Ahhh. Saturday night. A full moon. Cool, fall weather (only available in Japan). The OWWISAM (The One with Whom I Share a Mansion) in her room watching YouTube continuing a nearly 4-month war of silence. And me, having not had the sense to accept an invitation to take a trip to an onsen in Abiko, now sitting around reading the news on the Internet. Who ever said life in Tokyo was not exotic?
While not reading about things Japan, I sometimes---actually usually---read things about other weird, unscrupulous places such as the US. Really, the US is actually harder to understand than Japan even though I was born and raised there.
Reading Bob Herbert's latest column, The Way We Treat Our Troops, almost makes a wasted Saturday night worth it:
...for evidence that the United States is letting its claim to greatness, and even common decency, slip through its fingers, all you need to do is look at the way we treat our own troops...The idea that the United States is at war and hardly any of its citizens are paying attention to the terrible burden being shouldered by its men and women in uniform is beyond appalling.
...I would bring back the draft in a heartbeat. Then you wouldn’t have these wars that last a lifetime...(Careful Bob, that is gettin' mighty close to being unAmerican.) NYT
Unfortunately for Mr. Herbert and the US, this will never, ever change. Not only do we not pay for our wars---well, not right away instead we borrow from other countries---we make sure that mostly poor and lower middle class fight them while sloganeering "Support Our Troops," then assume them to be dangerous crazed nuts (and make movies and all kinds of "documentaries") when they get back.
It has become fashionable since the wars began 10 years ago to tell any veteran, "Thank you for your service." I have heard that---or actually read it in e-mails and on Facebook etc, since no American in Japan ever said it to me---but I never know how to respond. I am sure people are sincere in saying it, but I have no idea what it really means.
I once applied for a part-time job back in the US after getting out of the USAF and starting college. The fine patriot read my application saw my military service and asked, " You're not in the National Guard or anything are you?"
"No," I replied.
"Good," said the worm, "We don't need any of that shit (meaning he did not want to have to give time off for annual drills etc)*.
I would almost bet that he is now all supportive of the folks fighting in Afghanistan, as long as they stay in Afghanistan or at least not bother him with any of that military "shit."
*I did not take the job.
Blogger spell check does not accept Facebook as a properly spelled word.
Showing posts with label U.S Military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S Military. Show all posts
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Blasphemy!
I don't think these guys (Congressman Barney Frank et al) are allowed to write this sort of thing:
Immediately after World War II, with much of the world devastated and the Soviet Union becoming increasingly aggressive, America took on the responsibility of protecting virtually every country that asked for it. Sixty-five years later, we continue to play that role long after there is any justification for it. Huffington Post
Given that every incremental federal dollar spent today is being financed with borrowed funds, maintaining that collection of overseas bases results in a perverse daisy chain of borrowing from foreigners,* spending those borrowed funds overseas then sending never-ending interest payments back overseas as we roll over that debt again and again. (Letter to the National Committee on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform by Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. Ron Paul, Rep. Ron Wyden, Rep. Walter B. Jones Linked PDF from the above Huffington Post)
I have read that Okinawa was mentioned somewhere by Reps Frank and Paul, but can find no direct reference to it. (Edited to add: Here is one.)However, wouldn't it be nice if Americans and Japanese---the people, not just the governments and the "experts"---would get a chance to look at this and debate it and force those "in the know" to explain exactly why forces at the present level and configuration are still necessary in 2010, and to explain what would indicate that they would no longer be necessary at some point in the future?
No, I am not on drugs; I am merely fantasizing.
NPR's On Point is to broadcast an discussion on the military spending issue with Ron Paul and Barney Frank today (audio not up yet.)
Note that they are not talking about cutting expenses on the backs of those in Iraq and Afghanistan, but questioning the continued need for 480 US military installations in 38 countries.
*Ironically, one of the recent justifications given for the need to have US troops in Japan is the----how shall I put it?---the rising China threat. China is one of our biggest creditors, so we are borrowing from China and paying interest on that debt to China, in order to defend against China. Wonder if China would demand higher interest should the the US get into a conflict with them? Or would the US just stop borrowing from China and fund the conflict some other way? Oh, wait....did I say fund a conflict, meaning something like pay for it without borrowing from foreigners? Sorry, maybe I am on drugs.
Immediately after World War II, with much of the world devastated and the Soviet Union becoming increasingly aggressive, America took on the responsibility of protecting virtually every country that asked for it. Sixty-five years later, we continue to play that role long after there is any justification for it. Huffington Post
Given that every incremental federal dollar spent today is being financed with borrowed funds, maintaining that collection of overseas bases results in a perverse daisy chain of borrowing from foreigners,* spending those borrowed funds overseas then sending never-ending interest payments back overseas as we roll over that debt again and again. (Letter to the National Committee on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform by Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. Ron Paul, Rep. Ron Wyden, Rep. Walter B. Jones Linked PDF from the above Huffington Post)
I have read that Okinawa was mentioned somewhere by Reps Frank and Paul, but can find no direct reference to it. (Edited to add: Here is one.)However, wouldn't it be nice if Americans and Japanese---the people, not just the governments and the "experts"---would get a chance to look at this and debate it and force those "in the know" to explain exactly why forces at the present level and configuration are still necessary in 2010, and to explain what would indicate that they would no longer be necessary at some point in the future?
No, I am not on drugs; I am merely fantasizing.
NPR's On Point is to broadcast an discussion on the military spending issue with Ron Paul and Barney Frank today (audio not up yet.)
Note that they are not talking about cutting expenses on the backs of those in Iraq and Afghanistan, but questioning the continued need for 480 US military installations in 38 countries.
*Ironically, one of the recent justifications given for the need to have US troops in Japan is the----how shall I put it?---the rising China threat. China is one of our biggest creditors, so we are borrowing from China and paying interest on that debt to China, in order to defend against China. Wonder if China would demand higher interest should the the US get into a conflict with them? Or would the US just stop borrowing from China and fund the conflict some other way? Oh, wait....did I say fund a conflict, meaning something like pay for it without borrowing from foreigners? Sorry, maybe I am on drugs.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Futenma becomes interesting
Or at least the issues connected with it do.
For a serious discussion on the U.S.-Japan "alliance" it would be worthwhile---if the whole world has not already done so---to read this June 9 post at Shisaku and download the PDF and read it. Essays include:
For a serious discussion on the U.S.-Japan "alliance" it would be worthwhile---if the whole world has not already done so---to read this June 9 post at Shisaku and download the PDF and read it. Essays include:
- Troubled Alliance by Kenneth B. Pyle
- Return to Basics: Recalibrating the US-Japan Security Alliance by Michael Finnegan
- Redefining the US-Japan Security Alliance by Michael Green
- Alliance Endangered by Kent Calder
- The 50th Anniversary: Time for a "Renewal of Vows" by Andrew Oros
- A Short-term challenge to the US-Japan Security Alliance Putting its Long-term Heath at Risk by Yuki Tatsumi
Thursday, June 03, 2010
I spent a lot of the day reading about the resignation of Yukio Hatoyama and various opinions of whose fault it was:
1) Hatoyama's. He should have handled Futenma and the US better, plus he got money from his mother instead of some half-crooked company.
