Showing posts with label MOFA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MOFA. Show all posts

Monday, August 3, 2009

Chicks in Stilettos

In the May issue of the conservative monthly Foresight there is an endearing, unattributed article: Female US Defense Department Official Flournoy Seen as Holding Key to US-Japan Alliance.

The magazine says that Japan must pay attention to her "because Flournoy is in charge of the US Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), mandated to be issued in 2010, and the QDR will inevitably affect the formulation of Japan's own National Defense Program Guidelines, slated to be issued at the end of 2010.

Well, that is essentially true. But there must be more. Is the gender of a Defense official always mentioned? To bad the article missed the fact that she has participated in the drafting of previous QDRs.

Wait, she is a key supporter of US Defense Secretary Robert Gates. He "has already proposed "changes" that will cut part of the US missile defense program and cancel the additional procurement of the F-22, a candidate to be Japan's next generation mainstay fighter plane, setting a difficult path for the Japanese government. Flournoy is considered to be a leading supporter of Gates' vision for defense."

OMG, she is Gate's handmaiden from Hell!

Japan's Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry have no choice but to work with Flournoy. However, a senior MOD official says: "Since Japan is low in America's priorities, the response of the US side has been sluggish."

Not only is Japan shunted aside, it is being done so slowly, by a women. Next thing you know, she is going to turn up in Tokyo wearing her version of Condi's stiletto boots.

A senior MOFA official could not conceal his anxiety and told Foresight that "Although her demeanor is soft and she does not seem like a strategist, if we make a mistake in how we deal with her, it could become an impediment in US-Japan negotiations."

Chicks, you just can't figure them out.

But I am now confused. What is it that will please those MOFA boys: stilettos or French maid?

Monday, July 27, 2009

Fashionable
















The world struggles with what to do about Burma and its human rights violations. Currently, the country's ruling generals are holding a Kangaroo court to try Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.

Japan is doing its part. What exactly it is doing, is subject to some debate.

Ms Suu Kyi faces five years in prison if she is convicted of having violated her house arrest when an American man swam to her lakeside home uninvited. Her lawyers are scheduled to deliver their closing arguments on Tuesday. A verdict is expected in two to three weeks or mid-August.

On August 22nd, shortly after the verdict, the Japanese Embassy in Burma along with the Japan Foundation and fashion designer Junko Koshino will hold a fashion show and dinner at the historic Strand Hotel in Burma's former capital, Yangon.

The show is to highlight Japanese lifestyle and culture. It is part of Tokyo's Japan-Mekong cultural exchange year program.

Most consider Japanese statements Burma to be tepid and actions nonexistent. I do not believe Prime Minister Aso has commented and the official spokesman says that Japan "observes the situation with deep concern, and hopes that democratization in Myanmar will be promoted with participation of all the parties concerned and that international community could give a high regard for a general election in 2010."

The designer featured at the former Imperial Army barracks (The Strand), Junko Koshino, is no stranger to contrasting images. The Osaka-born designer's philosophy is summed up by the word taikyoku, which in Japanese means "extreme opposites."

Later: The Court nows says it will issue its verdict on Friday, July 31st.

Still Later: The Court announced on Friday that it will put off the verdict until August 11th. There will be still time for Ms. Suu Kyi to catch the fashion show.

Sunday, July 5, 2009

Between What Friends?

Why would a conservative nationalist, former Japanese Foreign Ministry official reveal a purported state secret that could undermine confidence in the US-Japan Alliance and the ruling LDP?

If this is a way to encourage a Japanese debate on nuclear weapons or to convince the US to sell Japan F-22, it is sure misguided. In reality, it is part of a convoluted Rightist strategy to repeal Article 9 and create a military independent of the United States.

On June 29th, former Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Ryohei Murata asserted that there is a secret written accord between the Japanese and U.S. governments under which Japan approves port calls and passage through Japanese territorial waters by U.S. warships carrying nuclear weapons. He knows this, because as Administrative Vice Minister, it was his job to explain to the foreign minister the contents of an envelope that briefly outlined the agreement. The foreign minister then briefed the prime minister at his discretion.

A wink, nod, and the back of a napkin, that’s Cold War diplomacy for you.

