Asian-American lobbying groups playing hardball in comfort woman game
Posted by ampontan on Thursday, June 28, 2007
READER TOPCAT came up with the Japanese version of an article describing how Asian-American lobbying groups, particularly the Chinese, are threatening to withhold support for American congressmen if they don’t back the resolution slamming Japan over the use of comfort women.
They’re targeting Tom Lantos in particular. He represents a district whose population is roughly one-third Asian-American.
Then reader Ponta found the original English version in the Palo Alto Daily News, here.
Ding said he does not understand how a morally correct resolution with no financial strings or political agenda can be so easily put aside….Chang and Ding also suggested that if Lantos, who represents a district that is 33 percent Asian-American, can’t communicate with them, than perhaps it’s time for new representation. The group backed their threat with demographic numbers from the 12th California District and election results that they feel lend support for putting up their own candidate to run against Lantos in the 2008 election.
It’s a shame that it hasn’t dawned on the Global Alliance for Preserving the History of World War II in Asia and the Chinese Americans for Democracy in Taiwan that they’re Americans now, and the battles of the old country belong in the old country. Most of the Europeans who migrated to the United States either figured it out (except politicians with Irish heritage, such as Teddy Kennedy, who found ways to funnel money to the IRA), or were told to figure it out.
Most politicians are gutless in the face of groups such as these, so it’s a safe bet Lantos and the others will cave.
And how about the name of that first group? Why don’t they just be honest and call themselves the Asian Alliance for Sticking it to the Japanese Every Chance We Get?
AMPONTAN 
bender said
It’s a shame that it hasn’t dawned on the Global Alliance for Preserving the History of World War II in Asia and the Chinese Americans for Democracy in Taiwan that they’re Americans now, and the battles of the old country belong in the old country. Most of the Europeans who migrated to the United States either figured it out (except politicians with Irish heritage, such as Teddy Kennedy, who found ways to funnel money to the IRA), or were told to figure it out.
Couldn’t agree less! Actually, I’m pretty sure many of them never experienced WWII first-hand, but they managed to pass on their hatred to subsequent generations. Basically, I think it’s a kind of racism.
Sure, the Chinese or Koreans are of the same “race” as the Japanese, but the ethnicity is different, and we do see racism among white people too (like the discrimination against Jews- most of them look pretty whitey to me with blond hair and blue eyes and all), so don’t be so surprised at the idea.
And they get away with it, I think because the targeted/despised racism in America is one by whites, and racism among Asian Americans is either ignored or torelated- like “heck, it’s about Japan anyways, who cares?”- that kind of thing.
Everlasting said
I am a local from nearby this area and I can attest to the fact that these groups are virtually unheard of in the Korean-American and Chinese-American communities.
Any group can protest all they want, just because they are from one ethnic background does not imply that all other individual from that ethnicity automatically support or are aware of the activities of others who are of the same ethnicity. By way of example, a while ago the Vietnamese PM came to America for a visit, and there were small protests by some members of the Vietnamese-American community. Some Vietnamese-American groups demanded that their local leaders protest against the communist government of Vietnam. Yet the vast majority of younger Vietnamese-Americans neither cared for, or where involved in the protests. Conspiracy theories such as this seem a bit too overblown.
Garrett said
Is it unreasonable of the citizens of a republic to demand that their elected representatives act in accordance with their political views or wishes instead of in accordance with the wishes of the Japan lobby, which spends tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars every month to keep War-related issues undiscussed and unresolved.
I would guess that part of the reason for the seemin failure of some groups of Asian-Americans to assimilate is visible difference. An American of Irish descent could easily change his name and be indistinuishable from the WASPs across the way. No such ease for the American of, say, Korean descent. Add to that the lingering racism, both hard and soft, against non-Whites and it’s not hard to see why there might be some sense of separation there.
You’ll notice, though, that European immigrants and their descendants didn’t always integrate quickly or smoothly. Had they, there wouldn’t have been such a sea change in American life in the 20th century.
Large-scale Irish immigration began before the Civil War and the Irish were regarded as a separate ethnic group – by themselves and others – until at least WWII. Guys of my generation (late 20s, 3rd generation American) are often the first in our Italian families to be fully integrated, to think of ourselves as American fully and Italian not at all. Some of my generation will still tell you they’re Italian when asked their nationality.
It seems to me that there are different expectations being applied to Asian Americans in this case. For years, the IRA got most of its funding from Americans of (often vaguely) Irish descent, primarily through St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NY. The Sons of Italy contact just about every young man with a vaguely Italian name. It is in Irish bars in the US that the Catholic-Protestant split extends to whether a bar sells Bushmills or Jameson (nevermind that both are now owned by the same co.) Nevermind that most “Irish-Americans” are fourth, fifth, or even sixth-generation Americans and more the prodcut of “Irish” neighborhoods in the US than of Ireland itself.
2nd generation Cuban-Americans still base most of their political decisions on who is going to try to stick it to Castro.
America is a nation of identity politics. This can be good, as in the case of the Civil Rights movement, or it can be bad. Maintaining an interest in one’s “roots” often means maintaining an interest in the homeland’s politics. While this is often disingenuous, it need not be. Saying that the American son or grandson of a Chinese war vet should be less interested in what happened in his ancestor’s era than the son or grandson still in China is a lot like saying that Chinese-Americans shouldn’t speak Chinese in public because they’re in ‘Merica, damnit.
Tom Lantos is a Holocaust survivor. The US has a large, well-funded National Holocaust Museum. Is that unreasonable? Should the US tear that down?
Edith Cavell said
Those familiar with American politics know that one of the critical elements of a lobbying group is that it represents a concrete, active set of voters. Thus, the first issue for any group approaching a member of congress is how many votes they can bring or withhold. This is implied and rarely is ever publicly aired. The Alliance, an very unknown organization and clearly inexperienced, made a silly albeit understandable threat. It was reported because in the American political culture to air such a threat shows that the group is ineffective and politically unsophisticated. Lantos took their threat, along with those from many other groups on many other issues with the dignity of a 14 term congressman—he ignored it.