2) The US: Parts of the US gov't were confused and worried about the DPJ's attempt to move Japan .0001mm away on security issues which would have destroyed the most-important-bilateral-relationship-in-the-world-bar-none, as well as have resulted in the collapse of human civilization. These expert managers wanted the policies of their old and trusted Freedom-Fighters in the LDP to continue forever.
3) Nobel Laureate Barack Obama, who was not up to speed on the most-important-bilateral-relationship-in-the-world-bar-none, and whose meaning of the word "change" as far as Japan policy goes appears to have been restricted to "(ex)change George Bush for me." Nobel-man Obama has been a little tied up lately anyway, since he shockingly discovered that the company that was responsible for a major environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico was not as responsible as it could have been at stopping it. He is now making angry faces, clenching his jaw, and has become so outraged as to have uttered the stinging expletive "damn."
4) The MSM: Goes without saying. The media is always responsible for everything everywhere.
5) The citizens of this fine land themselves, the least likely culprits.
6) All of the above.
I must rule out "all of the above," even though it seems reasonable. I must rule it out for I read somewhere on the Internet that if we say that, it means everyone is guilty and if we say everyone is guilty it means that no one is guilty. Perhaps due to cultural differences, I am unable to figure out exactly how that works or what it means, so I will focus on the group that has received the least attention: The folks of Japan.
I am not so sure how important the Futenma issue really was to anyone in the mainland. There are polls around that show that most Japanese wanted the Futenma mess solved by relocating the base outside Okinawa, but nobody seems to want those bases, with their lower-than-the-average-compared-to-Japanese-citizens crime rates, near their homes. They simply want and expect the US to defend Japan until hell freezes over because that's the way things have always been, and to do so under "tightened discipline" (perhaps chained to a table when off-duty) at a distance. Besides, Japan is a peace country and Japanese should not have to fight a war for Japan should one come.* And some have called Hatoyama indecisive and loopy**.
I am looking at this from the perspective that citizens of a democracy are over the long term, allowing for normal miscalculations***, voting for politicians and policies that they agree with. So I figure that after 65 years of democracy [Edited: We can't call the Occupation era democracy. Let's say 50-odd years] when folks keep electing politicians who continue the same policies, that they are voting for what they really want. I don't recall Futenma or the so-called alliance**** being a major issue during the election last fall, so I'd guess most outside of Okinawa did not especially object to the status quo. In the US we want low/no taxes, free government programs, wars fought mostly by lesser-well-off citizens and paid for by foreigners. In Japan, we want the US to provide a military and a foreign policy cover and to have little contact with the troops unless we can pawn them off on a poorer prefecture inhabited by Okinawans.
The good thing is, according to some theories, the US may not get what it wants now as there might be some reluctance on the part of the government to follow through on the Henko move. Okinawans ain't gonna just give in because Hatoyama is gone. And Naoto Kan is said to be sort of stubborn. He is also said to be more "practical" in foreign policy, which I take to mean more likely to do what Uncle Sam wants. But maybe, just maybe, this will get folks to think a little more deeply about this "alliance." It obviously isn't going to come from the US side without a swift kick.
*I don't get a chance to ask Japanese acquaintances this as often as I would like. In fact, I think I have only asked it once: If there is a war and an American soldier is killed fighting for Japan, what would you say to the mother and father of that soldier when they ask you "Why did my son (or daughter) die fighting for Japan?"
**I am using the Washington Post's Al Kamen's definition of loopy: "...oddly detached from reality."
***See G.W. Bush, the man who accepted Abe's "apology" about the Japanese Imperial Army's forced recruitment of sex slaves in WW2 which Abe claimed never really happened, but apologized for in spite of the fact that he claimed it never happened and had been claiming for years that it never happened. Sorry, I didn't understand it either. Ask Boy George or Abe.
****Describing the relationship as an alliance was first done in a communique when PM Suzuki visited the White House in 1981 and it was not well-received in Japan. The phrase US-Japan Alliance was not used in an official document until 1995. See AMPO's Troubled 50th: Hatoyama's aborted rebellion, Okinawa's Mounting Resistance and the US Japan Relationship. (Under Treaty? Alliance? about 1/3 down the page.)
1) Hatoyama's. He should have handled Futenma and the US better, plus he got money from his mother instead of some half-crooked company.
2) The US: Parts of the US gov't were confused and worried about the DPJ's attempt to move Japan .0001mm away on security issues which would have destroyed the most-important-bilateral-relationship-in-the-world-bar-none, as well as have resulted in the collapse of human civilization. These expert managers wanted the policies of their old and trusted Freedom-Fighters in the LDP to continue forever.
3) Nobel Laureate Barack Obama, who was not up to speed on the most-important-bilateral-relationship-in-the-world-bar-none, and whose meaning of the word "change" as far as Japan policy goes appears to have been restricted to "(ex)change George Bush for me." Nobel-man Obama has been a little tied up lately anyway, since he shockingly discovered that the company that was responsible for a major environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico was not as responsible as it could have been at stopping it. He is now making angry faces, clenching his jaw, and has become so outraged as to have uttered the stinging expletive "damn."
4) The MSM: Goes without saying. The media is always responsible for everything everywhere.
5) The citizens of this fine land themselves, the least likely culprits.
6) All of the above.
I must rule out "all of the above," even though it seems reasonable. I must rule it out for I read somewhere on the Internet that if we say that, it means everyone is guilty and if we say everyone is guilty it means that no one is guilty. Perhaps due to cultural differences, I am unable to figure out exactly how that works or what it means, so I will focus on the group that has received the least attention: The folks of Japan.
I am not so sure how important the Futenma issue really was to anyone in the mainland. There are polls around that show that most Japanese wanted the Futenma mess solved by relocating the base outside Okinawa, but nobody seems to want those bases, with their lower-than-the-average-compared-to-Japanese-citizens crime rates, near their homes. They simply want and expect the US to defend Japan until hell freezes over because that's the way things have always been, and to do so under "tightened discipline" (perhaps chained to a table when off-duty) at a distance. Besides, Japan is a peace country and Japanese should not have to fight a war for Japan should one come.* And some have called Hatoyama indecisive and loopy**.
I am looking at this from the perspective that citizens of a democracy are over the long term, allowing for normal miscalculations***, voting for politicians and policies that they agree with. So I figure that after 65 years of democracy [Edited: We can't call the Occupation era democracy. Let's say 50-odd years] when folks keep electing politicians who continue the same policies, that they are voting for what they really want. I don't recall Futenma or the so-called alliance**** being a major issue during the election last fall, so I'd guess most outside of Okinawa did not especially object to the status quo. In the US we want low/no taxes, free government programs, wars fought mostly by lesser-well-off citizens and paid for by foreigners. In Japan, we want the US to provide a military and a foreign policy cover and to have little contact with the troops unless we can pawn them off on a poorer prefecture inhabited by Okinawans.
