonists to come up with. It suited them well and grew out of English history in law and government. The same cannot be said for the Japanese constitution. It was imposed as a purposely radical change, immediately after a traumatic war, to make Japan a very different sort of country from what it had been (or at least to try). I do not doubt the sincere motives and good intentions of those behind it, but surely Japan would be better served today by a constitution that reflected Japanese values instead of those of FDR's America. Because that is what it was, though FDR was dead and Truman was President, there was a conscious effort to remold Japan in the style of the leftist programs of FDR's "New Deal" campaign.

Not all of the ideas were bad of course and there were certainly aspects of the Meiji Constitution that needed to be improved, but it was certainly no secret at the time that Japan was being pushed radically to the left with the new constitution and that it was inspired, in part, by the "New Deal" policies of the late President Roosevelt. What is even more tragic is that those policies did not even serve America well and should have been the last thing anyone should have exported. The New Deal actually slowed down recovery from the Great Depression and was known by many in the United States as "the Raw Deal". If such a contrivance did not work well in the United States, how could it be expected to work well in Japan which had a political culture much farther removed from it than America?

At the very least, some reforms of the current constitution are urgently needed. In my opinion, something totally new should be adopted, drawing on Japanese traditions which actually go back a very long time in history, at least as far back as the 17 Article Constitution of Prince Shotoku. There is much to build on. I would like to see the position of HM the Emperor defined more clearly as the Head of State and Sovereign of Japan, I would like to see the restoration of the House of Peers (though that is probably the least likely to find public approval these days) and, of course, I would like to see the restoration of the armed forces and Japan being free to take military action when necessary to guard Japanese interests, security and national sovereignty. The matter is urgent and only becoming more so day by day. Let this be a Constitutional Memorial Day dedicated to some deep and honest reflection on what sort of constitution Japan needs.

The Northern Territories Dispute

Not many people are probably aware of the fact that World War II in the Pacific is not really “over” yet. That is because there has never been an official peace treaty, ending the war between Japan and Russia. Why is that, you may ask? The answer is because of some more disputed islands, this time in the North Pacific, known as the south Kuril Islands in Russia and the Northern Territories in Japan. These are a few, small, rather insignificant islands which are controlled by Russia but claimed by Japan. As with most territorial disputes involving Japan and her, oh-so-courageous, republican neighbors, it only came about after the Japanese defeat in World War II, after Japan enacted a constitution that forbid warfare as a means of settling disputes. How convenient. To understand this problem though, we need to go back to the beginning. Today the disputed islands are Etorofu, Kunashiri, Shikotan and the Habomai Islands, keep those names in mind.

The northern islands between Japan and Russia had been a source of confusion and dispute even before the two countries had any diplomatic relations with each other. When the two countries did finally sign a treaty, in 1855, the Treaty of Shimoda, it specified that the border between the Empires of Russia and Japan would run between the islands of Etorofu and Uruppu. So the island of Etorofu and everything south belonged to Japan and Uruppu and everything north belonged to the Kuril Islands of Russia. The islands of Kunashiri, Shikotan and the Habomai Islands, all south of Etorofu, were all recognized as belonging to the Empire of Japan and, in fact, their status was never even in dispute. The bigger issue had always been the larger island of Sakhalin which was inhabited by both Russian and Japanese nationals. To keep the peace, both countries agreed to share Sakhalin. This, however, proved impossible and so in the 1875 Treaty of St Petersburg the Japanese gave all Sakhalin to Russia completely in exchange for which the Russians gave up all of the Kuril Islands to Japan. Later, after the Russo-Japanese War, the peace treaty gave the southern half of Sakhalin back to Japan but nothing else changed.