Murata received the envelope containing the secret document from his predecessor. He said the contents were written in Japanese on a single piece of clerical stationery used in the Foreign Ministry in those days. He made no mention of signatures.

When asked why he is now acknowledging the existence of the secret agreement, Murata indicated that he was disturbed by the lies told in the Diet. "Successive administrative vice foreign ministers have conveyed the contents (of the secret agreement) to successive foreign ministers. But they have said in the Diet that nuclear weapons have not been brought [into Japan]. I think that [secrecy] is inappropriate," Murata said.

More inappropriate are Ambassador Murata’s views on the United States. Yes, ambassador, and it is odd that none of the press reports I have read mention that he was ambassador to the United States 1990-1992 and Germany 1992-94. He is not a fan of Americans and has long expressed these views.

In 1985, he co-authored, Between Friends, a book with two other less than enthusiastic Foreign Ministry supporters of the United States: Hiroshi Kitamura and Hisahiko Okazaki. Kitamura who had numerous posts in the US went on to become ambassador to the UK while Okazaki become ambassador to Thailand and then head of the Okazaki Institute that funded and encouraged all the men and research for the Armitage Report.

Murata wrote, and the others agreed, that Americans are "self-centered" and suffer from a "superiority complex" that makes them always "want to blame their problems on the other guy." He also contended that "it is inevitable for Americans to view with a certain amount of alarm a non-white nation rapidly overtaking them" in economic or technological strength.

In case you think that the Ambassador’s views have softened since 1985, you are mistaken. In a March 2002 article (pp67-69) published by the conservative journal Shokun!, Amb. Murata wrote:

Now with the 21st century starting, what the people of Japan need to do is to think and discuss how their nation can become "an ordinary country." This nation must do this because Japan is still "a country out of the ordinary" in spite of the fact that some 55 years have passed since its defeat in World War II.

Even before the war, Japan had been a country out of the ordinary, though in a different sense, and its defeat in the war brought about a change. But the pendulum of the change swung too far in other direction at that time, turning Japan into a country out of the ordinary in a reversed way. There were two major reasons why that happened.

First, the nation was shocked and shaken up tremendously by its very thorough defeat in the war, which was the first defeat in its history.

Second, the United States successfully emasculated Japan by carrying out large-scale and organized mind-control programs on the people of Japan. For instance, while taking steps to make it look that Japanese themselves chose to do so, the United States pushed on Japan a constitution with provisions that banned itself from having combat capabilities to defend itself -- something unprecedented. The United States asserted all the past acts of Japan were evil in the Tokyo trial [of war criminals] that even had lawyers attending. That was another clever case of effectuating mind-control on people. Censors the United States conducted in various forms, the education system it adopted, and interventions it made in domestic affairs were the additional cases of exercising the mind-control on Japanese people. Indeed, it is impossible to cite all the cases of such mind-control actions here.

Anyway, thus was produced the post-war idiosyncrasy of Japan that can be summarized as follows:

First, Japan has turned into an insensitive country that cannot see whether its rights as a sovereign are infringed or not. It turned into a country that was unable to see its national dignity and pride though it was an independent country.

Second, the people of the nation have come to believe that the exercise of force is something very evil and this thinking has made the nation very cowardly.…

The above along with other statements and memberships (he is an active adviser to the Nippon Foundation and a board member of the Japan Education Regeneration League) places Murata with the likes of Okazaki, Tamogami, and others who are sophisticated strategists working together to use any means to engender mistrust between Japan and the U.S. as well as its neighbors. They want to create the political necessity of aggressive rearmament and an independent, nuclear armed defense force. Murata’s declaration, I believe, must be seen as part of a larger campaign to discredit the U.S.-Japan alliance and the Japanese Constitution.

You can argue that the Japanese people do not agree with their goals or ideas, however, these men do have the ability and resources to create a lot of anxiety and doubt among their fellow citizens as well as Japan's allies and neighbors. These old men measure their success by the discord that they can create--if we allow them.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Axis of Weasel

Today, the Japanese Foreign Ministry added more pain and confusion to the Aso Administration by backpedaling on the historic apology its Ambassador to the US gave to the American POWs of Japan barely one month before. Maybe not unexpected, but the sheer public callousness is simply overwhelming.