Frankly, the majority of Asians in Lantos’ district are Filipino and who very effectively made their views known to Mr. Lantos.
The more interesting question is why our gentle blogger feels it necessary to parrot (plagiarize?) a Sankei article by Mr. Komori. It is a mystery to nearly everyone in Washington as to why Komori thinks China is lurking behind every issue on Japan. China and Chinese-Americans were not significant actors in lobbying or eduction of Congress on this issue.
Komori’s analysis of the Comfort Women issue has been dismissed in DC as one of the more poorly researched and ill-informed. In fact, the exposure of his rabid reactionary views and shoddy journalism, has prompted his many Washington friends and sources now to carefully distance themselves from this so-called journalist.
It is also odd that our dear blogger has not noted the public lobbying records of the Embassy of Japan on Comfort Women. This contrasts greatly from the grassroots, all volunteer efforts of the Asian American and human rights communities on Comfort Women. For the past two years, the Embassy has spent an official $90K/month on lobbying just on Comfort Women. Since April, another firm was added and the number is now $140K/month. Those who understand how foreign agent registration works, also know that those numbers are the base line figures. It is likely that the true number of what Japanese taxpayers are paying for bad advice and international humiliation is closer to $200,000 per Month or $2.2 Million a Year.
Edith Cavell
ponta said
I would rather wonder why someone wants to play down
the fact that this the Global Alliance for Preserving the History of World War II
against Japanin Asia(世界抗日史実維護連合）despite the obvious article to show it backed up the threat with demographic numbers. Is Bay City News affiliated withSankei?
Everlasting said
Ponta,
A month ago it was reported in my local paper that several high school student staged a rally against the war in Iraq, and threatened to take action. I suppose that because this group of high school students made the news, and made vague threats, their high school club must represent a large demographic threat. Indeed they must represent all high school students at large. Your logic is strange.
As I stated once before on another thread, and as you obviously selectively ignored Ponta, there is no reason to believe that either Honda or Lantos would bow down to the pressure of organizations broadly unknown within their own communities. What Sankei and you conveniently ignore is the demographics. I am from the California Bay Area, and in Honda and Lantos’ respective districts, the Asian-American constituency makes up anywhere from 1/4 to 1/5 of the constituency. This group historically tends to in numbers smaller than their population. Asian-Americans are further divided into Filipino, Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Cambodian and other SE Asians. The Filipino and Vietnamese groups are the largest groups, with the Korean-American community being one of the smallest. Both Honda and Lantos have always won their seats with an overwhelming majority in the 60-70 range. They enjoy widespread support and funding, without ever having a problem raising support. It makes no sense for them to bend over backwards to singularly appease such a small constituency they are not dependent upon.
These conspiracy theories only work if all Chinese and Korean Americans voted as one united, homogeneous block. But then you would be assuming that all Chinese and Korean Americans would be aware of these groups, that they all tend to agree, and would vote for these groups. This assumes that they have no individuality and would vote according to their ethnicity. The underlining assumption here is tinged with a hint of racism.
Based on living in the Area, and my knowledge of people there, most Chinese and Koreans have no knowledge of these groups, or are even aware that this resolution exists. But then again I suppose you know my home better than I do.
ampontan said
“What Sankei and you conveniently ignore is the demographics.”
He’s not basing it on the Sankei article. He’s basing it on the article from the Palo Alto newspaper.
“I am from the California Bay Area, and in Honda and Lantos’ respective districts, the Asian-American constituency makes up anywhere from 1/4 to 1/5 of the constituency.”
Again, the Palo Alto newspaper says:
“Chang and Ding also suggested that if Lantos, who represents a district that is 33 percent Asian-American, can’t communicate with them, than perhaps it’s time for new representation. The group backed their threat with demographic numbers from the 12th California District.”
So, you’re saying Chang and Ding (or the Palo Alto paper; it’s a confusing passage) are wrong. Do you have any independent numbers for this?
“Based on living in the Area, and my knowledge of people there, most Chinese and Koreans have no knowledge of these groups, or are even aware that this resolution exists. But then again I suppose you know my home better than I do.”
I lived in the Area myself as an adult and couldn’t tell you what political action groups there were at the time, particularly for ethnic Chinese or Koreans. Are you either Chinese or Korean? If not, how do you know what they know? If yes, how can you speak for the other group?
And how do you know they aren’t aware of the resolution?
“These conspiracy theories only work…”
Has anyone suggested this was a conspiracy? Chang and Ding talk about their objectives and plans openly to a reporter, who publishes it in the paper. That’s hardly conspiratorial.
ponta said
As I said before, there is nothing wrong with a politician influenced by lobbyists; He can decide on his own , considering all the opinions. After all, if I remember correctly, Lantos has changed wordings of the resolution.
What so amuses me is that there are overactive people who try to deny desperately the fact that a group of Korean Americans and the Chinese organization played important role behind politicians.
Hmmmm….
Everlasting said
With all due respect, just because a lobbying group makes the news does not mean it has wise-spread representation or support. Extrapolating from a news story more than what it facially reports is sensationalism, and this same story has been covered in the Sankei, with a more sinister tone.
I do not see the point of your bringing up:
“Chang and Ding also suggested that if Lantos, who represents a district that is 33 percent Asian-American, can’t communicate with them, than perhaps it’s time for new representation. The group backed their threat with demographic numbers from the 12th California District.”
What exactly does this sentence say? It begins by saying that Lantos’ district has an Asian-American population of 33%. It then says Chang and Ding “backed up their threat” by citing this same “demographic number” of 33% Asian-American. It is repetitive and convoluted, and says nothing other than a lobbying group cites the well known fact that the district is 33% Asian-American.