Later, in 1941, the Empire of Japan and the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact in which both promised to respect the territorial borders of the other and to take no part in any conflict that involved Japan or the Soviet Union with a third power. It was signed in April of 1941 and was stipulated to be valid for five years, so it would not have expired until April of 1946. The Empire of Japan was scrupulously faithful to this agreement and this is why, for example, when her fellow Axis partners Germany and Italy invaded the Soviet Union only a couple of months later, Japan took no part. The only mistake Japan made was in assuming that communists ever keep their word or honor their agreements. In spite of the non-aggression pact, the Soviet Union agreed with Britain and America to go to war with Japan after Germany was defeated in Europe. Of course, because communists are as cowardly as they are untrustworthy, the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin waited until after the war had already effectively been won and after America had dropped one atomic bomb on Japan and one day before they dropped the second, to suddenly stab the Japanese in the back and invade the pro-Japanese Empire of Manchukuo. They grabbed everything of military or industrial value, looting basically the entire infrastructure set up by Japan before going on to loot, rape and murder the Manchu populace. Three days after Japan surrendered to the Allies, Soviet forces also moved in to invade and occupy the Kuril Islands.

Now, it is important to remember that when the Allies were dividing up the spoils, so to speak, to be gained from a defeated Japan that these islands were not included. The drive to gain territory at the expense of Japan was mostly driven by the Republic of China which was eager to take advantage of Japan losing World War II (mostly to the United States) to regain all territory lost in conflicts with Japan previously that had nothing to do with the Second World War. So, the Cairo Declaration of 1943 stated that, “Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed”. Now, keep in mind that the islands in dispute today and, in fact, one could say all of the Kuril Islands (which Japan does not claim) were not part of this since Russia recognized from their very first diplomatic agreement with Japan that these islands were Japanese territory and the rest of the Kuril Islands were not gained “by violence and greed” but by a peaceful agreement with Russia in exchange for the Japanese half of Sakhalin.

When the official treaty ending the war between Japan and the Allies was signed, the Treaty of San Francisco, the Soviet Union refused to sign on, in part because the treaty did not recognize the Soviet right to the islands they had occupied. In 1956 a Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration was signed to end the state of war between these two countries prior to a permanent peace treaty, a peace treaty which has still not been agreed to. In the declaration the Soviets agreed to return the Habomai and Shikotan Islands to Japan to be carried out after a permanent peace treaty was signed but that has never happened. More might have been done at the time but the United States objected in 1956 and to this day Japan and Russia have not agreed on who should control which islands. Today Russia still claims that even the islands of Etorofu and Kunashiri are part of the Kurils and thus Russian territory in spite of the fact that, as mentioned at the beginning, the Russian Empire never claimed these islands and in their original treaty with Japan in 1855 recognized them as Japanese territory. The fact should also be reiterated that the entire Kuril island chain was not gained by Japan by violence but by peaceful territorial exchange and Japan does not claim all of these islands or the southern half of Sakhalin that was lost to the Soviets after World War II. All Japan claims is those islands which had been recognized as Japanese territory by Russia from the very beginning.

Unfortunately, in the years since, Russia has chose only to exacerbate the issue. When the Soviets first occupied the islands, they rounded up all the inhabitants, over 17,000 people, and deported them to Japan -what some people would call ethnic cleansing. Since the Putin-Medvedev regime in Russia started to take measures to befriend Communist China, tensions between Russia and Japan over the islands have increased. A visit by President Medvedev in 2010 provoked Japan to sever diplomatic relations with Russia and in 2011 Russia began militarizing the islands. In 2013, in an effort to salvage the situation, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe traveled to Moscow to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin but, as yet, no agreement has been reached nor does the current situation inspire much cause for optimism as Russia has declared that a Japanese recognition of Russian sovereignty over the islands is a prerequisite to any negotiations on the matter and, of course, Russian sovereignty over the islands is exactly the matter in dispute to be negotiated over. So, Japan says, “they belong to us” and Russia says, “they belong to us” and when Japan says, “we seem to have a disagreement, let us discuss the issue”, Russia responds with, “we will discuss it if you agree first that they belong to us”. It is a completely ridiculous situation and seems all the more so coming from what is the largest country on earth, referring to these miniscule and practically valueless islands gained illegally by a violation of their word of honor as “an important region of our country”. It is an unjust violation of Japan for Russia to hold these islands and a shame that the Russia of today should defend the criminal behavior of the Soviet regime they succeeded.

