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.

Sanctions Restored Against DPRK

Recently the Abe government announced it was restoring the sanctions Japan previously held against the communist dictatorship of North Korea. These had been lifted in July 2014 in a good-will gesture that was supposed to be reciprocated by North Korea investigating the kidnapping of Japanese citizens by North Korea over several decades. Not surprisingly, the investigation has gone nowhere and so, now, the sanctions regime is back in place.

Is anyone really surprised by this? This outcome was to be expected from the very beginning and the only thing that is surprising is that anyone in the Abe administration thought that there would be genuine cooperation from the North Koreans. Did anyone really think that the DPRK would sincerely investigate, admit their wrong-doing, return the kidnapped citizens and punish the perpetrators? Of course not. The DPRK got what it wanted as soon as the sanctions were lifted, so they had no reason at all to cooperate, all they wanted to do was to play for time, keep the process going, in-name-only, for as long as possible so that the sanctions would stay off for as long as possible.

This is similar to the policy of the Obama administration in America towards Iran; lifting the sanctions first and then expecting reciprocity from the Iranians regarding their program to develop nuclear weapons. Once you lift the sanctions, the other side has already won and has no motivation to genuinely cooperate. Closer to home for Japan, this is similar to the previous embarrassment with the sanctions against Russia. Japan did not go along with the sanctions regime in the hope that this good-will gesture would be returned by Russia in some way regarding the Northern Territories issue. Instead, Japan was publicly insulted and then had to play 'catch-up' in joining the other countries in the sanctions. The whole fiasco was very damaging to the image of Japan on the world stage.

To deal with a brutal regime like North Korea, the only policy is one of strength. Although there is plenty of friction in their relationship, the DPRK is too dependent on mainland China for there to ever be a crack in the "bamboo curtain" on that front. At present, there is not much Japan can do but a policy of strength and unity between Japan, the United States and South Korea would go a long way to helping the situation. But, of course, we know the problem there. Real unity does not exist between South Korea and Japan due to continued antagonism and there are factions in all countries that are blatantly or inadvertently helping the Chinese to "divide and conquer". If these forces can be resisted and if the policy of recovery and strengthening in Japan can continue, then Japan will be well placed when the inevitable implosion of mainland China happens to assume a new leadership role in East Asia.

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.

The Image of Japan

Recently The Yomiuri Shimbun ran this article on the efforts of the Abe government to repair the "tarnished" image of Japan in the international community. This is an important issue and not just because of the way other countries think of Japan. That is superficial and on matters of great importance it is often essential not to allow the opinion of others to get in the way of doing what is best for the country. A perfect example is the recent emphasis on national security. It is essential that Japan take all steps necessary to defend against aggression even though it can be expected that some countries will accuse Japan of returning to "militarism". However, what is of vital importance is the reason behind the campaign by some foreign governments, particularly Communist China and South Korea, to spread a negative image of Japan in the rest of the world. There is not much that Japan can do about what China and Korea say; they are foreign countries over which Japan has no control. What the Japanese people can do is to control what they say and how they react.

One important point is to avoid the temptation to do to other countries what China and Korea are doing to Japan because this is self-defeating. The reason is rooted in what drives China and Korea to vilify Japan in the first place. There is a deeper purpose behind campaigns such as that from South Korea to publicize the Comfort Women issue in countries around the world, particularly the United States. Have you ever wondered why Korea would go to the expense of putting up several of the Comfort Women statues in cities across America and place advertisements in major publications accusing Japan of having run a sex-slave operation in World War II? It is not simply to make Japan look bad but to have a real impact on American foreign policy and the foreign policy of other countries where the South Koreans spread and publicize this issue and their false image of Japan. They do it in order to cause division between Japan and those countries which are allied to Japan. That is why the campaign has focused so heavily on the United States, because the United States is the most militarily powerful country in the world and has promised to defend Japan if the country is ever attacked by one of its neighbors. Of those countries closest to Japan; Russia, the two Koreas and China, all have a hostile attitude toward Japan. They also all have territorial disputes with Japan and having been drawing closer together. Any drive to action, however, is problematic because the Japanese Self-Defense Forces are backed up by the United States. Other powers are also friendly with Japan but none have the ability to assist in major military terms like the Americans.