Actually, I should state more specifically that Asian-Americans make up 34 percent of the population in Honda’s district, and 33 percent in Lantos’s district. As I have stated above, these percentages are further split into several different Asian groups, Chinese and Koreans being overshadowed in size by the Filipino and Vietnamese.
“And how do you know they [Asian-Americans] aren’t aware of the resolution?”
I grew up all my life in the Bay Area, and being Asian-American with the ability to speak in several of the languages spoken by the disparate Asian-American groups, having been active in this community in the past, having worked in local government, and having a wide range of diverse friends from across the Bay Area, I can say that yes, the groups mentioned in the article are virtually unknown within the wider Asian-American community. Asian-Americans are active in the civic life of this area, and most people from the Bay Area (inclusive of all ethnic groups) are well aware of the activities of the more prominent groups and Asian-American politicians, who are well reported in the local papers.
I can say without any doubt that the vast majority of Japanese are neither revisionists nor ultra-nationalists. Of course I do not know the vast majority of Japanese, but having lived there for a year, and with my rudimentary Japanese, I can confidently say this is true. With greater familiarity I can say with even more confidence that Chang and Ding do not exercise the overwhelming ability to sway the full 33 percent of diverse Asian-Americans within their district, and that the vast majority of people here are not even aware they exist.
I also never said anyone else stated that this was a conspiracy. Note that “conspiracy theory” can be used as both descriptively and as a noun. I used it as a descriptive term to characterize the outlandish line of reasoning which suggests Chang and Ding have an inordinate amount of influence on other all other Asian-Americans within their district, and in particular on Lantos.
As I stated in the above, the demographics do not bear out this line of reasoning. Both Lantos and Honda have historically enjoyed an overwhelming amount of support from in their constituencies. They have never had a problem securing more than 60% of the vote. The 33/34 percent of “Asian-Americans” are hardly a homogenous group, split in to several groups which are diverse in background, income, culture and so forth. Honda and Lantos already enjoy widespread support, and do not have to pander to any one particular group.
People often wonder why Japanese vote for certain nationalistic leaders, such as Shintaro Ishihara. The most obvious answer is that nationalistic rhetoric is not the determinative voting issue. They vote according to real life issues which affect them on a daily basis, funding, management, etc. Ishihara has been quite racist and xenophobic in some regards, yet he has generally run one of the largest cities in the world quite well. In other words Japanese vote for him because he represents their civic interests. Likewise, Honda and Lantos enjoy overwhelming support because they have well represented the interests of their district. Stating that Lantos or Honda are beholden to the interests of a minority lobbying requires several assumptions. It assumes that Asian-Americans are a homogeneous group (which they are not). It gives inordinate weight to the size of the Chinese and Koreans American population. It is tinged with the racist assumption of ethnic voting by ethnic affiliation. It assumes that such voters will vote irrationally not based upon real-life issues such as district governance and funding, but instead on small inconsequential issues. The list goes on and on. Believing this is indeed similar to believing in a conspiracy theory.
bender said
Let me tell you guys a true story.
My close friend went to a free adult school in the Bay Area to study English and all the students of the class drew posters about their countries of origin. Then the story gets ugly. You know what happened to the magnificent Ukiyoe picture that she drew? Someone ripped it off the wall, never to be seen again. No posters drawn by other students were touched, so I’m pretty much convinced it was done out of ethno-hate. And I’m pretty sure it wasn’t any Latino or African or European who did it.
Edith Cavell said
May I be so bold to point out the members of Support 121 Coalition, http://support121.org/?page_id=45
As you will see from this webpage, there is quite diverse and broad support for 121–Shiks, Japanese, engineers, Catholics, human rights activists. There is clearly not wide Chinese participation. From reporters I know who actually do research, the NY/NJ Korean American Community appears to have raised the most money for the coalition. However, this “most” is a fraction of what Japan has spent in month trying to stop the American democratic process.
Frankly, the talk about conspiracies and Chinese plots appears as a calculated distraction from the real issues. One of the real issues is that the Japanese government has essentially lied to both its citizens and the international community. The fact remains that not one of the supposed apologies given by Japanese politicians to the Comfort Women is an official governmental statement. In both language and law this is easy to see and to prove. This is also the fact that most swayed American legislators in their consideration of the resolution. And this is the fact most ignored by Japan’s press and its reactionary right.
And for those unfamiliar with the American legislative system, a resolution is not a demand. It is merely a suggestion to reflect. There are hundreds of these every year in Congress. Thus, Japan’s over reaction to this resolution is the most interesting part of the story. Almost like a child caught in a lie–and as mother, I have seen this often.
bender said
Franky said, scattering phrases like “law” or “legal’ doesn’t make any claim look authentic or substantiated. It’s still awfully conclusory if you don’t give any facts to back them up.
Although I think that the Japanese leaders have made a mad move on this “issue”, it’s a no issue for the US, or even for Korea or China for that matter. I’m surprised at how many people can spend their time and money on a senseless, unproductive issue about an Empire long gone and actually defeated (did they ever figure this one out?) and even paid reparations (which the likes of them always prefer to ignore). It seems more like ethno-hate to me.
infimum said
Let’s see if we have readers from Illinois which was represented by Lain Evans.
http://japan.donga.com/srv/service.php3?biid=2007031526428
Edith Cavell said
Congressional support for H. Res. 121 on Comfort Women is the direct result of congressional understanding of Japanese law and international law. Members of the House of Representatives, who recognize the importance of the US-Japan relationship, are concerned that Japan has not lived up to its expressions of both contrition and commitment to international law. It is appropriate and traditional for Congress to note the behavior of allies that affect American foreign policy. It is also appropriate and traditional for Congress to receive information from interest groups and to request information from appropriate experts.
The issue of an official apology rests on what constitutes an official, governmental statement in Japan.