The good thing is, according to some theories, the US may not get what it wants now as there might be some reluctance on the part of the government to follow through on the Henko move. Okinawans ain't gonna just give in because Hatoyama is gone. And Naoto Kan is said to be sort of stubborn. He is also said to be more "practical" in foreign policy, which I take to mean more likely to do what Uncle Sam wants. But maybe, just maybe, this will get folks to think a little more deeply about this "alliance." It obviously isn't going to come from the US side without a swift kick.
*I don't get a chance to ask Japanese acquaintances this as often as I would like. In fact, I think I have only asked it once: If there is a war and an American soldier is killed fighting for Japan, what would you say to the mother and father of that soldier when they ask you "Why did my son (or daughter) die fighting for Japan?"
**I am using the Washington Post's Al Kamen's definition of loopy: "...oddly detached from reality."
***See G.W. Bush, the man who accepted Abe's "apology" about the Japanese Imperial Army's forced recruitment of sex slaves in WW2 which Abe claimed never really happened, but apologized for in spite of the fact that he claimed it never happened and had been claiming for years that it never happened. Sorry, I didn't understand it either. Ask Boy George or Abe.
****Describing the relationship as an alliance was first done in a communique when PM Suzuki visited the White House in 1981 and it was not well-received in Japan. The phrase US-Japan Alliance was not used in an official document until 1995. See AMPO's Troubled 50th: Hatoyama's aborted rebellion, Okinawa's Mounting Resistance and the US Japan Relationship. (Under Treaty? Alliance? about 1/3 down the page.)
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Unfinished, simple-minded thoughts 2: Thinking aloud.
While wandering around the Internut looking for crime stuff about Japan, I found something that took me back a number of years to when I was in the USAF.
Now contrary to what we see in the movies, read in some media, contrary to the beliefs of some who think that the military is made up of a bunch of flunkies, high school dropouts, and nitwits who were too dumb to go to college and spend four years in a semi-drunken haze, I never found that to be the case. The Air Force, for example, does not entrust a moron with the life of the pilot(s) and the care of a fighter jet worth millions.
Folks go in for different reasons, but in the AF at least, most went in for the training---which was better than anything I ever did in university as far as practical skills and life skills go---and to get money to go to college. Others go in for a career that is much, much better; much much more challenging; much, much, more intellectually demanding---yes, by far---than most other jobs available for high school grads or even many college graduates. (Provided that you don't get killed in a war.) When I think of the word professional, I still think of the military.
I was a "law enforcement specialist", a narcotics detector dog handler. I was in a good position to know the types of crimes that occurred on the bases I was stationed. I was never stationed in Japan, but I did know guys and gals who were here in a similar capacity.
During my AF time I found most crimes* on bases either overseas to be relatively minor. DUIs, occasional fights, drug possession (usually marijuana* or stimulants), occasional weapon storage---some guy kept his 30-06 hunting rifle in his room in the States---and traffic violations. Access to bases was controlled, people who lived and worked there had background clearances of various levels, and they lived and worked under a disciplined system that could be a real pain-in-the-ass**, but one that worked very well for young people, especially young men. (Haven't tried it, but I wonder what would happen if you compared the crime rates of people of that age in college to those in the military?)
So what? Well, we keep hearing and reading about the dangers and the crimes committed in Japan by US military personnel. It's not only stuff I read in the Japanese press, but I have even seen non-Japanese whose writing I usually respect fall for some unsubstantiated "Deer Hunter/Rambo" theory that those just back from a war zone are somehow naturally unstable and prone to violence.
Anyway, something smells about this supposed danger posed by the US military on the Japanese---or should I say Okinawans? What is the source of most of the claims of this danger? Is it the NPA? The media? Folks with an axe to grind? How do these same people view non-Japanese in general? They wouldn't go around claiming that all foreigners and foreign countries were potentially (if not actually) dangerous and untrustworthy would they?
No, such a thing would be so un-Japanese.
*Includes active duty military, dependents, civilian contractors, and base employees. Even visitors.
**Often exaggerated in movies and on TV. In the States I worked a 9 hour shift. I did not do KP---that's Basic Training---did not march around all day (Basic Training again), did not run around shouting "Sir, yes sir"---Basic Training again. Except for training, exercises, deployments, recalls etc, I pretty much worked as I have in civilian life.
***I once had the biggest quarterly marijuana find in PACAF (Pacific Air Forces). A massive 22 grams if I recall correctly...
Now contrary to what we see in the movies, read in some media, contrary to the beliefs of some who think that the military is made up of a bunch of flunkies, high school dropouts, and nitwits who were too dumb to go to college and spend four years in a semi-drunken haze, I never found that to be the case. The Air Force, for example, does not entrust a moron with the life of the pilot(s) and the care of a fighter jet worth millions.
Folks go in for different reasons, but in the AF at least, most went in for the training---which was better than anything I ever did in university as far as practical skills and life skills go---and to get money to go to college. Others go in for a career that is much, much better; much much more challenging; much, much, more intellectually demanding---yes, by far---than most other jobs available for high school grads or even many college graduates. (Provided that you don't get killed in a war.) When I think of the word professional, I still think of the military.
I was a "law enforcement specialist", a narcotics detector dog handler. I was in a good position to know the types of crimes that occurred on the bases I was stationed. I was never stationed in Japan, but I did know guys and gals who were here in a similar capacity.
During my AF time I found most crimes* on bases either overseas to be relatively minor. DUIs, occasional fights, drug possession (usually marijuana* or stimulants), occasional weapon storage---some guy kept his 30-06 hunting rifle in his room in the States---and traffic violations. Access to bases was controlled, people who lived and worked there had background clearances of various levels, and they lived and worked under a disciplined system that could be a real pain-in-the-ass**, but one that worked very well for young people, especially young men. (Haven't tried it, but I wonder what would happen if you compared the crime rates of people of that age in college to those in the military?)
So what? Well, we keep hearing and reading about the dangers and the crimes committed in Japan by US military personnel. It's not only stuff I read in the Japanese press, but I have even seen non-Japanese whose writing I usually respect fall for some unsubstantiated "Deer Hunter/Rambo" theory that those just back from a war zone are somehow naturally unstable and prone to violence.
Anyway, something smells about this supposed danger posed by the US military on the Japanese---or should I say Okinawans? What is the source of most of the claims of this danger? Is it the NPA? The media? Folks with an axe to grind? How do these same people view non-Japanese in general? They wouldn't go around claiming that all foreigners and foreign countries were potentially (if not actually) dangerous and untrustworthy would they?
No, such a thing would be so un-Japanese.
*Includes active duty military, dependents, civilian contractors, and base employees. Even visitors.
**Often exaggerated in movies and on TV. In the States I worked a 9 hour shift. I did not do KP---that's Basic Training---did not march around all day (Basic Training again), did not run around shouting "Sir, yes sir"---Basic Training again. Except for training, exercises, deployments, recalls etc, I pretty much worked as I have in civilian life.
***I once had the biggest quarterly marijuana find in PACAF (Pacific Air Forces). A massive 22 grams if I recall correctly...
