I have to admit that no major writer on things Japanese attracts my interest more than Karl van Wolferen. Since I first read his book, The Enigma of Japanese Power, in about 1992/93, I have always thought that what he writes just fits since it matches what I have seen and experienced here. I suppose that means he is all wrong.
His latest Japan Focus article was tremendously interesting. I was especially intrigued by his opinions about the US and its vision of Japan. I would say that there should be nothing radical about his thoughts as everything has been out in the open at least since the Futenma mess began. Did it not seem absurd that such a thing would cause a "crisis" in "the most important bilateral relationship in the world--bar none"? Did it not seem even more absurd since the US had a new, more internationally aware president than the old with us or agin' us fellow? Karl has certainly put the parts together so very well, as he always does.
The only thing that I would emphasize is that we do have to remember that Japan made the choice to submit its sovereignty in international affairs and defense back in the 60s.** And it benefited mightily from it---at least economically---in the short-term. There are other possible, but unprovable benefits too. Had Japan needed to provide fully for its own defense and foreign policy, would it have been a nuclear weapons free "peace country" today? What if some of the more extreme fringes had gotten into power? Would they have tempered their loud-mouths knowing that there weren't foreign watchdogs to provide cover for them? Or would they have acted on their words? If so, how would things have turned out?
On the other hand, had this perverted arrangement not been in place, would Japanese citizens have been more involved in politics knowing that the country would have to face the full consequences of military or diplomatic missteps? Could it have been a much more democratic country earlier? Then again, was any of this directly the business of the US?
Times have changed and the fact that Japan sold its soul for short-term benefit is no longer seen as so beneficial by many. Unfortunately, that does not seem to include those running the show in the US.
Previously, I had believed that if Japan really wanted to have an "equal relationship," or at least get out of the submissive role it placed itself in, it would do it. However, as we have seen since the DPJ came into power, and as mentioned in the article, things aren't that simple. The US can intimidate Japan (again, Japan is not blameless for putting itself in a position to be intimidated) and influence politicians through citizens and seems very willing to do it where security is concerned (less so where economic/trade issues are concerned. Wonder why?). Why else would the polls show so many Japanese concerned about Hatoyama's handling of Futenma? And we know that the US expected citizens to pressure the government---at least that was what I felt earlier this year when reading some of the US statements. Many seemed confident that Hatoyama would back down because of public reaction.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety: Attributed to Ben Franklin. Perhaps Prime Minister Yoshida should have considered that before committing to his "doctrine."
*I read some of the amazon.com reviews of his book several years ago and discovered he actually knows nothing. A Japanese professor has refuted all of his claims. So has a fellow I once knew personally, although he was never exactly specific about anything, except that only fools believed van Wolferen. Cool. The fool's view of Japan seems more accurate than any of the others.
**Apologies for the Wikipedia link. The Yoshida Doctrine (PM Shigeru Yoshida) should be easy to confirm elsewhere on the web, or, god-forbid, in a book or something.
Edited for corrections at 2030 and again later.
Showing posts with label "for security". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "for security". Show all posts
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Monday, December 01, 2008
Fingerprintin' them thar furriners
Over the last few days, the government and media have been reporting that last year's law requiring all non-Japanese (including permanent residents) to be fingerprinted when entering or re-entering Japan, has been a success as it has kept 800-odd "undesirables" out of Japan.
The law was controversial when passed, as many---permanent residents in particular---were angered and offended. Too bad, said the government (and most others, including many non-Japanese) it's for safety and security and it stays.
So where did all this fingerprinting of non-Japanese begin? We all know that it was done to ethnic Koreans for decades until the law was rescinded mainly due to their protests in the 80s. While reading Mark E. Caprio's article in Japan Focus I found this interesting little tidbit:
...in May 1947, just months prior to SCAP’s January 1948 announcement that Koreans would be treated as “Japanese nationals,” SCAP reversed course by subjecting Japan-based Koreans and Taiwanese to its Alien Registration Ordinance. Mirrored after the U.S. Alien Registration Act of 1940, it required all non-Japanese over the age of 14 to register their alien status and carry with them at all times their alien registration passbook. It further stipulated that violators would face deportation. This legislation served as the forerunner for the more comprehensive Alien Registration Act of 1952 that introduced mandatory fingerprinting of foreign residents. See Japan Focus: The Cold War explodes in Kobe---the 1948 Korean Ethnic School "Riots" and the US Occupation Authorities.