A definitive, official Japanese government statement must fit one of four conditions:
1) a bill passed by the Diet. The Prime Minister, representing the Cabinet, submits a bill to the Diet (art 72), which becomes a law upon passage by both Lower and Upper Houses (art 59) and the signature of the competent Minister of State and the countersignature by the Prime Minister (art 74);
2) a statement by a cabinet minister in a full session of the Diet;
3) a statement by a prime minister in an official communiqué while on an overseas visit;
4) a statement ratified by the Cabinet, known as a cabinet decision, kakugi kettei.
In reality none of the first three examples of official statements are possible without a cabinet decision. A cabinet decision is the definitive expression of official government policy in Japan.
Thus far, in regard to the Comfort Women, none of these conditions have been met. The Kono Statement (Danwa) is just that, a statement, an expression of essentially personal impressions. Indeed, in March of this year the Abe government reemphasized this fact by issued a Cabinet Decision saying that it was and would not vote to make the Kono Danwa into a Cabinet Decision.
Expressions of remorse and sympathy extended to the Comfort Women thus far have been equivocal: designed to mislead receptive foreign audiences and reassure reactionary Japanese political forces. The apologies have featured heartfelt expressions of remorse and sympathy from the highest governmental authorities but have, through semantics and government inaction, been prevented from ever achieving actual legal standing or the emotional closure asked for by the surviving Comfort Women.
What Congress had to consider was why the government of Japan, and indeed its political class, insisted on questionable apologies not legally binding. The answers they came up with were troubling making them want to better understand politics in America’s closest ally in Asia.
In regard to those who believe compensation had been paid. It is important to note that “compensation” is something received as part of a legal settlement. In the case of Comfort Women, it would mean it comes from the state of Japan. The resolution do NOT ask for compensation. In addition, the government of Japan clearly states it did not give any compensation. Funds from private individuals to a private organization were offered to the Comfort Women. This was called an “atonement payment.” Because this was not governmental compensation, many of the comfort women felt it to be an insult and refused the “payments” and thus did not receive any letter of apologize from any prime minister.
I can continue and really bore you with a detailed review of other legal and linguistic issues. I prefer to urge the thoughtful to read the resolution, read the transcript of the mark up hearing of H Res 121 (available at the Committee site sometime this week), and visit the International Criminal Court website. Note the new investigation the Court has begun on the civil war in the Congo. It involves sexual violence during conflict. It is also likely to be one of the first cases that Japan will hear when they join the ICC in October. I also urge you read the Rome Statute of the ICC, which is the basis of the ICC. The legal term “sexual slavery” is cited in Article 7 (1) g. How Japan will reconcile its participate on the Court with its Comfort Woman stance will be interesting for legal scholars to watch.
Ok, enough discussion based on facts for one day.
Oh, may I add, former Rep Lane Evans was one of the most respected members of Congress who had and still has friends on both sides of the aisle. It would be truly unwise to speak ill of this dying man.
ampontan said
“Oh, may I add, former Rep Lane Evans was one of the most respected members of Congress who had and still has friends on both sides of the aisle. It would be truly unwise to speak ill of this dying man.”
Edith, it’s about time you looked up the word “solipsism” in the dictionary.
“What Congress had to consider”
Was absolutely nothing. It’s none of their business.
You asked us to visit the International Criminal Court’s website. I did. It didn’t even exist before the year 2002.
So, you have a legal institution with a body of law claiming jurisdication over something that happened more than 60 years before both the institution and the laws existed?
This is too silly to even laugh at.
ponta said
“A definitive, official Japanese government statement must fit one of four conditions:”
Who defined these conditions? Is it not just yours?
In case of German, she send the letter to the war victims just as JPM send the letter to the former comfort women.
Besides, what are conditions for a definitive, official Korean or the U.S government statment for the post ww2 former Korean comfort women?
“Because this was not governmental compensation, many of the comfort women felt it to be an insult and refused the “payments” and thus did not receive any letter of apologize from any prime minister.
. ”
I doubt it.
“An overlooked issue in much of the discussion of comfort women is whether former comfort women in allied and occupied countries had adequate freedom to decide whether to accept compensation and/or assistance from the Asian Women’s Fund. It appears that they did have sufficient freedom in the Philippines and the Netherlands but that they were not free to choose in Taiwan and especially in South Korea. Despite the financial generosity of the South Korean government’s own fund for former comfort women, the South Korean government and NGOs used it and other means as instruments of pressure and intimidation against Korean women who otherwise would have sought assistance from the Asian Women’s Fund.”(The U.S. Congressional Research Service)
bender said
Actually, the part about there being no “kakugi-kettei” for the Kono statement is inaccurate and misleading. “Kakugi-kettei” is not defined in any law/statute, it’s one of those customary decision-making procedures followed by the Japanese cabinet. The assumption is that any and all important governmental decisions will be based on “kakugi-kettei”, which means that the PM does’t go around making important decisions without consulting the cabinet. But there is no bright-line rule here, so if the PM thinks it’s OK to decide on his own, nothing is there to stop him (of course, it must be within the constitutional executory powers- Japan is not like other Eastern Asian countries, you know). “Kakugi-kettei” is not what the Japan-bashers claim it to be- it is not a procedure to authenticize governmental actions, but it’s just a procedure to make sure the PM doesn’t act on his own.
Go ahead and check it for yourself. If you can’t read Japanese, I wonder why you even tried to comment on Japanese law.
http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/rekidai/1-2-5.html
So, the allegation that there was no “kakugi-kettei” is a really lame argument- there’s no substance to it. There probably was a “kakugi-kettei” given that Mr.Kono was the “Cabinet-chief” at the time, and even if there was no “kakugi-kettei”, it doesn’t mean that the Japanese government did not aplogize- of course it did, and it was perfectly within its powers to do so.