Thursday, May 20, 2010
A moment of silence, please
Major Japanese newspapers reported on Thursday that Prime Minister has decided to largely accept Washington’s demands that he honor an existing agreement to relocate an American air base on Okinawa, in an attempt to end a damaging dispute that had sown confusion and mistrust between the longtime allies. NYT.
Wouldn't want any confusion as that's the worst nightmare in Japan. If Prof. Hiroshi Nakanishi of Kyoto University is correct, it'll be a "long, punishing process" to convince Okinawans about the wholesome goodness of the deal. Might take until temperatures drop well below 0 degrees Celsius in hell. Does that mean it'll settle back to the pace it was proceeding under the LDP and we'll have to hear about it for another 14 years?
Wouldn't want any confusion as that's the worst nightmare in Japan. If Prof. Hiroshi Nakanishi of Kyoto University is correct, it'll be a "long, punishing process" to convince Okinawans about the wholesome goodness of the deal. Might take until temperatures drop well below 0 degrees Celsius in hell. Does that mean it'll settle back to the pace it was proceeding under the LDP and we'll have to hear about it for another 14 years?
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Crazy Karl
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.
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.
Monday, April 12, 2010
A "Stumbling Revolution"
The next couple of years will be crucial for the realization of genuine Japanese democracy. More than that. If the Minshuto leaders succeed in carrying out their aim of creating a cabinet-centered government this will be a grand example for others – one of the very few positive turns of fate in the political life of our planet. But the obstacles to achieving this are formidable. Not only domestic forces but also Washington will seek to torpedo the plans for a truly independent Japan that can stand on its own feet in the world. Understanding those obstacles well could help Japanese citizens contribute to the chances for a good outcome. Japan Focus
The article, Japan's Stumbling Revolution, by Karl van Wolferen, originally published in Chou Koron in Japanese last March is now at Japan Focus in English.
The last time I posted van Wolferen's comments
One must be wary of using the label ‘revolutionary’, but if they [DPJ] succeed this would be appropriate in the context of Japan's controlling political institutions.
it irked one of the commenters who thought DPJ being revolutionary was absurd. I think he missed the key word "if." Today "revolutionary" is still in "if" form and that "if" may seem a little less likely every day. Karl van Wolferen writes that "to call the task that the Minshuto has taken upon itself a heavy one is very, very understated." No doubt about that.
I think his take on the Japanese system is always worth reading. And rereading.
Edited to add: His take on the big newspapers and their "creating political reality as it exists in people's minds" seems especially accurate. I wish I could paste the whole article here, it's very good.
The article, Japan's Stumbling Revolution, by Karl van Wolferen, originally published in Chou Koron in Japanese last March is now at Japan Focus in English.
The last time I posted van Wolferen's comments
One must be wary of using the label ‘revolutionary’, but if they [DPJ] succeed this would be appropriate in the context of Japan's controlling political institutions.
it irked one of the commenters who thought DPJ being revolutionary was absurd. I think he missed the key word "if." Today "revolutionary" is still in "if" form and that "if" may seem a little less likely every day. Karl van Wolferen writes that "to call the task that the Minshuto has taken upon itself a heavy one is very, very understated." No doubt about that.
I think his take on the Japanese system is always worth reading. And rereading.
Edited to add: His take on the big newspapers and their "creating political reality as it exists in people's minds" seems especially accurate. I wish I could paste the whole article here, it's very good.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Pauper's Alliance
From the NYT article Huge Deficits may alter US politics and Global Power:
....the possibility that the United States could begin to suffer the same disease that has afflicted Japan over the past decade.* As debt grew more rapidly than income, that country’s influence around the world eroded.
Should this turn out to be an accurate guess, then one has to wonder what is the biggest threat, the ones which require the US to keep its forces all over the planet to protect the planet from itself; the one(s) (China?) which require it to keep its forces in Okinawa while debating just where in Okinawa to keep them with the people who own the country; or the continuation of borrowing from everyone until it can borrow no more?
The US-Japan Security arrangement looks like it might have a bright future with each country out of money, but expecting the same or more from one another while at the same time China and others whiz on by.
China has warned the US president that it will harm ties between the two countries if he meets the Dalai Lama.
*OK, this is a bit nonsensical. Japan's problems are not the result of excessive borrowing from other countries. Not much else similar between the two countries and their financial problems that I can see. The always imminent Japan Disease.
....the possibility that the United States could begin to suffer the same disease that has afflicted Japan over the past decade.* As debt grew more rapidly than income, that country’s influence around the world eroded.
... Lawrence H. Summers, used to ask before he entered government a year ago, “How long can the world’s biggest borrower remain the world’s biggest power?”
The Chinese leadership, which is lending much of the money to finance the American government’s spending...NYTShould this turn out to be an accurate guess, then one has to wonder what is the biggest threat, the ones which require the US to keep its forces all over the planet to protect the planet from itself; the one(s) (China?) which require it to keep its forces in Okinawa while debating just where in Okinawa to keep them with the people who own the country; or the continuation of borrowing from everyone until it can borrow no more?
The US-Japan Security arrangement looks like it might have a bright future with each country out of money, but expecting the same or more from one another while at the same time China and others whiz on by.
China has warned the US president that it will harm ties between the two countries if he meets the Dalai Lama.
Chinese Communist Party official Zhu Weiqun said there would be "corresponding action" if the meeting went ahead. BBC
China does not seem to be very cowed.
*OK, this is a bit nonsensical. Japan's problems are not the result of excessive borrowing from other countries. Not much else similar between the two countries and their financial problems that I can see. The always imminent Japan Disease.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
How the US government expresses its gratitude to a US Marine killed in Iraq
A Marine's widow who has been fighting immigration law to remain in the U.S. to raise her 1-year-old child has returned to Japan. Washington Post
The widow, Hotaru Ferschke, married Sgt Michael Ferschke by telephone while he was serving in Iraq. He was later killed in combat there. The Department of Homeland Security---the department that was so successful in stopping the attempted Christmas bombing of a US plane---did not consider the proxy marriage consummated even though Mrs. Ferschke was pregnant with Sgt Ferschke's child at the time.
With all the other responsibilities the Department has, perhaps one could forgive them for not understanding how children are conceived, but to do this to the family of a Marine who died in combat so that the brains of the Department could sleep soundly (while at work?) in the States is not something that can be forgiven. The US Congress, which did not act on a private bill to grant permanent residency to the wife, deserves nothing but contempt either.
Assuming that this report is accurate, it shows that it is possible for creatures consisting entirely of an anus to findproductive employment in any government on earth.
This is in line with Uncle Sam's historical ways of saying, "Thank you for your service. Thank you for your sacrifice. Now go away and leave us alone."
The widow, Hotaru Ferschke, married Sgt Michael Ferschke by telephone while he was serving in Iraq. He was later killed in combat there. The Department of Homeland Security---the department that was so successful in stopping the attempted Christmas bombing of a US plane---did not consider the proxy marriage consummated even though Mrs. Ferschke was pregnant with Sgt Ferschke's child at the time.