I suppose the Japanese government of the time could have objected to Dugout Doug, SCAP, and Uncle Sam, but they didn't. Just like today, when the US passes tougher laws controlling foreign visitors or residents, Japan rarely declines adopting a similar law because of moral reasons as long as it citizens (or industries) are not affected. .
The law was controversial when passed, as many---permanent residents in particular---were angered and offended. Too bad, said the government (and most others, including many non-Japanese) it's for safety and security and it stays.
So where did all this fingerprinting of non-Japanese begin? We all know that it was done to ethnic Koreans for decades until the law was rescinded mainly due to their protests in the 80s. While reading Mark E. Caprio's article in Japan Focus I found this interesting little tidbit:
...in May 1947, just months prior to SCAP’s January 1948 announcement that Koreans would be treated as “Japanese nationals,” SCAP reversed course by subjecting Japan-based Koreans and Taiwanese to its Alien Registration Ordinance. Mirrored after the U.S. Alien Registration Act of 1940, it required all non-Japanese over the age of 14 to register their alien status and carry with them at all times their alien registration passbook. It further stipulated that violators would face deportation. This legislation served as the forerunner for the more comprehensive Alien Registration Act of 1952 that introduced mandatory fingerprinting of foreign residents. See Japan Focus: The Cold War explodes in Kobe---the 1948 Korean Ethnic School "Riots" and the US Occupation Authorities.
I suppose the Japanese government of the time could have objected to Dugout Doug, SCAP, and Uncle Sam, but they didn't. Just like today, when the US passes tougher laws controlling foreign visitors or residents, Japan rarely declines adopting a similar law because of moral reasons as long as it citizens (or industries) are not affected. .
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Security in Bush's America
I am not so sure that the US is safer than before even with all the power that the US government has taken for itself to spy on its own citizens.
Seven years after anthrax was sent through the US mail and killed several people, Uncle Sam investigated and smeared the wrong guy before grudgingly sort of admitting that maybe it may have possibly been less that perfectly correct about him. They admitted this after another scientist whom they were sure was the killer committed suicide which means that the FBI will never have to prove its latest suspicions in court, so we'll just have to trust them. Gee this is even better than the military trials at Guantanamo.
The new suspect---now assumed guilty without trial---had indications of mental problems for years. He may have been a stalker, he admitted being paranoid, he bought a gun (while under FBI surveillance and investigation) and threatened mass murder. Then, again while under government surveillance, he killed himself.
No doubt that the way to greater security is to trade a little freedom for it. Some naysayer once said that folks who do that deserve neither and will ultimately lose both. However, he had some skeletons in his own closest which would negate the validity of anything he said, according to some.
Seven years after anthrax was sent through the US mail and killed several people, Uncle Sam investigated and smeared the wrong guy before grudgingly sort of admitting that maybe it may have possibly been less that perfectly correct about him. They admitted this after another scientist whom they were sure was the killer committed suicide which means that the FBI will never have to prove its latest suspicions in court, so we'll just have to trust them. Gee this is even better than the military trials at Guantanamo.
The new suspect---now assumed guilty without trial---had indications of mental problems for years. He may have been a stalker, he admitted being paranoid, he bought a gun (while under FBI surveillance and investigation) and threatened mass murder. Then, again while under government surveillance, he killed himself.
No doubt that the way to greater security is to trade a little freedom for it. Some naysayer once said that folks who do that deserve neither and will ultimately lose both. However, he had some skeletons in his own closest which would negate the validity of anything he said, according to some.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Endemic surveillance societies
How does Japan compare as far as spying on its own citizens goes? Not as bad as some may think, at least according to Privacy International's 2007 Privacy Rating.
Japan is rated as having "Systematic failure to uphold safeguards." But that isn't so bad if you consider George Bush's USA, or Britain, Russia, or China and a few others. They are rated as "Endemic surveillance societies."