I wonder who made up this argument up in the first place…he must have been with brain tumors or something.
bender said
Whadayaknow, there was no “kakugi-kettei” for the Kono statement:
http://www.shugiin.go.jp/itdb_shitsumon.nsf/html/shitsumon/b166110.htm
but still, I don’t see it to be any imporatant issue- too collateral. Interesting that when Japanese political leaders utter lame comments about the war, it’s assumed to be the official stance of the Japanese government, while when they aplogize, people look very hard for any miniscule procedural flaw they can find.
Everlasting said
Bender,
Let me tell you my own true story. Two years ago in Tokyo I decided to go to a small music club with some friends. Part of my group was Japanese, another were Caucasian. We came individually. I could not get in to the club. My friends called me on my keitai and wondered where I was. I told them I was denied entry without a reason. My Japanese friends were suspicious, came out, and after a long conversation with the guys at the door, got me in. Afterwards they told me that they suspected that I didn’t get in because I didn’t look so obviously “American” and obviously did not speak Japanese fluently. Without much knowledge of the establishment, I didn’t draw any particular conclusions, other than I might have been discriminated against. I didn’t dwell on it and continued to love Japan.
This was one of only a small handful of similar experiences in Japan. I disliked it, but never extrapolated from that one-time limited experience a negative view of an entire people or community. I simply did not know enough to do so. Look at your own story, perhaps someone liked your friend’s artwork, and rather than destroy it, ripped it off and took it for themselves? I’ve observed that kind of odd behavior numerous times. Look at your conclusion: you were not there, you didn’t see what happened, you made no investigation. You have no basis to imply anything, yet you resort to answering that unfortunate situation with “ethno-hate.”
In regards to the groups mentioned in the article, after looking into their activities, I will that I dislike the tone and manner of their protests. I still stand by my assertion that in the article, they punch far above their weight. They emanate far too much anger. Yet I can partly sympathize with their attempt to shed more light on Imperial Japanese crimes. Just because our sympathies partly converge on this matter, does not mean that our motivations are similar. Neither does it mean anyone who sympathizes with the resolution hates or seeks to bash Japan. It is a cheap attack.
Everlasting said
While many people continuously point to these apologies as being adequate, I would argue that they substandard. The list of its past apologies do not have the effect of an official government statement. Is it not unreasonable to find problematic the unwillingness to go through the legislative process to create an official apology?
The Kono statement, itself the clearest statement resembling an official apology, is not the equivalent of a government apology. By way of example, in regards to the war in Iraq, numerous American officials, Secretary Rice in particular, have voiced “regret” and stated that they are sorry that the Iraqi people have suffered so much. As secretary of state her authority would enable her to set up programs to affect funding for Iraqi programs. Other secretaries can within their official capacity do other things for the Iraqis, such as increase the number of asylum applications accepted. But the individual and official capacity to partake in a course of action does not transform it into the government’s official word. Recognition that such acts were performed does not do this. Subsequently “standing by” the actions of an official who acted within his official capacity, does not do so. Officials have the leeway to handle affairs in the course duties and to make a number of decisions. This does not make any action they take a de-facto proclamation of the entire government. It is a ridiculous leap of logic. By the standards of the Kono statement, the individual actions of individual government officials taken together can be interpreted to mean that the US government has apologized for the Iraq war. This is clearly not the case. In America, a statement by a department secretary of regret, sorry, or even apology does not constitute an official government statement. If this were the case then America would have already apologized for nearly all its historical problems.
Up until a few months ago, I was very much on the side of Japan when it came to this issue. I had believed that Japan had indeed apologized, and believed in the simplistic explanations that its detractors simply had an ulterior motive such as making Japan a scapegoat, or were simply ignorant. One day, while reading court transcripts regarding a woman’s personal injury my opinion changed. The plaintiff brought a personal injury case against the defendant alleging that his negligent driving caused her accident and left her paralyzed below the waist. The facts of the case indicated that defendant was at fault. Nonetheless at trial the defendant sought to introduce evidence that the plaintiff had a history of negligent driving. She in fact did have some speeding tickets, but the facts were very clear: on the day of the accident there were no problems with her driving. In other words the defendant sought to obfuscate the issue by saying “you speed too” (aka “you did it too”). He attempted to introduce a red-herring. It was irrelevant to the defendant’s own actions, which was the basis of the case, and this attempt failed. The plaintiff won the case, but all she really wanted was an apology. The closest she got to an apology were infrequent statements throughout the case by the defendant’s attorney saying he “regretted” that the woman had suffered pain. For the plaintiff, these statements were simply not an apology. The trial settled the defendant’s legal responsibility, but it certainly did not resolve his moral responsibility. Likewise Japan has relied far too much on legalistic reasoning to substantiate its claim that it has done enough. As anyone who has worked in the legal field can attest, in the realm of human relations, the law is hardly ever an adequate answer. It addresses the legal consequences; it doesn’t address the moral ones. Saying Japan has apologized doesn’t address the substance or quality of the apology. That is exactly what this resolution is about.
Individual apologies, even if honest and sincere, do not stand the test of time because of their origination. They are always highly prone to being scaled back, weakened, and attacked by individuals and groups within Japan. A group of lawmakers can seek to deny any number of crimes. Their status as lawmakers is on par with the status of those past officials who have made apologetic statements. They can weaken past statements because what they are going up against are statements not fully supported by the government process. An official government statement, one that is passed through the Diet, endorsed by all relevant government officials, is sanctioned to be the one voice of the government and people. The result is that any individual or group can deny, attack or voice their own contrary opinion, but it will not hold in the face of the government’s official proclamation – one imbued with the aura of government ritual and significance. Past statements lack this shield.