This is the reasoning behind the campaign to smear the reputation of Japan around the world. It is an effort to divide allies and make Japan isolated in the world. Unfortunately, there are those in Japan who are inadvertently helping to make this campaign easier. Already the Chinese and Koreans have used articles or internet videos from Japan talking about Pearl Harbor, bombing raids or the atomic bombs and calling the Americans "war criminals" and condemning not just individuals but the entire country at large. This is no reason for Japan not to defend itself when slandered and the facts should be revealed to all. Japan was not waging an aggressive war, Japan did not want to fight the United States but was forced into it and the Japanese people did suffer horribly from the bombing campaign. However, going further and attacking other countries like the United States, Great Britain, Australia or others does not help and those who do can and have had their words used against Japan by people like the Chinese who are trying to tell all these countries that Japan is not a true friend and ally. They want these countries to believe that nothing has changed since World War II and that Japan hates them all and that they should, like in the war, join with China in opposing Japan. Japanese people should be careful not to mistakenly assist them in this strategy!

It is also important for the Japanese government and society at large, working with the education system, to adopt an official position regarding the war. Of course, not everyone will agree but there should be some more or less widely accepted "official" position for that the majority can support. All too often, the enemies of Japan have been aided by Japanese officials and newspapers who have given contradictory statements from others and their words are then used to attack Japan and tarnish the image of the country in the international community. Examples of this have been all too common and it often seems that, no matter what the issue, from Nanking to Comfort Women, the enemies of Japan are always able to produce some Japanese people to corroborate their version of events which casts Japan in the worst light possible. Obviously, this cannot be made a matter of law or Japan would cease to be a free country but it can be the subject of social pressure so that everyone will know that those who slander their country will not be well-received in society. So, as we have talked about before, Japan has to make some decisions; decisions about a standard response to the accusations made concerning the war and decisions about whether Japan wants to keep existing allies or make more enemies based on issues of the past. For the image of Japan to be polished and defended in the international community, these decisions will have to be made and the sooner the better because the enemies of Japan are unrelenting in their efforts.

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.

Japan: After Obama

I want to direct these comments specifically to the people of a monarchy near and dear to my heart: 日本 (Japan). President of the United States Barack Obama just visited the “Land of the Rising Sun” and I’m sure everyone is still exhilarated in the afterglow of such a brush with celebrity, especially when, for the first time ever, the President of the United States actually stated specifically that the Senkaku Islands were covered by the treaty which requires the United States to fight in defense of Japan if Japanese territory is ever attacked by a foreign power. First of all, I do not mean to diminish such a statement. I am certainly glad that it was made and can only say it should have been made much sooner but, better late than never as the saying goes. There is nothing I want more than for the United States and Japan to be fast friends and close allies. The assurance from Obama means that if the People’s Kleptomaniac Republic of Chinese Sweatshop Workers tries to seize the Senkaku Islands, the United States will assist Japan in defending and/or recovering that part of Japanese sovereign territory. Well, almost, that is to say, more or less because President Obama also said that the United States does not take a position on the issue of the sovereignty dispute over the islands between Japan and Red China. After all, the last thing you want to do is make your banker angry with you.

Wait a minute, WHAT?! So, everyone is all excited because President Obama, almost in the same breath, said that the Senkakus are included in the U.S.-Japanese defense treaty but that the United States does not take sides in the dispute over who actually holds sovereignty over those islands? Surely this must be some mistake! Surely, our brilliant, Harvard-educated President did not just pledge to go to war on behalf of a few islands without first being sure where he stands on who exactly is the rightful owner of said islands -right? You see, Japan, this is why it doesn’t do to get too excited over President Obama. Again, I am glad he gave an assurance on support in the Senkakus issue, it is certainly better if he had given none at all. However, his assurance rings rather hollow when he cannot even say that the United States, under his administration, is taking the side of its ally Japan over Maoist China in regards to the dispute that is at the heart of the matter. Remember, this is the same man who had Chairman Mao’s face emblazoned on his Christmas tree ornaments. This is the man whose former communications director was Anita Dunn who said that Chairman Mao was one of the two people she admired most. This is the President who named Ron Bloom his “manufacturing czar” who said that, “We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun”. Be happy, but do not be too trusting of this President.