From the ranking:
Japan:
*The US is no longer "considering" this change in law to give immunity to phone companies. It passed last month with the help of Senator "Change" Obama who originally opposed it.
Japan is rated as having "Systematic failure to uphold safeguards." But that isn't so bad if you consider George Bush's USA, or Britain, Russia, or China and a few others. They are rated as "Endemic surveillance societies."
From the ranking:
Japan:
- No explicit right to privacy in constitution though Supreme Court has interpreted a substantial right as falling under Article 13 on right to life an liberty
- No comprehensive privacy law, instead only guidelines for specific industries; and some legislation in some sectors
- Government created a privacy seal, but serious shortcomings have been identified
- Judicial warrants for interception, and warrants only last ten days initially, though application appears to be overly broad and abuses have emerged
- Surveillance cameras continue to spread despite constitutional issue, though at least one ward has enacted an ordinance to limit rapid increase of cameras
- Tagging and tracking of children continues
- Genetic test abuses across country, and only guidelines have been released to deal with the problem
- Developing DNA database though court order is required to take DNA samples
- Resident registration law; extensive legal activity at the moment with court cases outstanding
- Extensive data breach problems
- Only second country to implement vast biometric collection at borders
- Ratified convention on Cybercrime
- No right to privacy in constitution, though search and seizure protections exist in 4th Amendment; case law on government searches has considered new technology
- No comprehensive privacy law, many sectoral laws; though tort of privacy
- FTC continues to give inadequate attention to privacy issues, though issued self-regulating privacy guidelines on advertising in 2007
- State-level data breach legislation has proven to be useful in identifying faults in security
- REAL-ID and biometric identification programs continue to spread without adequate oversight, research, and funding structures
- Extensive data-sharing programs across federal government and with private sector
- Spreading use of CCTV
- Congress approved presidential program of spying on foreign communications over U.S. networks, e.g. Gmail, Hotmail, etc.; and now considering immunity for telephone companies, while government claims secrecy, thus barring any legal action*
- No data retention law as yet, but equally no data protection law
- World leading in border surveillance, mandating trans-border data flows
- Weak protections of financial and medical privacy; plans spread for 'rings of steel' around cities to monitor movements of individuals
- Democratic safeguards tend to be strong but new Congress and political dynamics show that immigration and terrorism continue to leave politicians scared and without principle
- Lack of action on data breach legislation on the federal level while REAL-ID is still compelled upon states has shown that states can make informed decisions
- Recent news regarding FBI biometric database raises particular concerns as this could lead to the largest database of biometrics around the world that is not protected by strong privacy law
*The US is no longer "considering" this change in law to give immunity to phone companies. It passed last month with the help of Senator "Change" Obama who originally opposed it.
Friday, August 01, 2008
For Security. Trust us.
While the Japanese government can go overboard protecting us from terrorists (well, foreign terrorists. Well, foreigners anyway.) it is still far behind Uncle Sam, the beacon of freedom and individual rights throughout the world---thanks to Boy George and also to all of the Republicans and Democrats who bitch and moan then support him anyway. They must know something that we don't and like a free and open gubbermint, they ain't gonna share that info with us in order to protect us.
The Department of Homeland Security may now confiscate your laptop or any other electronic device which is capable of holding information in digital or analog form and do so without any suspicion of wrongdoing. This is necessary to preserve freedom in the freest country on earth. In fact, any move to restrict the ability of government employees to freely do whatever they want would, in the words of the freedom-loving Homeland Security Secretary, "have a dangerous, chilling effect as officers' often split-second assessments are second-guessed."*
I agree. Now if it weren't for that pesky US Bill of Rights, we could just allow unwarranted searches at the whim of any government official anywhere in the USA at anytime. Thank goodness that the Bill of Rights does NOT apply at border entry points to the US.
The USA does not discriminate against non-citizens with this policy. They will treat everyone equally---like common sh*t if they so desire.
Let's see. You get off of your 11 hour overseas flight to the US. You are a bit tired and touchy after being sardined in a tin tube at 40,000 feet eating the delicious airline food. (Do they still serve it, or are we getting 3 peanuts now?)