People who say America, China or the Koreas cannot criticize Japan because they have committed similar infractions should take note of how ridiculous this is in actual practice. Whenever you are about to criticize someone for an infraction, first contemplate whether you are guilty of committing that infraction in the past. If you have done something similar in the past, then shut up. Either do this or preface each criticism with a long winded self-criticism. No doubt this would result in a great deal of silence. Taken to its logical conclusion, no country would ever be able to criticize anything. Look at Darfur? Virtually every major country in the world would be silenced. It’s not Congress’s business, it hasn’t fully addressed its past treatment of Native Americans, etc etc.
Congress can examine any issue it sees fit. Indeed, this shouldn’t even be mislabeled a “right.” Congress is the legislative body, it makes laws and sets the budget. However it has myriad other functions, such as its function to convene committees to study specific issues. Similar functions are shared by democratic legislative bodies across the world. Its resolution making power is not its law making power, as such it can discuss in a resolution basically anything. Congress is the body with the greatest connection to the people. Its representatives directly link individual constituent interests to the central government. As such, its “business” is any business that its citizens are interested in, from international human rights, democratic reform, environmental degradation, to Imperial Japan’s wartime record.
Ampontan: Edith Cavell states the ICC’s current activities with regard to crimes in the Congo. She bring up an interesting question, whether Japan’s participation in the ICC which is set to preside over the issue of sexual slavery, can be reconciled with its present stance, on comfort women. She did not imply that the ICC has jrx over the comfort women issue, and if you check the ICC website, you would find there is nothing to the effect that the ICC was going to apply its laws ex-post facto to the comfort women issue.
I should add, the ICC’s legal standards are based upon widely accepted legal norms, with antecedents predating its formation. Before WW2 Imperial Japan signed a host of international agreements which forbade many of the type of crimes it committed before and during WW2.
Aceface said
Edith:
“And this is the fact most ignored by Japan’s press and its reactionary right.”
You put these two in the same category?
“The fact remains that not one of the supposed apologies given by Japanese politicians to the Comfort Women is an official governmental statement. In both language and law this is easy to see and to prove.”
Try it,It is interesting to hear the alternative view.
And don’t forget that I’m still waiting for your answer from your last comment.
ponta said
Everlasting
(1)
The analogy with the secretary Rice fails. In case of Japan, the head of the cabinet, prime minister has issued apologies. And that was the way German apologized to the war victims.
(2)”it doesn’t address the moral ones. Saying Japan has apologized doesn’t address the substance or quality of the apology. That is exactly what this resolution is about.”
In case of the issue of comfort women, there is no legal obligation to apologize, and yet, Japan has apologized. And I don’t understand the point of your example.
(3)”People who say America, China or the Koreas cannot criticize Japan because they have committed similar infractions should take note of how ridiculous this is in actual practice.”
This is a straw-man argument. Nobody is saying people can not criticize Japan because of that.
On the contrary, people can criticize
Japan as much as they want, on condition that they treaty the similar case in a similar way.
Everlasting said
Ponta:
1) You reply with a strawman: you purposely misinterpret my statement than proceed to refute this misinterpret statement. I never stated that Japan has not issued apologies. The resolution itself does not state this. Rather, I stated that Japan has issued a list of apologies. I then stated that no matter how well meaning they are, they are undermined at their inception by the way by which they are conceived. In other words, I stated that an apology arising from a full government backed legislative process would produce a stronger apology that would stand the test of time and criticism. I stated that a department secretary’s statements made in the course of her official duties are not de facto government endorsed statements. The president, head of the executive branch may make apologies. They have weight, but not they lack the weight of an official government apology which arises from the full participative government process. When the US government apologized for the internment of Japanese-Americans, it was done with Congress, with the Executive branch, and with the Judiciary. Germany has issued apologies through its leaders, through its legislature, and through its judicary, in tandem with various laws. This has involved all parts of Germany’s government. Its apologies are stronger because of this.
2) Of course you don’t understand the point of my example. You began your #2 remark by stating that a legal obligation must exist for an apology to occur. Your response pretty much encapsulates the point of my example.
3) You are substituting your own words for my own. You state that “”Nobody is saying people can not criticize Japan because of that.” But just what are you referring to with the word “that?” My “that” only refers to ”[p]eople who say America, China or the Koreas cannot criticize Japan because they have committed similar infractions….” I refer these people and only to these people. When you respond with the word “nobody” you are adding your own meaning, your own words to my statement.
You go on further to state: “On the contrary, people can criticize Japan as much as they want, on condition that they treaty the similar case in a similar way.” I covered this line of argument when I stated: “Either do this [not criticize others when you yourself have committed a similar infraction] or preface each criticism with a long winded self-criticism.” I criticized this for being ridiculous because in real practice it will shut off at the inception most criticism of important issues. It criticizes the messenger and not the substance of his criticism. It sets up a time consuming requirement that a tangential issue be first addressed, before the central issue can be addressed on its own individual merits. I used Darfur as an example.
ponta said
Everlasting
Thanks.
1-(1)”You reply with a straw-man”
I am afraid you don’t know how to use the word, “straw-man argument”
(2) “I stated that an apology arising from a full government backed legislative process would produce a stronger apology that would stand the test of time and criticism.”
That might so, but you haven’t argue why Japan has do that. And I showed the way apology was made was as good
as Germany.
2 “Of course you don’t understand the point of my example”
Of course I don’t because your example was inadequate for the analogy with this issue.
3″ou began your #2 remark by stating that a legal obligation must exist for an apology to occur.”
Where did I say that?
4″I refer these people and only to these people.”
That is called straw man argument. Because nobody is talking like that but you are saying somebody is talking like that. Or I might be mistaken, could you be specified who talked like that?
5-(1)”I criticized this for being ridiculous because in real practice it will shut off at the inception most criticism of important issues”
This holds true only if you don’t want to criticize Korea (and possibly the U.S.)
(2)It sets up a time consuming requirement that a tangential issue be first addressed, before the central issue can be addressed on its own individual merits.