With all the other responsibilities the Department has, perhaps one could forgive them for not understanding how children are conceived, but to do this to the family of a Marine who died in combat so that the brains of the Department could sleep soundly (while at work?) in the States is not something that can be forgiven. The US Congress, which did not act on a private bill to grant permanent residency to the wife, deserves nothing but contempt either.
Assuming that this report is accurate, it shows that it is possible for creatures consisting entirely of an anus to find
This is in line with Uncle Sam's historical ways of saying, "Thank you for your service. Thank you for your sacrifice. Now go away and leave us alone."
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Futenma, an unnecessary fuss?
It seems to be about impossible to understand what is really going on with the Futenma mess. An article challenging some of the Japanese government claims at Japan Focus (Japanese Bureaucrats Hide Decision to Move All US Marines out of Okinawa to Guam, by Gavan McCormac and Sakai Tanaka) does not help:
...according to the investigations of Mayor Iha and members of the Ginowan City Assembly, American forces have already been implementing a plan to relocate to Guam not only the command unit but also, by 2014, the majority of combat forces and even logistic sections including supply units.
Tanaka makes the obvious conclusion that if true:
"This means that the great fuss over the removal to Henoko that has been festering over the past few years may have been completely unnecessary from the beginning."
McCormac believes that Hatoyama's decision not to make a decision on Futenma until after the New Year has a huge symbolic importance and may signal "a possible changing of tide of history in East Asia, and especially the US Japan relationship."
Some polls have shown that a majority of the public thinks Hatoyama has mishandled the issue (Observing Japan has details of various poll results) and I have neither seen nor heard anything that gives any hint that the public would like to see the US military out (folks in Okinawa may have a different view). I wonder just how huge any change would really be?
...according to the investigations of Mayor Iha and members of the Ginowan City Assembly, American forces have already been implementing a plan to relocate to Guam not only the command unit but also, by 2014, the majority of combat forces and even logistic sections including supply units.
Tanaka makes the obvious conclusion that if true:
"This means that the great fuss over the removal to Henoko that has been festering over the past few years may have been completely unnecessary from the beginning."
McCormac believes that Hatoyama's decision not to make a decision on Futenma until after the New Year has a huge symbolic importance and may signal "a possible changing of tide of history in East Asia, and especially the US Japan relationship."
Some polls have shown that a majority of the public thinks Hatoyama has mishandled the issue (Observing Japan has details of various poll results) and I have neither seen nor heard anything that gives any hint that the public would like to see the US military out (folks in Okinawa may have a different view). I wonder just how huge any change would really be?
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Futenma goes pandemic
It started like a niggling itch in the throat, one initially ignored as just a minor irritant. Then it became a bit sore---nothing to worry about, but enough to make one suspect that something was not quite right. Later it got to the point where it was obvious that there was a problem. Then came the diagnosis---H1futeNma1---which would either result in a period of light discomfort or would end it all.
It seems that the subject of Futenma has become something that cannot be avoided.
It is easy for many of us with personal interests in Japan (and the success of the DPJ) to cast the US as the bullying heavy in this little spat. However, I am fortunate enough to have gotten my hands on a copy of the Nelson Report. Contained within were the key points of a paper, US Should Stand Firm on Implementation of Okinawa Force Realignment, by Bruce Klingner, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Mr Klingner wrote of the strategic concerns of the US government.
My (too) brief summary of those key points:
One can argue that whether or not the US should even have forces in Japan (or in nearly every other corner of the world), but that is not what this dispute is about. There is, however, a fear that a delay will "inflame" the left to "expand the debate to a more comprehensive reassessment of the US-Japan alliance." That is perhaps long overdue, but it's doubtful that either government wants that now or in the near future---if ever.
And that is the main problem in my opinion. The government and the populace want to continue to have the US provide a military for Japan sixty-five years after the end of WW2. The whole set-up is one that cannot last forever.
1606: Edited because neither I nor Blogger spellcheck can spell.
It seems that the subject of Futenma has become something that cannot be avoided.
It is easy for many of us with personal interests in Japan (and the success of the DPJ) to cast the US as the bullying heavy in this little spat. However, I am fortunate enough to have gotten my hands on a copy of the Nelson Report. Contained within were the key points of a paper, US Should Stand Firm on Implementation of Okinawa Force Realignment, by Bruce Klingner, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Mr Klingner wrote of the strategic concerns of the US government.
My (too) brief summary of those key points:
The major provisions agreed to are 1) the redeployment of USMC air units from Futenma to a less populated area near Camp Schwab; 2) A reduction of a total of 17000 Marines and their dependents to Guam and Japan paying 60% of the $10 billion price tag for the move; 3) The consolidation of the remaining Marine units into less-populated areas of Okinawa and the return of a number of US bases to Okinawan control.
The provisions of the 13-years-in-the-making-agreement are interconnected and one part cannot be changed without threatening the whole agreement.
Since the Marines (unlike the other services) operate in combined-arms units, the removal of any of these units from Okinawa would have a very negative effect on its (Marines) rapid response capabilities. In short, one cannot willy-nilly move a highly integrated component without affecting the whole.
Relocating the Futenma unit to Guam would also mean that the plan to build two new runways at Camp Schwab to replace the one lost at Futenma would be scrapped, eliminating a "strategic [Japanese] national security asset" negatively affecting the augmentation of US or Japanese security forces during a crisis. The distance form Guam to Okinawa would cause a further in force capabilities. "The DPJ advocacy for removing Marine helicopter units from Okinawa...but still expecting the same level of protection, which is impossible given the tyranny of the distance."
A point which is often forgotten in this debate is that the US is obligated under the security treaty not only to defend Japan, but that it also gives the US broader regional responsibilities. In bilateral agreements from 2005 other objectives beyond the defense of Japan were "affirmed."
He ends with the concern that further delays will be more likely to turn public opinion against the US presence and by leaving the Futenma Marines in their current location during the delay risks another military-related incident.
The provisions of the 13-years-in-the-making-agreement are interconnected and one part cannot be changed without threatening the whole agreement.
Since the Marines (unlike the other services) operate in combined-arms units, the removal of any of these units from Okinawa would have a very negative effect on its (Marines) rapid response capabilities. In short, one cannot willy-nilly move a highly integrated component without affecting the whole.
Relocating the Futenma unit to Guam would also mean that the plan to build two new runways at Camp Schwab to replace the one lost at Futenma would be scrapped, eliminating a "strategic [Japanese] national security asset" negatively affecting the augmentation of US or Japanese security forces during a crisis. The distance form Guam to Okinawa would cause a further in force capabilities. "The DPJ advocacy for removing Marine helicopter units from Okinawa...but still expecting the same level of protection, which is impossible given the tyranny of the distance."
A point which is often forgotten in this debate is that the US is obligated under the security treaty not only to defend Japan, but that it also gives the US broader regional responsibilities. In bilateral agreements from 2005 other objectives beyond the defense of Japan were "affirmed."