Your friendly, polite, customs officer comes up to you to ask you questions to determine if a sleazeball like you should be allowed into the US. Your US citizenship means nothing yet. Not a citizen? Look sorta Middle-Eastern? No problem. He or she asks you several idiotic questions scientifically designed to determine if you are a threat to all that is 'merican. "What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?" (Joking, Little Bush's "Justice" Department asks that only of potential employees.) You get a bit irritated and give a reply which does not show proper respect for your bureaucrat questioner, "I admire absolute morons who achieve high office and then attempt to dismantle the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights and are successful at doing so with the support of supposed political opposition."
Wrong move. Your friendly Customs Officer cannot do a lot just because you have not worshiped him/her or Georgy properly, but he or she can take that $5000 dSLR camera that you foolishly brought with you and send it off for an unlimited period to be analyzed for terrorist plans, child porn, photos of plants that may be drugs, or grandma in her undies. Don't worry, your cooperation will rid the world of evil.
Of course, that sort of abuse would never happen. Customs officers are professionals. They are specially selected and trained so that they would never let peevish human emotions cloud their fairness and adherence to the law. Except in this case---they are adhering to the law.
Think Obama or McCain will change this policy if it is still in effect after the election? Of course. You can tell by their vigorous and unrelenting protests concerning the excesses of the Boy George "for security" policies.
*What could possibly be "split-second" about deciding whether or not one has a suspicion of wrong-doing?
(Edited again as neither I nor Blogger spellcheck can spell and I always think of something else after posting the first time. I too, hope to achieve higher office.)
Related article at reason.com.
The Department of Homeland Security may now confiscate your laptop or any other electronic device which is capable of holding information in digital or analog form and do so without any suspicion of wrongdoing. This is necessary to preserve freedom in the freest country on earth. In fact, any move to restrict the ability of government employees to freely do whatever they want would, in the words of the freedom-loving Homeland Security Secretary, "have a dangerous, chilling effect as officers' often split-second assessments are second-guessed."*
I agree. Now if it weren't for that pesky US Bill of Rights, we could just allow unwarranted searches at the whim of any government official anywhere in the USA at anytime. Thank goodness that the Bill of Rights does NOT apply at border entry points to the US.
The USA does not discriminate against non-citizens with this policy. They will treat everyone equally---like common sh*t if they so desire.
Let's see. You get off of your 11 hour overseas flight to the US. You are a bit tired and touchy after being sardined in a tin tube at 40,000 feet eating the delicious airline food. (Do they still serve it, or are we getting 3 peanuts now?)
Your friendly, polite, customs officer comes up to you to ask you questions to determine if a sleazeball like you should be allowed into the US. Your US citizenship means nothing yet. Not a citizen? Look sorta Middle-Eastern? No problem. He or she asks you several idiotic questions scientifically designed to determine if you are a threat to all that is 'merican. "What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?" (Joking, Little Bush's "Justice" Department asks that only of potential employees.) You get a bit irritated and give a reply which does not show proper respect for your bureaucrat questioner, "I admire absolute morons who achieve high office and then attempt to dismantle the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights and are successful at doing so with the support of supposed political opposition."
Wrong move. Your friendly Customs Officer cannot do a lot just because you have not worshiped him/her or Georgy properly, but he or she can take that $5000 dSLR camera that you foolishly brought with you and send it off for an unlimited period to be analyzed for terrorist plans, child porn, photos of plants that may be drugs, or grandma in her undies. Don't worry, your cooperation will rid the world of evil.
Of course, that sort of abuse would never happen. Customs officers are professionals. They are specially selected and trained so that they would never let peevish human emotions cloud their fairness and adherence to the law. Except in this case---they are adhering to the law.
Think Obama or McCain will change this policy if it is still in effect after the election? Of course. You can tell by their vigorous and unrelenting protests concerning the excesses of the Boy George "for security" policies.
*What could possibly be "split-second" about deciding whether or not one has a suspicion of wrong-doing?
(Edited again as neither I nor Blogger spellcheck can spell and I always think of something else after posting the first time. I too, hope to achieve higher office.)