As you read the press conference below, you will wonder if the Gaimusho bureaucrats understand anything about 21st Century foreign policy. In a terse series of sentences, the Ministry briefer diluted the official nature of the apology carefully delivered by Amb Fujisaki and narrowed his statements to only an issue of Japan-Philippine relations. Somehow the American POWs disappeared. The goodwill generated by this long-sought apology evaporated.

Worse, the spirit of reconciliation and sense of responsibility that the ambassador had worked so hard to foster, imploded at the briefer's podium.

In regard to a possible meeting between PM Aso and a visiting Australian former POW who was a slave laborer in his family's coal mine, the briefer seemed to say that a meeting would be planned with officials from the Foreign Ministry. However, all visitors from the POW delegation featuring Mr. Coombs left Japan this past weekend. And to add insult to injury, the MOFA spokesman implied that the visitors were less than sincere.

But, please read this for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Press Conference by the Deputy Press Secretary Yasuhisa Kawamura (pictured)
25 June, 2009


IV. Questions concerning the POW issue

Q: If other people have any questions directly related to today's issue, I have some completely different questions.

Mr. Kawamura: Any questions, please.

Q: I would like to ask about the POW issues. One, about the official apology, so-called, by Ambassador Fujisaki in the US in the end of May; The apology was a so-called official apology from the Japanese Government, but is it projected only for Bataan and Corregidor? Because he came over to the convention and made the apology. Also, how serious is the Japanese government's thinking about their demand which is educating Japanese young people to know what happened about POWs and also the program exchange inviting them, because Americans were excluded. The program covering Dutch, Australian, British POWs, inviting them to Japan and let them visit camps they used to be in. Those are two questions about the Fujisaki apology.

The second question is about very recently a POW from Australia and the son of a POW from Scotland who were made use of in the Aso mines visited. Prime Minister Aso did not meet them, he refused to meet them. What is the real reason he did not meet them?

Mr. Kawamura: Before I forget, let me start with the last question.

Q: OK.

Mr. Kawamura: Those people visited Tokyo and requested a meeting with Prime Minister Aso. The meeting did not take place. You are asking me about the reasons, but I am not the right person to respond directly to that question, why the meeting did not take place.

Q: But the Ministry of Foreign Affairs offered to meet instead.

Mr. Kawamura: Right, exactly, but unfortunately, this proposed meeting did not take place.

I am going to touch upon the basic stance of the Japanese Government regarding the POWs. All the actions and the Japanese treatment of the POWs should be understood in the context of Japan's post-war announcements which clarify its official stance. As you recall, former Prime Minister Murayama expressed very clearly that we had a sense of remorse and apology for the conducts of what Japan did during World War II.

Regarding the government to government relations, we think that the issues related to World War II have been legally settled.

This stance together with the feeling of the Government and the people of Japan has been expressed by our leaders in the past.

The first question about Ambassador Fujisaki's statement should also be seen from the Japanese Government's fundamental stance concerning the World War II and the apology and feeling of remorse that should be applied to the case of Japan-Philippines relations during World War II. I understand Ambassador Fujisaki expressed his feeling in line with the above mentioned official Japan-Philippines relations.

There are two more questions about Ambassador Fujisaki's case, education and Dutch and other countries' invitation programs, I will come back to you. I need to do some research on this.

Q: About the second question, if the Foreign Minister tried to meet them instead of the Prime Minister...

Mr. Kawamura: The Foreign Ministry, not the Foreign Minister, I think.

Q: The Foreign Ministry, yes. How were you planning to explain to them the reason that you did not prepare any explanation why the Prime Minister could not see them or did not want to see them or whatever? Or did you try to repeat what you have just explained?

Mr. Kawamura: Well, it is really hard for me to predict what exactly happened in the conversation particularly with visitors and our officials. But I want to stress that we like to see those people with sincere minds and that we would be prepared to listen carefully to what they would comment on. I think a sincere dialogue should help retain trust.

Q: May I ask which section is planning to meet them? Who is going to meet them?

Mr. Kawamura: I will come back to you because this issue is related to not one but more than two divisions or bureaus.

Q: It would be very nice if I could know who is going to see them.

Mr. Kawamura: Yes, I will come back to you.

Any other questions? Thank you very much.