Two-Faced Red Chinese Aggression

Recently, the bandit government in Peking took a serious step toward provoking a war by announcing an "expanded air zone" in the East China Sea which covers the Japanese territory of the Senkaku Islands. The communist government has threatened any aircraft that does not identify itself and follow their instructions in this area with hostile action. Both the United States and Japan have objected to this blatantly aggressive action over territory which even China claims is in dispute, and as far as Japan and America are concerned there is no dispute as the Senkakus are clearly Japanese and there is no doubt at all that they are under Japanese control so no matter which side one takes, the bandits in Peking are behaving stupidly. The communists, of course, are feigning outrage over the objections from Tokyo and Washington and here they display their two-faced hypocrisy. As we recently discussed, not long ago the Prime Minister of Japan announced his intention to take more firm action against future Chinese incursions of Japanese air space. The Chinese, at that time, howled that any such action would be considered an act of war. So, they are saying that it would be an act of war for Japan to fire on Chinese aircraft invading Japanese airspace and now they have responded by vastly increasing the air space they claim to even cover Japanese territory.

This is all, of course, simply for the benefit of the local Chinese populace so that if the communist bandits provoke any hostilities with Japan, the bandits will be able to tell the Chinese people that Japan violated their territory which, of course, it is not. However, since there is nothing close to a free press in China, the regular people only know what their government tells them and the communists would claim to own the moon if they thought it would benefit them. The American Defense Secretary called the action by China a "destabilizing attempt" but also asserted that this will change nothing as far as American deployments or military action in the area. In other words, the U.S. will carry on as before and if the Red Chinese choose to do something stupid, it will be their own fault and no one else's. It is encouraging to see the United States standing firm with Japan in the face of Red Chinese aggression. The Republic of China on Taiwan and South Korea have also voiced their own objections to this overreaching by the bandits in Peking, however, whether or not they will be able to set aside their own bigotry against Japan in the face of a common threat is another story, particularly as it concerns South Korea whose president still refuses to even speak to the Prime Minister. That is most unfortunate as the non-communist countries of East Asia should be standing firmly together in the face of this naked Chinese communist aggression.

PM Abe Stands Up to Chinese Threats

In a recent interview Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said that Japan would be taking a stronger leadership position on security matters in East Asia as a result of the increasingly hostile behavior of China which looks to the threat of force and intimidation to settle matters rather than legal means. Mr. Abe stated that other countries in the region, also threatened by China, are looking for Japan to take leadership in standing up to the bandit government in Peking. Furthermore, in response to Chinese sending unmanned drones to spy on other countries, Mr. Abe warned that any Chinese drones that violate Japanese airspace will be liable to be shot down. The Red Chinese responded in typical fashion, with hysteria and astounding dishonesty. The bandit government stated that if any Chinese drones are shot down in Japanese air space the communist regime will consider it an act of war and respond with full military retaliation and, to be really absurd, that it would be Japan that would be held responsible for opening hostilities in this situation. Just think about that for a minute, the Red Chinese are actually saying that if they invade Japanese territory and the Japanese make any effort to defend themselves it will mean that Japan has started a war. It is almost too ridiculous to even comprehend such a mentality. The invader claiming to be the victim -how typical of the bandit regime.

Hopefully, this stupidity and saber-rattling by Red China will not intimidate Japan or dampen the rebirth of the 'samurai spirit'. It is perfectly clear who is being the aggressor in this situation. For example, there is no doubt that the Red Chinese are using fear and intimidation to victimize their neighbors such as in the recent seizure of an atoll from The Philippines. They grab disputed territory and then move massive military forces in so that no one would dare oppose them. In the case of the Senkaku Islands, they suddenly make a claim on Japanese territory and then violate that territory at will and if the Japanese respond they threaten violence and try to tell the world that they are only "defending themselves". They are like a thief who breaks into a house to steal something only to then claim that the owner is the aggressor when he tries to stop them from taking his property.