Related article at reason.com.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Shocking. Simply shocking.
I can't believe it: Foreign Reporters covering G8 face harassment: media group. (Japan Times)
They don't even get free detention or meals at the Immigration facility; they gotta pay.
Some unpatriotic folks are complaining that this sort of action threatens free thought and expression in Japan as well as violates human rights. It's ok though, for the US has been doing somewhat similar things (or worse) in the name of security so that gives a free pass to others.
Related story here.
They don't even get free detention or meals at the Immigration facility; they gotta pay.
Some unpatriotic folks are complaining that this sort of action threatens free thought and expression in Japan as well as violates human rights. It's ok though, for the US has been doing somewhat similar things (or worse) in the name of security so that gives a free pass to others.
Related story here.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
How Uncle Sam treats detained non-citizens
Anyone who immigrates to another country is taking risks, as they often have few or no real rights. Although it does not excuse Japan for its polices---the bandwagon "everyone does it" nonsense---the US has become increasingly hostile to immigration. Should one be detained by US immigration at the border, he/she has entered a no-man's land in which there are no constitutional rights.
The Washington Post has a series on some of the abuses, neglect, and incompetence in the US system which has resulted in the death of a number of detainees. This is bound to occur when a bureaucracy is responsible for ensuring people are treated decently. After all, it is not likely that anyone in a position of authority will have to accept personal responsibility for anything. Just go before Congress and say that "We're trying" (while they're dying). Will the public care enough to force substantial changes? One wonders. Uncle Sam does not. Just a small example:
Last year, the Arizona State Board of Nursing heard that nurses at Eloy [a federal immigrant detention facility] were being required, without enough training, to take the chest X-rays that new detainees are supposed to get to check for tuberculosis. The board sent ICE [Immigrations and Customs Enforcement] a terse, two-sentence letter. "Nurses are not radiologists," it said. "Taking X-rays is out of the scope of practice for a nurse, and a nurse who does so is violating the Nurse Practice Act and will be subject to discipline on his/her license." The response from Washington: "Nurses working in federal government facilities are not subject to state licensing requirements."
I suppose little more can be expected for immigrants---look at how the some members of military have to live in in substandard slum-like housing on posts and bases in the US after returning for war. Seems like military housing is back in the Carter era again.
The most recent Washington Post article is here.
The Washington Post has a series on some of the abuses, neglect, and incompetence in the US system which has resulted in the death of a number of detainees. This is bound to occur when a bureaucracy is responsible for ensuring people are treated decently. After all, it is not likely that anyone in a position of authority will have to accept personal responsibility for anything. Just go before Congress and say that "We're trying" (while they're dying). Will the public care enough to force substantial changes? One wonders. Uncle Sam does not. Just a small example:
Last year, the Arizona State Board of Nursing heard that nurses at Eloy [a federal immigrant detention facility] were being required, without enough training, to take the chest X-rays that new detainees are supposed to get to check for tuberculosis. The board sent ICE [Immigrations and Customs Enforcement] a terse, two-sentence letter. "Nurses are not radiologists," it said. "Taking X-rays is out of the scope of practice for a nurse, and a nurse who does so is violating the Nurse Practice Act and will be subject to discipline on his/her license." The response from Washington: "Nurses working in federal government facilities are not subject to state licensing requirements."
I suppose little more can be expected for immigrants---look at how the some members of military have to live in in substandard slum-like housing on posts and bases in the US after returning for war. Seems like military housing is back in the Carter era again.
The most recent Washington Post article is here.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
More security and better services for bakagaijin
And it includes non-gaijin foreigners too. (meaning not Caucasian)
Foreigners living in Japan should be allowed five-year visas but kept under the eye of a new unified Justice Ministry-run nationwide identification system, a government panel on immigration control said in its report released Wednesday.
...a new foreigner registration system and revision of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Law should aim at creating "a symbiotic community" by providing a "pleasant environment for foreign residents in Japan...
Of course. This has to be a good idea since it will place non-Japanese under the benevolent care of Hatoyama's ministry.
...critics view the new registry system as increased state control.