Just for a little parallel, remember how excited everyone was when President Obama named Caroline Kennedy the U.S. Ambassador to Japan? Sure, she didn’t have any diplomatic experience, had never lived in Japan and has no understanding of the Japanese language but, it’s CAROLINE KENNEDY! Her dad was President! Remember all the crowds cheering and waving when she arrived, all the excited people singing “Sweet Caroline” as she went to the Imperial Palace to present her credentials? Yes, that was fun, but how did that work out? Ambassador Kennedy said her top priority was to promote more feminism in Japan because there are not enough women serving in the Japanese government (and trust me, she did not mean that she wished Madame Yuko Tojo had been elected) as if that is any of her business and as if her job was not to represent the President of the United States in Japan but to spread American-style feminist “equality” amongst the less “progressive” Japanese! But that was just the beginning. She then went on to be the first U.S. Ambassador to express “disappointment” at Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visiting the Yasukuni Shrine, again, as if it is any of her business or that of her country or any other country where the political leader of Japan goes to pray. Later she stuck her nose in local matters again by calling the traditional dolphin hunt in Taiji as an example of “inhumaneness” and later still she had her embassy staff release an official statement condemning the comments made by the new governors of the NHK. What do all of these have in common? They all were none of her business and had nothing to do with the United States or American-Japanese relations, yet she decided to sit in judgment of the people of Japan on every one of them.

She still gets the celebrity treatment of course and maybe, having no diplomatic experience, she just didn’t understand that these were things she should not have done. Then again, maybe this is all some passive-aggressive way of taking revenge on the Japanese for sinking her father’s PT Boat in World War II -I don’t know. The point is that the Obama administration should not be gushed over in regards to its relationship with Japan. President Obama has something of a track record when it comes to traditional American allies and it is not one to inspire a great deal of confidence. This is the President who told the State of Israel that it should return to its pre-1967 borders, who sided with the pro-Hugo Chavez socialist dictator of Honduras in his seizure of power, who shook hands with Chavez while spurning traditional allies like Colombia and Honduras, who took down the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic (which they agreed to at considerable risk to themselves) in order to placate Mr. Putin in Russia (didn’t work out so good did it?) signed on the anniversary of the invasion of Poland no less. And, this is the man who handed over the serial numbers for the British Trident missiles to the Russians, selling out the United Kingdom which had been the closest ally the United States has had in recent years.

I bring this up not to cast doubt on Japanese-American friendship, that is the last thing I would want to do. In a survey last year, 81% of Americans had a positive view of Japan and 69% of Japanese people have a favorable view of the United States (which is considerable given that foreign countries as well as elements on both the far-left and right in Japan often try to spread division between Japan and America). The two countries have a good relationship and I want that to continue. I bring this up only because one must take politics into consideration and differentiate between the American people and the American government (something difficult for all peoples around the world to do most of the time) and because I don’t want Japan to get too carried away by any reassurances of support from President Obama. Just because Obama said that the Senkaku Islands are included in the Japan-US security pact does not mean that Japan should not continue to persevere in the campaign to amend Article 9. The American public (if not the government) is leaning more and more heavily these days back in the direction of isolation and the best thing Japan can do for the sake of security is to be grateful and appreciate for any American support but to strengthen itself and build-up the Japanese Self-Defense forces as if no such agreement existed. In the event of any trouble, I hope the United States would be there to help and it probably will be but one should always hope for the best and prepare for the worst and no country should depend exclusively on the protection of another. Governments change, politicians come and go and what one administration does, another can un-do.

Numerous Presidents of the United States promised their staunch support for South Vietnam in the fight against communist aggression in Southeast Asia. The last to do so was Republican President Nixon in 1972. Yet, only the following year, in June 1973, after the Democrats had taken control of Congress, the Case-Church Amendment was passed with sufficient votes to override a veto by the Republican President, and all military assistance to South Vietnam was cut off. The Americans went home and the communists rolled into Saigon not long after. There are other examples that could be cited but the overriding point is that, in any crisis, nothing should be taken for granted. Happily (and honestly, somewhat to my surprise) the Obama administration has been positive about Japan taking a more direct role in its own national security matters. So, I say take that ball and run with it! Amend Article 9, strengthen the country and restore a strong and proud Japan that would be happy to have American assistance but hopefully, would not require it.