I am insisting on taking up the similar case because this issue has been brought up periodically.
Honestly I am appalled at your resistance to talk about the case in post ww2 Korea when you so vehemently pushing for the resolution.
In case of Japan, the apologies were
issues (however you criticise the circumstance of the apologies) , the atonement payment were done.
The vicims’ honor was resotored in some way or other, some of them are admired for their brave acts.
In case of Korea, no apology, no compensation, no atonement payment whatever. No victims were paid attentions: according to some authors, they were treated like a trash.
The individuals motivation for the resolution is essentially irrelevant for the argument for the resolution;still, I want to ask what the people who are for the resolution doing for, ignoring the unforgotten post war2 comfort women in Korea?
Some people claim Korean troop after
WWⅡ ”emulated” Japanese system; then, all the more for it, it seems to me, the comfort system during Korean War is relevant for the discussion.
It think it is a possible line of argument that Japan is wrong, Korea is worse in that she blames Japan who somehow apologized while ignoring her own case, still both countries need to issue apology. But for some reason, it seems you don’t want to do that. (And that leads me to think you have ulterior political agenda. )
3
ponta said
In case of Japan, the apologies were
issues
→ the aplogies were issued.
Everlasting said
Ponta:
1) A straw-man.
Wikipedia Example 1: Present a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent’s actual position has been refuted.
You do this repeatedly with people you disagree with, and your first original point illustrates this. You read into my statement a belief that I claimed Japan hasn’t apologized. Throughout my long post I never once stated this, but nonetheless you use this as the basis of your attack, and run with it.
2) The entire post was about why I felt that a different sort of apology was beneficial. You did not read it. You ignored it. You again resort to a strawman.
Wikipedia Definition 4: Oversimplify a person’s argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.
3) Just because you are unable to grasp opinions that differ from your own does not mean they do not make sense, or that they are unworthy of any merit. My legal analogy illustrated why I changed my opinion. I cited a colleague’s client to illustrate the inadequacy of a purely legalistic framework. If you think the analogy is inadequate do not rely on oversimplifying it in order to dismiss it.
4) You show a lack of understanding of the term strawman. Look at my response, it illustrates exactly how you took my words out of context then inserted your own meaning. I stated the type of reasoning I objected to, then I stated why I disagreed with it. You specifically expanded the meaning of my words by stating that my statement applied to everybody’s objections. You did this when you stated “Nobody is saying that…” “Nobody,” here expands the application of my statement to EVERYONE, contrary to my statement.
5) I stated: “I criticized this for being ridiculous because in real practice it will shut off at the inception most criticism of important issues.” Notice that this is a blanket statement regarding this type of argument.
You make a logical u-turn and reply with: “This holds true only if you don’t want to criticize Korea (and possibly the U.S.”
This makes no sense in light of my critique of a TYPE of argument. My criticism applies to a type of argument, namely the kind which “… sets up a time consuming requirement that a tangential issue be first addressed, before the central issue can be addressed on its own individual merits.” This hardly applies only to Korea or the US. That is why I brought up the example of Congressional resolutions on Darfur: to specifically show it leads to a lot of problems in other legitimate issues.
6) I share the frustrations of past commentators on other sites who have called you out for your obsession with tying absolutely anything and everything to Korean participation in coercion of comfort women. Just like on the Marmot’s Hole, and just like on Transpacificradio, you seek to reduce every discussion to this one issue. Then you attack people for not addressing your issue.
All of my posts on this thread have been related to two issues: the role of Asian-Americans in the resolution and why a different kind of apology is useful. The case of post-WW2 Korea is completely irrelevant to my discussion of the role Asian-Americans participation in this Congressional resolution. It is completely irrelevant to my discussion of why I feel that Japan would benefit by adopting a different form of apology.
7) I would not have advocated or participated in the resolution. It’s a hornet’s nest of issues I’d rather avoid. But that does not mean I don’t find some of its conclusions convincing.
In the end, whether it concerns the comfort women or any other WW2 related issue, I see an apology, issued with the full participation of government, as a win-win for Japan. It strengthens Japan with a statement imbued with full government authority. It provides a powerful bulwark against domestic efforts seeking to weaken Japan’s stance on war contrition. It provides a strong answer and a rebuke to Japan’s neighbors who may criticize it. It domestically sheds light on many historically issues and raises awareness.
I see a great deal of pride, and little for Japan to lose.
Ponta, you continuously hijack my comments, and your tone is extremely hostile. I will not reply further to you when you have repeatedly twisted my words.
ponta said
Everlasting
Thanks
No I am not hostile to you. I respect you, Everlasting. That is why I keep discussing;I ignored the comment like “Fuck Japan” at the Marmot holes when discussing this issue. Do you remember?(Did you participated in the discussion at Marmot holes?)
I am hostile to the argument that treat the matter unfairly.
I am not saying that Korean case should be discussed first. I am saying that it should be discussed at the same time. You keep avoiding the issue because it is , you say, “time consuming” despite the fact that the post ww2 Korean comfort women have been denied, treated like a trash according to some authors.
Much time was consumed on this matter since 1980’s.
Some people keep taking up this issue. Every time this issue is brought up, it resulted in strengthening nationalism in Korea and Japan, ethnocentrism in the U.S. —new horizon is needed.
Taking up post ww2 comfort women is not time consuming. It is evident and pressing. And yet you
want to avoid it, regardless of the fact that it has several merits—you can avoid nationalism rising, you can help the forgotten comfort women, etc. (That has me question your stance.)
ponta said
BTW taking up post ww2 is benificial for all the countries concerened. It is a win-win-win game.
bender said
Everlasting,
You’re analogy with private civil cases is quite riduculous. Nations and individuals are different. You are in America, right? Don”t you see how it is difficlut for a nation to agree with anything? If you go around and accuse nations for being unapologetic, I see no end to it. Why? Since it’s between two (or more) nations- nobody on either side is going to completely agree that an apology was good enough. If you don’t like the way some country aplogized, that’s your problem, not the problem for all.