He ends with the concern that further delays will be more likely to turn public opinion against the US presence and by leaving the Futenma Marines in their current location during the delay risks another military-related incident.
One can argue that whether or not the US should even have forces in Japan (or in nearly every other corner of the world), but that is not what this dispute is about. There is, however, a fear that a delay will "inflame" the left to "expand the debate to a more comprehensive reassessment of the US-Japan alliance." That is perhaps long overdue, but it's doubtful that either government wants that now or in the near future---if ever.
And that is the main problem in my opinion. The government and the populace want to continue to have the US provide a military for Japan sixty-five years after the end of WW2. The whole set-up is one that cannot last forever.
1606: Edited because neither I nor Blogger spellcheck can spell.
Monday, December 07, 2009
A solution for Futenma etc?
...the American public is turning more isolationist and unilateralist than it has at any time in decades, according to a new poll released Thursday.
Anyway, we know the US presence in Japan is vital 'cause everybody who is anybody has said so for decades and decades. Who would counterbalance theSoviet Union, oops! I mean North Korea, no, wait, it's Rising China this week...err, no, it's North Korea 'cause of the nukes, no, it's Rising China and the DPRK and also the bogeyman. Anyone who questions the US obligation to save the world from itself has to be some sort of naive leftwing loony, a minivan driving soccer mom or dad, a disillusioned vet, or a rightwing-wacko America firster. They might even be one of those rare few in today's US who might actually have to go fight in an overseas adventure.
Those darned stupid Americans.
18 Dec 09 James Fallows takes this poll as proof that 44% of Americans are crazy.
The survey by the Pew Research Center found a plurality of Americans -- 49 percent -- think that the U.S. should "mind its own business internationally'' and leave it to other countries to fend for themselves.
It was the first time in more than 40 years of polling that the ranks of Americans with isolationist sentiment outnumbered those with a more international outlook...MiamiHerald
No, we don't wanna go as far as having the US, like, totally leave Japan (and South Korea and...) as its presence is vital to regional stability. Besides, even though PM Hatoyama has said that he wants Japan to have an equal relationship with the US, we don't mean so equal that Japan would have to provide for its own security to the extent that the US has to provide for its own.Anyway, we know the US presence in Japan is vital 'cause everybody who is anybody has said so for decades and decades. Who would counterbalance the
Those darned stupid Americans.
18 Dec 09 James Fallows takes this poll as proof that 44% of Americans are crazy.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
News not making major headlines in Japan (yet?)
A 43-year-old Japanese man was arrested Monday for allegedly throwing hot coffee at U.S. Consul General Kevin Maher at a Naha coffee shop, Okinawa prefectural police said Tuesday. Kazuo Yamamoto of Naha approached Maher at a Starbucks at about 4 p.m., throwing coffee on Maher’s trousers and shoes before pushing him and demanding he leave Okinawa, according to the police report. Stars and Stripes
What year is this? When did WW2 end? Why are we still there? The answer to this sort of problem is simple: Pull US forces out of Japan and garbage-can the one-way Security Treaty and allow Japan to handle its own defense as it decides. If it wants allies and security treaties, then perhaps it'll figure out a more conventional alliance.
Yes, the thought is childishly naive and probably dangerously nutty. It won't happen because the US never voluntarily---well, almost never---closes bases and removes all military personnel from foreign countries. Rightly so, for to do so would result in disaster for the country the troops are pulled out of and probably a regional/worldwide conflict causing the moon to fall from the sky. Remember the hell that resulted from our withdraw from Taiwan and later from the Philippines?* The fact is that stationing US troops all over the planet is so vital to the US that the military turns away millions of concerned people every year. It's especially tough to keep college kids, the wealthy, and our future "experts" out.
*We are back in the P.I. to some degree, so that probably saved the P.I. from sinking into the ocean.
What year is this? When did WW2 end? Why are we still there? The answer to this sort of problem is simple: Pull US forces out of Japan and garbage-can the one-way Security Treaty and allow Japan to handle its own defense as it decides. If it wants allies and security treaties, then perhaps it'll figure out a more conventional alliance.
Yes, the thought is childishly naive and probably dangerously nutty. It won't happen because the US never voluntarily---well, almost never---closes bases and removes all military personnel from foreign countries. Rightly so, for to do so would result in disaster for the country the troops are pulled out of and probably a regional/worldwide conflict causing the moon to fall from the sky. Remember the hell that resulted from our withdraw from Taiwan and later from the Philippines?* The fact is that stationing US troops all over the planet is so vital to the US that the military turns away millions of concerned people every year. It's especially tough to keep college kids, the wealthy, and our future "experts" out.
*We are back in the P.I. to some degree, so that probably saved the P.I. from sinking into the ocean.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
MacP*ssed and more
Posts will continue to be very few (if any) for the next few weeks due to several unexpected and less than enjoyable events---including being MacScrewed by my brand new "It just works (occasionally)" Mac which cannot stay connected to the Internet. My MacFan MacBuddies have all become unavailable since I bought the fine piece of MacCrap and began to fight with it in what little free time I have had in the last week. After a very perceptive "It shouldn't be doing that," I get a quick wave goodbye and a departing "take it to the Apple store and let them deal with it." Carry a desktop to Ginza? Guess I'll have to carry my whole LAN setup too. Hope they know more than all the folks in a similar mess who are posting on the Apple Support Forums.
But before I return to the usual nasty, nasty workweek tomorrow, a quick (?) post.
First, from the New York Times:
...a group of former prostitutes in South Korea have accused some of their country’s former leaders of a different kind of abuse: encouraging them to have sex with the American soldiers who protected South Korea from North Korea. They also accuse past South Korean governments, and the United States military, of taking a direct hand in the sex trade from the 1960s through the 1980s, working together to build a testing and treatment system to ensure that prostitutes were disease-free for American troops...
That story rings very true. I was a military policeman---the USAF version, Security Police---in South Korea. I don't remember any "raids" to check the VD status of the so-called"hostesses" (I was not on "town patrol"), but I do know that they had to have a number to check so that they could be identified should they transmit an STD. They were supposed to have it on their bra. This was a well-known fact, and if I recall correctly, everyone was informed of it their first week in country during in-processing. The US military was very aware of all this, and it is impossible to believe that the ROK government was not actively involved in the whole process. South Korea was not even close to being a democracy at the time.
Next, on the blog, Observing Japan, Noah Smith has been guest blogging for Tobias Harris. Yesterday, Mr. Smith posted his views on productivity versus working hours in Japan.
We know about the long hours most full-time employees work in Japan, but that does not necessarily mean that everyone is actually working all those hours. In the early 90s, I lived in Toyama City and worked for a small factory that produced heavy machinery for cutting marble. I can't really say what my job was exactly other than being the token Caucasian, except that I was supposed to handle the rare English language telephone inquiry as well as proofread and rewrite various documents and pamphlets.
When I first started, I would get an assignment first thing in the morning that would take about two hours to complete. As soon as I was done and wanted something else to do, there was much confusion and the sound of air being sucked through teeth. That two or three hours of work was supposed to take me all day.