The Red Chinese have shown they have no desire to settle problems reasonably since they refuse to even meet with Prime Minister Abe. In every instance, following the sincere wishes for peace and goodwill of His Majesty the Emperor, Japan has tried to resolve difficulties through peaceful dialogue. However, the bandit government refuses to even speak with the leader of the Japanese government. This will prove to be a great mistake. The Red Chinese should remember what has happened when they have attacked Japan in the past. In 1894 when China fought Japan, everyone thought China was so big and powerful there was no way they could lose, yet Japan administered a total defeat on China and the Chinese were greatly humiliated to be beaten by this island country that they had for so long held to be totally inferior. The Chinese have extremely large military forces but especially in terms of their air and naval forces, those of Japan, though fewer in number, are much more advanced and of higher quality. China should also remember that if they try to make war on Japan it will not be Japan alone but the United States as well. However, that assumes that the Japanese air and naval forces have not totally defeated any aggressive Chinese force before America can even respond and any conflict would be ruinous for the Chinese economy and most likely provoke a rebellion by the poor and oppressed masses in China. In short, if the bandit government tries to get aggressive they will only be hurting themselves. That would certainly be no tragedy.

Japan and U.S. Boost Defense

Recently, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel were in Tokyo meeting with their Japanese counterparts on the subject of security. Things have become more tense recently with the lunatic "1984" regime in the slave labor camp of North Korea re-starting an old nuclear plant that they start up every few years, whenever they want something, so they can shut it down again when we give in to them and send them some more food to feed their starving population. Some good, common sense developments seem to have come out of this trip (even though I am no fan of Chuck Hagel or John Kerry). It has been agreed that the U.S. and Japan will increase military surveillance in the area by next year with the United States deploying the latest surveillance drones and Japan deploying the new P-8 maritime patrol craft to keep an eye on the troublemakers in the neighborhood. The United States also applauded Japan for taking on a bigger role in national defense. I agree and would say that it is in the best interests of both Japan and America for Japan to be as strong as possible.

A second missile defense radar system will also be installed in Japan, an early warning system that will stand guard for both Japan and the United States against any threat from North Korea and (though it was not spoken) their communist overlords in China. This is all absolutely necessary because not only does North Korea declare war on the United States every other year or so but, for some twisted reason, the North Koreans said that if South Korea ever attacks them -they will retaliate by attacking Japan. Of course, that doesn't make any sense whatever but, consider the source -these people still think Marxism is the way to economic prosperity. Clearly their brains do not work correctly. It is also unfortunate that so many times the antics of North Korea are rewarded with concessions by the United States and others, which only encourages future bad behavior and each time they have to go to even greater lengths to prove that "this time" they are serious so, sooner or later, they are going to go too far.

What is also disturbing however, in this noble display of Japanese-American solidarity, is the absence of the other non-communist countries of the region such as the Republic of China (Taiwan) and especially South Korea. Before coming to Japan, Secretary Hagel was in South Korea and attended a military parade as they worry about aggression from North Korea. However, South Korea refuses to make a military pact with Japan while they do have a military pact with Red China which backs up the North Koreans who attack them regularly and are always threatening to destroy them. Obviously, the attitude of South Korea makes no sense at all either. It is also highly disturbing that, about last year, a survey of South Korean college students found that they considered their #1 enemy to be Japan! They considered North Korea only #2 even though the North attacks them constantly and has tried to destroy them and just as insane they put the United States at #3 even above Red China that sent over a million soldiers to destroy South Korea while the United States was fighting to defend them. Obviously, the United States should uphold the defense treaties to the letter and always stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Japan, a country that has displayed more goodwill and frankly forgiveness than anyone else in the region toward America. That being said, Japan should never depend too much on any outside assistance for national defense and should make military preparedness and national security a top priority in these dangerous times.

PRC and ROK Snub Abe

Once again the most murderous regime in human history, that illegitimate bandit government in Peking that calls itself the People's Republic of China is snubbing the leader of the Japanese government, Prime Minister Abe. There is a big conference coming up and the current dictator of Red China will be meeting with many other Asian leaders but has said they will definitely not be meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Abe. What are they afraid of? Two countries do not have to agree on everything or even like each other just to talk to each other but the Red Chinese must be very frightened of Prime Minister Abe because they are refusing to even speak with him. The reason they give, as usual, is their spurious claim to the Senkaku Islands which belong to Japan. The conference isn't about the island dispute, it would likely not even be mentioned and yet, because Japan doesn't take the ridiculous Chinese claim to the Senkakus seriously, the communist dictator is refusing to even speak to the Prime Minister of Japan. Mr. Abe is likely very relieved by this really. Talking to the dictator of a country that runs slave labor camps and drives over its own people with tanks would be a sacrifice for any civilized person anyway.