Cynical fools. If they don't like it, why don't they just shut up and leave? This is a democracy, after all.
This thoughtful measure could also prevent me (and other untrustworthy bakagaijin/criminal/terrorist types) from overstaying visas, working illegally, going into a bar in Tokyo to complain about noise and getting killed, being murdered by sexual predators, and other such things. Plus, we could get better access to all the educational opportunities here. And, it's for security. We need to trust Hatoyama-sama, a man with personal knowledge about the danger of terrorists.
I can't wait to read about it in a Japanese article, even if I get a headache doing so. Full article here
Report urges closer watch on foreigners (Japan Time headlines)
Foreigners living in Japan should be allowed five-year visas but kept under the eye of a new unified Justice Ministry-run nationwide identification system, a government panel on immigration control said in its report released Wednesday.
...a new foreigner registration system and revision of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Law should aim at creating "a symbiotic community" by providing a "pleasant environment for foreign residents in Japan...
Of course. This has to be a good idea since it will place non-Japanese under the benevolent care of Hatoyama's ministry.
...critics view the new registry system as increased state control.
Cynical fools. If they don't like it, why don't they just shut up and leave? This is a democracy, after all.
This thoughtful measure could also prevent me (and other untrustworthy bakagaijin/criminal/terrorist types) from overstaying visas, working illegally, going into a bar in Tokyo to complain about noise and getting killed, being murdered by sexual predators, and other such things. Plus, we could get better access to all the educational opportunities here. And, it's for security. We need to trust Hatoyama-sama, a man with personal knowledge about the danger of terrorists.
I can't wait to read about it in a Japanese article, even if I get a headache doing so. Full article here
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Coming to Japan
Under the stern gaze of passport officials and the even sterner gaze of television cameras, the two British citizens, fresh off a morning flight from London on Tuesday, passed through customs at Kennedy International Airport separately and came to separate conclusions.
Under a new Homeland Security system at Kennedy Airport, most foreign visitors must submit to a biometric scan of all 10 fingerprints.
Both pressed one thumb, then the other fingers on the glowing screen of a small white box. Then the process was repeated for the other hand...
For security. One guy didn't just meekly swallow that line for some reason:
“Pretty soon it’ll be a full naked body scan, with my irises and my DNA profile. It makes the honest visitor to America, of which 99.9999 percent coming through here are, feel unwelcome so you guys can catch the 0.0001 percent of people who are a problem.”
What's he mean by "feel" unwelcome?
The new system, whose image-capture units each cost as much as $3,000, will eventually cost more than $280 million, paid for by the federal government, rather than the airlines.
Huh? Where does the federal government get money? Oh, that's right. It borrows from foreigners. I almost said from taxpayers, but that's on down the line. Article is free here at the New York Times for now.
Under a new Homeland Security system at Kennedy Airport, most foreign visitors must submit to a biometric scan of all 10 fingerprints.
Both pressed one thumb, then the other fingers on the glowing screen of a small white box. Then the process was repeated for the other hand...
For security. One guy didn't just meekly swallow that line for some reason:
“Pretty soon it’ll be a full naked body scan, with my irises and my DNA profile. It makes the honest visitor to America, of which 99.9999 percent coming through here are, feel unwelcome so you guys can catch the 0.0001 percent of people who are a problem.”
What's he mean by "feel" unwelcome?
The new system, whose image-capture units each cost as much as $3,000, will eventually cost more than $280 million, paid for by the federal government, rather than the airlines.
Huh? Where does the federal government get money? Oh, that's right. It borrows from foreigners. I almost said from taxpayers, but that's on down the line. Article is free here at the New York Times for now.
Friday, March 21, 2008
No problem---it's for security
Americans and Japanese apparently aren't alone in shivering in their undies at the fear of terrorism. The official explanation of "security" reduces the trembling and with luck will prevent us from becoming so frightened as to soil our dainty underwear.
While this may be an example of incompetent law enforcement officers, taking photographs (and similar threatening behavior) can be a risky business nowadays.
While this may be an example of incompetent law enforcement officers, taking photographs (and similar threatening behavior) can be a risky business nowadays.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