Again, it was better than nothing, but the statement could have been much stronger and less ambiguous. Americans, and particularly the men and women of the American military, should be much more upset by this. Look at it from their perspective; their commander-in-chief just said that they might be called upon to fight and die for a cause that he will not even take a solid stand on! When Obama says he takes no side in the sovereignty dispute, one would not be unjustified in asking how on earth he could expect the military to put their lives on the line for the issue. What he is saying is that, Japan might be right but then again China might be right too. That seems a pretty flimsy position to potentially go to war over and I am surprised the reaction to this sort of double-talk has not been stronger. As I have covered before, in my opinion there should be no dispute at all, the islands clearly belong to Japan and the United States government should come out and say that with no equivocation. If troubles do arise, with the treaty in place and generally good relations prevailing between Washington and Tokyo, I trust that the United States would be prepared to assist. My ideal scenario, however, would be for Japan to be strong enough and assertive enough to tell America in such a crisis, “Thanks, but we got this”.

Poll on Constitutional Reform

Recently the (probably biased) NHK Broadcasting Culture Research Institute published the results of a poll taken across Japan to gauge public support for constitutional reform. The results were not very encouraging. While 41% said reform or amendment was necessary, compared to only 24% who said it was not, however, when it came to Article 9, the statistics were almost exactly reversed. Of those questioned, 41% said that amending Article 9 was not necessary compared to only 24% who think it is. Most still cling to the ideal of a pacifist constitution and worry that foreign intervention could get out of hand. This shows a lack of self-esteem on the part of many people and a lack of trust between the civilian and Self-Defense spheres of the country. Some amendment of Article 9 is not only necessary but is becoming increasingly urgent.

The biggest problem is not that Japan is disallowed from participating in international military operations (although these would help the JSDF to gain valuable experience) but is rather the was in which Japan is legally obliged to allow an enemy to strike the first blow before defensive counter-measures can be taken. Under the current laws, Japan can only act in self-defense if an enemy directly attacks Japan. As all students of kendo know, allowing your enemy the freedom to make the first strike, knowing that you can do nothing to stop them until the blade falls, is a terrible mistake. If the first strike is powerful enough, it may be impossible to recover from. Given the strength and hostility of Communist China, this is a risk that Japan cannot afford to take. Hopefully, as according to past agreements, the United States would rush to assist Japan in such a crisis, but that should not be taken for granted. Serious consideration must also be given to the fact that the isolationist position is growing quite strong in the United States lately.

The uncomfortable fact is that Japan has an old and shrinking population but remains quite advanced and prosperous. Communist China, on the other hand, has a huge population but one that is terribly imbalanced. They also have a rapidly growing economy but also one that is highly volatile and subject to manipulation. In other words, China is very big, very dangerous and in both economic and demographic terms (because of the female to male imbalance) is approaching a crisis. When that happens, the small, aging but prosperous State of Japan would be an inviting target. This is something that must be given serious consideration and for a country which has the largest army and air force in the world, a rapidly expanding navy and a nuclear arsenal, it is extremely dangerous to allow them to be able to freely strike the first blow against Japan before any action could be taken. There are many constitutional changes that are needed but amending Article 9 should be considered of paramount importance and the public must be educated as to why this is so.