I soon learned the game, and began to make sure that I took all day to complete my assigned 2-3 hours of work. In the rare case that something else came up, I was able to finish quickly (after properly pretending that I was under pressure to do so) and go to the new task.
I was lucky enough to be able to help the guys on the shop floor too, especially when they went to another factory to repair machines there---something they often did, even though they may not have made the machines. When there was work to do, people got very serious and and didn't play around. However, when faced with 4 hours of work and 8 hours of time, they were exceptionally skilled actors. By that I mean that they could not fool anyone into believing they they were actually working hard, but they could act like they were working.
I remember once when I was working with them, we ran out of work to do about an hour or so before official quitting time. We had 4-5 guys and about 50 small screw heads to paint on one of the machines that we were building, so we all got small paintbrushes and some paint and proceeded to take the next hour to do what one man could have done by himself in half that time. I went home afterward, being the guy who was not really an employee, but just someone working there to "have good memories," while most of the others stayed. I have no idea how they faked working for the rest of the evening.
I think I could write a book about similar things that I have seen, or heard of, or been involved in since I returned to Japan nearly 10 years ago. I have a fairly well-paying part-time job from spring through fall that I got after watching a guy take one full week of 8 hour days to paint the stairs and walkways of a 3 story apartment building, even though it should have taken no more than 2 days. Some people do work very hard at real work for idiotically long hours. Others pretend to do so.
Japan's productivity has been behind that of the US in most areas in most years except for perhaps a short period during the bubble years. I am personally so used to working at what would have been considered a snail's pace at any job I had in the US, that it would be a huge adjustment to work at a US company again. That is not meant to imply that everyone is a hard or productive worker in the US.
I hope to be able to post a few more times over the next few weeks, but as mentioned there will be very few.
But before I return to the usual nasty, nasty workweek tomorrow, a quick (?) post.
First, from the New York Times:
...a group of former prostitutes in South Korea have accused some of their country’s former leaders of a different kind of abuse: encouraging them to have sex with the American soldiers who protected South Korea from North Korea. They also accuse past South Korean governments, and the United States military, of taking a direct hand in the sex trade from the 1960s through the 1980s, working together to build a testing and treatment system to ensure that prostitutes were disease-free for American troops...
That story rings very true. I was a military policeman---the USAF version, Security Police---in South Korea. I don't remember any "raids" to check the VD status of the so-called"hostesses" (I was not on "town patrol"), but I do know that they had to have a number to check so that they could be identified should they transmit an STD. They were supposed to have it on their bra. This was a well-known fact, and if I recall correctly, everyone was informed of it their first week in country during in-processing. The US military was very aware of all this, and it is impossible to believe that the ROK government was not actively involved in the whole process. South Korea was not even close to being a democracy at the time.
Next, on the blog, Observing Japan, Noah Smith has been guest blogging for Tobias Harris. Yesterday, Mr. Smith posted his views on productivity versus working hours in Japan.
We know about the long hours most full-time employees work in Japan, but that does not necessarily mean that everyone is actually working all those hours. In the early 90s, I lived in Toyama City and worked for a small factory that produced heavy machinery for cutting marble. I can't really say what my job was exactly other than being the token Caucasian, except that I was supposed to handle the rare English language telephone inquiry as well as proofread and rewrite various documents and pamphlets.
When I first started, I would get an assignment first thing in the morning that would take about two hours to complete. As soon as I was done and wanted something else to do, there was much confusion and the sound of air being sucked through teeth. That two or three hours of work was supposed to take me all day.
I soon learned the game, and began to make sure that I took all day to complete my assigned 2-3 hours of work. In the rare case that something else came up, I was able to finish quickly (after properly pretending that I was under pressure to do so) and go to the new task.
I was lucky enough to be able to help the guys on the shop floor too, especially when they went to another factory to repair machines there---something they often did, even though they may not have made the machines. When there was work to do, people got very serious and and didn't play around. However, when faced with 4 hours of work and 8 hours of time, they were exceptionally skilled actors. By that I mean that they could not fool anyone into believing they they were actually working hard, but they could act like they were working.
I remember once when I was working with them, we ran out of work to do about an hour or so before official quitting time. We had 4-5 guys and about 50 small screw heads to paint on one of the machines that we were building, so we all got small paintbrushes and some paint and proceeded to take the next hour to do what one man could have done by himself in half that time. I went home afterward, being the guy who was not really an employee, but just someone working there to "have good memories," while most of the others stayed. I have no idea how they faked working for the rest of the evening.
I think I could write a book about similar things that I have seen, or heard of, or been involved in since I returned to Japan nearly 10 years ago. I have a fairly well-paying part-time job from spring through fall that I got after watching a guy take one full week of 8 hour days to paint the stairs and walkways of a 3 story apartment building, even though it should have taken no more than 2 days. Some people do work very hard at real work for idiotically long hours. Others pretend to do so.
Japan's productivity has been behind that of the US in most areas in most years except for perhaps a short period during the bubble years. I am personally so used to working at what would have been considered a snail's pace at any job I had in the US, that it would be a huge adjustment to work at a US company again. That is not meant to imply that everyone is a hard or productive worker in the US.
I hope to be able to post a few more times over the next few weeks, but as mentioned there will be very few.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
US military paid for by foreign debt?
In a new Japan Focus article, R. Taggart Murphy* discusses why Japan has not (will not) internationalized the yen.
He also makes the following observation:
...Japan has left its export earnings inside the U.S. banking system, thereby automatically helping to finance American external deficits. Thus Japan has been the primary financial facilitator since the 1970s of the American ability to project military power around the world without crushing domestic tax burdens. While it has been joined in the last decade by China and the petroleum exporters, it is safe to say that the end of Japan’s support for the dollar would mark the end of the American ability to run endless current account deficits and thus its ability to support its vast military establishment...
And we are in paranoid mode about security when we have to borrow from foreign countries to pay for much of our ability to project military power? At least one of our lenders (China) is considered by some to be a potential military opponent. How is that secure?
And since the US values military security over economic security,** this may also help explain a lot in US/Japan relations.
*Murphy has written good two excellent books about Japan's 1989-early 2000s economic problems, including Japan's real estate bubble and the Japanese government's involvement in creating and bursting the bubble: Japan's Policy Trap and The Weight of the Yen.
**This sort of thinking has been criticized since at least the 1980s and the US/Japan trade friction. It can be convincingly argued that the US contributed to peace after WW2 with economic policy much more than military power, although both were important during the Cold War. See Asia, America, and the Transformation of Geopolitics, for example.
He also makes the following observation:
...Japan has left its export earnings inside the U.S. banking system, thereby automatically helping to finance American external deficits. Thus Japan has been the primary financial facilitator since the 1970s of the American ability to project military power around the world without crushing domestic tax burdens. While it has been joined in the last decade by China and the petroleum exporters, it is safe to say that the end of Japan’s support for the dollar would mark the end of the American ability to run endless current account deficits and thus its ability to support its vast military establishment...