However, the bandit government is not alone! The President of the Republic of Korea is refusing to meet or speak with Prime Minister Abe as well. Their reasons are even more convoluted. Red China opposing Japan is not surprising (what is evil will always hate what is good) because China has had a government and ideology ever since the revolution that is opposed to monarchy and traditional Asian values that Japan is based on. The attitude of South Korea, on the other hand, really makes no sense. Both Koreas, it goes without saying, are republics that have an ideology that is totally opposed to Japan as well as the whole history and values of Korea but it really makes no sense that South Korea should be on the same side as Red China in refusing to even speak to the Prime Minister of Japan. Is she afraid of something? It was China that sent hundreds of thousands of troops onto the Korean peninsula to totally destroy the ROK, not Japan, yet South Korea (and North Korea for that matter) side with Red China. In the past, Japan actually fought a war to end Chinese rule over Korea. Perhaps they just like being ruled by the Chinese and that's all there is to it. Who knows? With Red China and North Korea, both communist dictatorships who want to destroy all non-communist countries and dominate all their neighbors, South Korea and the ROC on Taiwan should be coming together with Japan for mutual cooperation. Will that happen? Probably not, at least not until these illegitimate republics start behaving sensibly.

The Senkaku Islands Dispute

Recently, tensions have been raised dramatically between the State of Japan and the People’s Republic of China (as well as the Republic of China on Taiwan to a lesser extent) over a small group of rocky, uninhabited islands known in Japan as the Senkaku islands and as the Diaoyu islands in China. Unlike other disputes, such as that over the Falkland Islands for example, the Senkakus only recently became a controversial issue and, fortunately, one does not have to go back so far in history to trace the origins of the dispute. That, in itself, however, is something worth giving a moment of consideration. Certainly in Japan it is not seen as merely coincidence that the two Chinese republics only decided to lay claim to these minor islands after evidence of mineral resources was found in their vicinity, and after Japan had adopted a constitution that embraced pacifism and after the American occupation of Japan had ended. In other words, the Chinese republics only “discovered” that the Senkaku islands had “always” belonged to China after they learned they might be worth something and after the point when their claim would have meant a dispute with the United States rather than an officially pacifist Japan. As with the earlier case looked at, it should be made clear at the outset that the Chinese claim is blatantly ridiculous and there should be no doubt that the Senkaku islands are Japanese sovereign territory. So, how did this dispute come to be? Let us take a look at some history first.

Almost every territorial dispute involving Japan essentially comes down to an effort by the neighboring republics to change historical events that were disadvantageous to them following the defeat of Japan in World War II. For the most part, the Chinese claim that the Senkakus were a part of the Great Ming Empire, arguing that they were either a part of Taiwan or a part of the Okinawa-based Ryukyu kingdom which was a vassal of China (and a vassal of a Japanese daimyo at much the same time). One should keep in mind that Red China has used a similar argument to lay claim to other foreign, non-Chinese lands in the past. For example, because Tibet and Mongolia were vassals of the Manchu emperors, communist China claimed Tibet and Mongolia to be “Chinese”. Tibet was occupied and no doubt Mongolia would have been as well were it not already a part of the Soviet Union in all but name at the time. However, what is seldom mentioned is that China refused to deal with any foreign power unless they took the position, at least formally, of being a tributary of the Emperor of China. By that logic, Korea and Vietnam, for example, could both be claimed as “Chinese” territory. However, in the case of the Senkaku islands this is particularly absurd since the islands are unoccupied, have always been unoccupied and China nor Taiwan nor the Ryukyu kingdom never made any effort to formally claim them. They were simply rocks in the ocean that belonged to no one.