Fair Weather Friends in Virginia

I have been to the Commonwealth of Virginia a number of times. It is a beautiful state with a great history and, for the most part, very nice people. However, in recent years, Virginia has been changing rather dramatically. The people and subsequently the politics and the values of Virginia have been changing and are extremely different from what they used to be. Because of some of these changes, the Virginia government now finds itself in a difficult position and, so far, neither side of the political divide has been showing much good character. It starts with the fact that, in recent years, Virginia has become home to a rather large number of Korean immigrants and Korean-Americans. As with many such people, they are extremely zealous in their patriotic attachment to the Republic of Korea though, obviously, not so attached that they would live there and no prefer the United States of America. In comparison, very few Japanese immigrants or Japanese-Americans live in the state of Virginia. Because of this, the Korean community has become more vocal and the Korean point-of-view has tended to dominate and this is reaching a point that is may become detrimental to Japan and to the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Recently, both the Republican and Democrat candidates for Governor of Virginia promised that, if elected, they would pass a law requiring textbooks in Virginia to rename the Sea of Japan as the "East Sea" as it is called in Korea because it is east of Korea and because they don't like the name "Japan" appearing anywhere. Both candidates promised to do this in order to win the votes of the large Korean community in Virginia. As it turns out, the Democrat candidate, Terry McAuliffe, a long-time friend of the Clintons and former Chairman of the Democratic Party, won the election and the bill was soon brought up to a vote and passed the state senate changing the name of the Sea of Japan to the "East Sea" in Virginia textbooks. The Korean community cheered but the Japanese government was understandably disturbed. It had never been an issue before, so why was it now? The fact that the textbooks, like most every map in the world, said "Sea of Japan" was not such a problem that the Koreans did not still come and move into Virginia in large numbers. The Japanese Ambassador wrote to Governor McAuliffe warning him that this could harm Japan-Virginia relations and this is no small issue. Japan has been very generous toward Virginia and is the second-largest source of foreign investment in the state. Some 250 Japanese-owned companies operate in Virginia and employ some 13,000 Virginians according to the 2012 numbers. Japan is also a major customer of Virginia goods with Japan buying $475 million worth of Virginia products in 2012. In the last five years Japan has invested over a billion dollars in Virginia. Japan is the 12th largest buyer of goods from Virginia farmers whereas South Korea is only 30th on the list. And, whereas Japan is the second largest foreign investor in Virginia, Korea doesn't even make the top 20.

Fearing a financial backlash to the economy, Governor McAuliffe secretly tried to kill the bill but his political enemies will not let it die and want to force him to make a decision. The Koreans do as well and the Republican Party is hoping that, no matter how things go, the dithering of McAuliffe will allow them to gain the support of Korean voters in the next election. The question now is what Governor McAuliffe will do. Obviously, Japan has been a great friend to the Commonwealth of Virginia, a major business partner and a good customer. Japan has provided investment and many good jobs to the people of Virginia but now all of that is threatened because of politicians pandering to a vocal minority group. The question is whether or not Governor McAuliffe will put the welfare of Virginia and all its people first or will he care more about the electoral prospects of the Democrat Party and cave in to the pressure from the Korean community. Will Virginia be only a fair weather friend of Japan? We must wait and see...

When a Prime Minister Prays

China and Korea are throwing a tantrum again. Why is it this time? Because, in keeping with tradition, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited the Yasukuni Shrine to pray for the souls of all those who gave their lives in the service of HM the Emperor and the nation of Japan and, as we have already established, these countries do not believe anyone in Japan should have freedom of religion, the freedom to worship how and where they choose. This is a freedom they claim to give their own people (in the case of China a largely false claim) but they do not think it should be allowed in Japan. Why is this? Because, as the Chinese and Korean republics tell their own people and as most of the biased news media of the world reports it, they say that the shrine honors "war criminals". Of course, that is absurd. The shrine honors all who gave their lives, it was not built just to honor war criminals. It is true that some of those whose names are listed there among the dead are some who were convicted as war criminals by the Allied forces after World War II. But if people would educate themselves, they would see that this is not so simple. After all, we have already detailed how men like General Yamashita and General Homma were falsely executed for war crimes, blamed for atrocities they did not order or even know about and both men who fought honorably and did everything they could to treat friend and foe alike humanely. Even if one considers someone like General Hideki Tojo just consider that he was executed for the crime of "waging aggressive war" in violation of international law -except that there was no such international law at the time these events happened and if waging an aggressive war makes someone a war criminal then all of the Allied countries would be guilty as well. Those quick to take offense should also remember that many Koreans and even Chinese are also honored in the Yasukuni Shrine because they served alongside the Imperial Japanese forces in the war as well. China and Korea should stop trying to twist the facts and distort history just to encourage prejudice and bigotry against Japan. Especially in Korea, this is a time when all neighbors of Communist China are in increasing danger and should be coming together in mutual support. PM Abe has said he wants peace and has reached out to achieve it only to have his hand slapped away. As long as goodwill is met with such distortions and hostility, Japan has no other choice that to guard her own security carefully.