And we are in paranoid mode about security when we have to borrow from foreign countries to pay for much of our ability to project military power? At least one of our lenders (China) is considered by some to be a potential military opponent. How is that secure?
And since the US values military security over economic security,** this may also help explain a lot in US/Japan relations.
*Murphy has written good two excellent books about Japan's 1989-early 2000s economic problems, including Japan's real estate bubble and the Japanese government's involvement in creating and bursting the bubble: Japan's Policy Trap and The Weight of the Yen.
**This sort of thinking has been criticized since at least the 1980s and the US/Japan trade friction. It can be convincingly argued that the US contributed to peace after WW2 with economic policy much more than military power, although both were important during the Cold War. See Asia, America, and the Transformation of Geopolitics, for example.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
More "discipline" is the answer
to crimes by a very few in the military:
...Mr. Schieffer expressed his “deep regret and sorrow for the murder that occurred here.” Describing the killing as a “terrible event” and “terrible stain,” Mr. Schieffer promised to take measures to prevent future incidents.
The mayor said it was “extremely regrettable” that a United States serviceman had committed a crime despite Yokosuka’s past requests that the American military strengthen discipline.
On Wednesday night, the Navy said it would restrict the nighttime movement of its personnel at Yokosuka and the sale of alcohol until Monday... NYTonline
Everyone, including Ambassador Schieffer, the mayor, and the Navy knows that this sort of action is just meaningless diplobabble. Pure nonsense. They apparently think someone on this planet is stupid enough to believe that such a thing is possible or (or if so, that it would be fair to the rest of the people in the military.) OK, there are some who are that dumb.
The real answer: Pull the US out of Japan and rewrite the security treaty to require a more equal relationship (for example, Japan will spill blood to assist the US in some situations like the US is bound to do for Japan now.) This will not happen. We will hear more horsepooky like the above. Nothing effective will be done.
...Mr. Schieffer expressed his “deep regret and sorrow for the murder that occurred here.” Describing the killing as a “terrible event” and “terrible stain,” Mr. Schieffer promised to take measures to prevent future incidents.
The mayor said it was “extremely regrettable” that a United States serviceman had committed a crime despite Yokosuka’s past requests that the American military strengthen discipline.
On Wednesday night, the Navy said it would restrict the nighttime movement of its personnel at Yokosuka and the sale of alcohol until Monday... NYTonline
Everyone, including Ambassador Schieffer, the mayor, and the Navy knows that this sort of action is just meaningless diplobabble. Pure nonsense. They apparently think someone on this planet is stupid enough to believe that such a thing is possible or (or if so, that it would be fair to the rest of the people in the military.) OK, there are some who are that dumb.
The real answer: Pull the US out of Japan and rewrite the security treaty to require a more equal relationship (for example, Japan will spill blood to assist the US in some situations like the US is bound to do for Japan now.) This will not happen. We will hear more horsepooky like the above. Nothing effective will be done.
I wanna say give him the rope
But I am not such a big proponent of the death penalty anymore.
In addition to killing a man, this murderer has done damage to the image of the military and the US among many (and not only Japanese) in Japan. He was already AWOL before he stabbed a man to death. Obviously, he was less than representative of anything other than a crook even before he killed. Oh please, let's not hear about some childhood issue that makes this all understandable.
The sailor suspected of murdering a cab driver has confessed to U.S. military investigators. Now a confession does not mean someone is actually guilty unless evidence supports the confession and the investigators followed the law during the investigation. (5 April: under US law, not necessarily Japanese law) He has not been convicted yet. So I am taking a leap in saying that he is a murdering sleazeball. I will have to add the word "alleged."
Article here.
In addition to killing a man, this murderer has done damage to the image of the military and the US among many (and not only Japanese) in Japan. He was already AWOL before he stabbed a man to death. Obviously, he was less than representative of anything other than a crook even before he killed. Oh please, let's not hear about some childhood issue that makes this all understandable.
The sailor suspected of murdering a cab driver has confessed to U.S. military investigators. Now a confession does not mean someone is actually guilty unless evidence supports the confession and the investigators followed the law during the investigation. (5 April: under US law, not necessarily Japanese law) He has not been convicted yet. So I am taking a leap in saying that he is a murdering sleazeball. I will have to add the word "alleged."
Article here.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
The sailor suspected of murdering a cab driver has reportedly (or is rumored to have) kinda confessed to the crime to friends. So far, there has been no confirmation that he has confessed to military investigators. The Japanese police are expected to question him soon.
If he did kill the cab driver, let's hope he enjoys the rest of his life in prison, which he would very much deserve.
I have no evidence but am just speculating: Some branches of the military have had to reduce recruiting standards because most Americans are unwilling to take a personal risk in the fight in Iraq or Afghanistan. Could this be having a negative effect? We can bet it ain't having an overall positive effect.
There will always be a certain number of criminals who get into the military, but there is a price to pay when standards are lowered in any field.
Story here.
If he did kill the cab driver, let's hope he enjoys the rest of his life in prison, which he would very much deserve.
I have no evidence but am just speculating: Some branches of the military have had to reduce recruiting standards because most Americans are unwilling to take a personal risk in the fight in Iraq or Afghanistan. Could this be having a negative effect? We can bet it ain't having an overall positive effect.
There will always be a certain number of criminals who get into the military, but there is a price to pay when standards are lowered in any field.
Story here.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Another member of the US military is under some suspicion of a major crime in Japan. This time, a cab driver was murdered and a credit card belonging to an AWOL sailer was discovered in the cab.
When I first heard this Friday night, I thought not again. As of yet, he has not been charged with the crime. (The US has found him and took him into custody.)
I, like many non-Japanese (and some Japanese) who have lived here for a while, tend to be sensitive to these types of things as we know that the media and politicians will sensationalize it and imply that foreigners have some kind of criminal tendencies. In this case, I thought that it was very convenient to find a credit card belonging to someone in the U.S. military. It proves nothing at all by itself. It may no more than show that this guy forgot or lost his card in the cab. In cases like this, I can appreciate SOFA.
We don't know if the guy is connected or not. I hope not, though to the murdered cab driver it won't make much difference. The best we can hope for him and his family and society (Japanese and non-Japanese in Japan) is that the real killer is caught and punished.
But there are a lot of questions. MTC of the political blog Shisaku ponders some of them here and here.
When I first heard this Friday night, I thought not again. As of yet, he has not been charged with the crime. (The US has found him and took him into custody.)
I, like many non-Japanese (and some Japanese) who have lived here for a while, tend to be sensitive to these types of things as we know that the media and politicians will sensationalize it and imply that foreigners have some kind of criminal tendencies. In this case, I thought that it was very convenient to find a credit card belonging to someone in the U.S. military. It proves nothing at all by itself. It may no more than show that this guy forgot or lost his card in the cab. In cases like this, I can appreciate SOFA.
We don't know if the guy is connected or not. I hope not, though to the murdered cab driver it won't make much difference. The best we can hope for him and his family and society (Japanese and non-Japanese in Japan) is that the real killer is caught and punished.
But there are a lot of questions. MTC of the political blog Shisaku ponders some of them here and here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