The first formal claim on the islands came in 1895 when the Empire of Japan formally incorporated the islands and installed markers on them to clearly show them as being Japanese territory. No other power had ever even attempted to do something similar at any point in the past. In fact, Chinese records dating back to the Ming dynasty clearly show the islands being labeled as non-Chinese territory and more recent Chinese maps and documents list them as belonging to Japan and label them with the Japanese rather than the Chinese names for them. The best China can do is to point to some “discovered” historical maps which show the islands labeled in Chinese. However, these merely prove that the Chinese knew of their existence, not that they were Chinese territory. Furthermore, words alone have never been deemed enough to lay claim to a territory. One can claim to own anything in the world but unless some effort is made to actually possess such a territory, the claim is meaningless. Recently, the Chinese republics have become quite adept at finding historical maps that show just about everything around them as belonging to China. Thankfully, these are all meaningless to the current dispute as they do not take into account the many international agreements and treaties made in the intervening centuries. After all, there are historical maps which show Florida belonging to Spain, most of France belonging to England or Poland belonging to Russia yet they have no bearing on the current legal status of any of these places.

Realistically, the Chinese are forced to deal with this fact and so tend to argue their case based on the Treaty of San Francisco which a defeated Japan was forced to sign by the victorious Allies after World War II. In this treaty Japan was forced to renounce Taiwan and all the islands belonging to it, basically undoing the Treaty of Shimonoseki in which Taiwan became a Japanese colony following the Japanese defeating China in the First Sino-Japanese War. However, as stated above, the Senkakus had never belonged to Taiwan and so were not part of the lands handed over to China according to the Treaty of San Francisco. In fact, by that same treaty, the Senkakus were clearly designated as a part of Japan and thus came under the jurisdiction of the occupying forces of the United States, grouped as part of the Ryukyu Islands and the Chinese never objected or protested at all to this assertion at the time. This is significant, because the Chinese did make other objections to the treaty concerning territory they wished to claim. China was not represented at the San Francisco meeting because there was a civil war going on and no one could decide which side to invite; the United States wanted to invite the nationalists and the United Kingdom wanted to invite the communists so neither side ended up attending. The Chinese protested, however, claiming the Paracel, Spratly and Pratas island groups as their own but said nothing about the Senkakus.

In fact, as late as 1969 officially Chinese documents still listed the Senkakus as Japanese territory. During the American occupation, U.S. forces even used a couple of the islands as a bombing range for American aircraft and yet, during all that time, China raised no protest. Surely, if they truly believed these islands were Chinese territory, they would have at least raised their voices slightly when they were being bombed by American aircraft, but, not a sound was heard. The situation only began to change in 1969 (the same year the Chinese still say the Senkakus belong to Japan) when the UN identified potential oil and natural gas reserves in the area surrounding the Senkaku Islands. Suddenly, as if by a miracle, the bandit government in Peking became interested. Yet, they still said nothing until 1972. What happened in 1972? Purely by coincidence I am sure, this is when the United States ended its occupation of the Ryukyu Islands, including the Senkakus, handing them back over to Japan (the Allied occupation of Japan having ended in 1952). So it was only then, once oil and natural gas had been discovered and after the United States was no longer responsible for the area, that the Chinese republics suddenly announced to the world that the Senkaku Islands had “always” been Chinese.

天皇陛下萬歲!

The idea that anyone at all could be taken in by such blatantly dishonest and self-serving tactics is, frankly, astounding. Regardless of what any historical Chinese maps label the islands, the facts are these: the only country to ever actually make a physical claim on the Senkaku Islands is Japan, the only country to ever actually occupy the Senkaku Islands (in a short-lived business venture) was Japan and before the UN discovered potential oil and gas reserves in the area there was no disagreement at all that the Senkaku Islands belonged to anyone other than Japan. The fact that these were Japanese islands and did not belong to China (or Taiwan) was made clear by their being included in the U.S. occupation of Japan and in subsequent defensive treaties between the United States of America and the State of Japan, the Senkaku Islands were clearly included as Japanese sovereign territory just as Chinese official records show the islands as belonging to Japan right up until China thought they might be worth something. One would also be foolish not to view this dispute in context since Red China has similar disputes with many other neighbors, particularly in the Southeast Asia area concerning islands in the South China Sea, all of which China suddenly took an interest in when oil and/or natural gas deposits were found to be in the area. Similar disputes involve the Chinese republics with The Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei all because China has discovered mineral deposits in certain areas. Communist China, ironically enough, has no other motive than the profit motive when it comes to their sudden claim on the Senkaku Islands.