And in the case of your injuries case, so what if the tortfeasor doesn’t apologize? There is no cause of action to make one apologize for torts because of a very good reason. Once you get out of the legal system, you’re left with barbaric self-help. Are you suggesting we go back into the middle ages?
And you think Edith’s quasi-legal claim is somehow legitimate but at the same time, you say that law is not good enough. The only consistency I see in these arguments is the conclusion that Japan is wrong, no matter what.
Now I’m not saying that Japanese leaders have dealt with the problem well, their comments about WWII are often ridiculous. But overall, I’d say that Japan did apologize and never has officially changed her position on war crime issues. And Japan did pay reparations. If that’s not enough for you, that’s great. Don’t try to assert that something is not enough- no body can assert that. It’s a moral issue, like you said. And it’s too subjective to draw any credible conclusion. If Japanese leaders start officially declaring that WWII was justified on the side of Japan, I’d say that’s quite bold and unapologetic, but I don’t see how spontaneous utterance by some right-wingers make a whole nation unapologetic. Unless Japan officially revokes her apology, I see no real problem. So I agree that some Japanese leaders are right-wing and unapologetic, I don’t agree that the whole nation of Japan is to blame.
Everlasting said
Bender,
My civil case should only be construed analogously, not as the literal equivalent of Japan. My argument is that Japan has often relied upon legalistic explanations of the adequacy of its actions. It has relied upon on treaties, statutes of limitations, and other legal explanations to facially address the merits of many of the claims against it. Yet legalist explanations do not solve what is essentially a problem of human relations that involves other factors, most especially good public relations work. The analogy works because it reveals that even where a legal approach is successful for the plaintiff (analogized to Japan’s detractor), the underlying moral consequences may not have been properly addressed. If you are familiar with Japan’s legal system, you will understand that a large part of the resolutions process is apology dependant. Regardless of the defendant’s actual legal responsibility, a contrite apology is often more powerful than a legal award. (This will probably not be the case with the increasing number of legal complaints.) Along the same lines, I see a greater emphasis on the form of the apology as being useful for Japan to contemplate. I see it as leading to a possible solution.
“And you think Edith’s quasi-legal claim is somehow legitimate but at the same time, you say that law is not good enough. The only consistency I see in these arguments is the conclusion that Japan is wrong, no matter what.”
I would encourage you to do what lawyers do: attempt to see issues from both sides in looking for a solution. I only brought up Edith’s statement at the very end of my argument as a side note, to point out to Ampontan that he misread her ICC statement. Edith explains her opinions on why she feels that procedurally, no official statement as been given by Japan. She doesn’t explain why she sees this as significant. I cover what she does not discuss, why I feel the form of an apology affects its non-legal consequences. Our arguments superficially converge, but their substance is different.
“Now I’m not saying that Japanese leaders have dealt with the problem well, their comments about WWII are often ridiculous. But overall, I’d say that Japan did apologize and never has officially changed her position on war crime issues.”
I never disputed that Japan hasn’t apologized. The point of my post was only that Japanese leaders haven’t dealt with the problem well. I point out that the form of its past apologies weakens the clarity of its stance on war issues, and allows these questions to be raised in the first place. Since you bring it up, I would point out that in the last decade it has changed its official position on war crime related issues on different occasions. It reversed its position on comfort women with the Kono Statement. In the mid-90s as American POWs sought redress, it reversed its former position and held that the Treaty of San Francisco did indeed waive personal claims against states. In other areas it hasn’t changed its official position, such as its refusal to even address if Unit 731 existed (an issue admitted by the courts but not the government).
“And Japan did pay reparations. If that’s not enough for you, that’s great. Don’t try to assert that something is not enough- no body can assert that. It’s a moral issue, like you said. And it’s too subjective to draw any credible conclusion.”
I haven’t even brought up the issue of reparations, and whether it is adequate or inadequate. It is a hornet’s nest. But dismissing an attempt to understand the adequacy of a matter because it is subjective is a cheap copout. It allows you to pass judgment upon the complainant, without ever having to examine the substance of their complaints. I approach the issue by attempting to do something positive, to craft an actual solution to a real world problem. The real world abounds with highly subjective problems, yet people and the courts must grapple with these issues, and that is what I do in real life for other people.
“If Japanese leaders start officially declaring that WWII was justified on the side of Japan, I’d say that’s quite bold and unapologetic, but I don’t see how spontaneous utterance by some right-wingers make a whole nation unapologetic. Unless Japan officially revokes her apology, I see no real problem.”
It doesn’t take an official complete and utter denial to call into question Japan’s sincerity regarding her apologies. I see a real problem when elected officials form committees, lobby, and continuously attempt to scale back apologies. I seek to understand how these groups THINK they can do so. As I previously stated, the issue I bring up is how such actions can weaken (not remove) Japan’s apologies. I feel that the form of an apology is directly relevant to its clarity and endurance. An apology issued by official individuals requires constant reiteration in the face of criticism. An apology arising from the full government process is by its nature de facto the government’s position. In both legal terms and public relations, the government of Japan should figure out a way to strengthen its stance. While I see numerous attempts to scale back Japan’s apologies, I see no corresponding attempts to strengthen its apologies.
“So I agree that some Japanese leaders are right-wing and unapologetic, I don’t agree that the whole nation of Japan is to blame.”
My post dealt with adequacy and form. I have not stated I believe in the blaming the Japanese nation, nor do I believe in blanketing blame on an entire people. I love Japan, I spent several years of my life learning the language, I see a great deal of ignorance about the country abroad. My experiences there and my friends there are treasures, and if I ever had the opportunity to go back I’d do so in a heartbeat. In real life I see clients with real difficult issues; my job is to formulate a solution to address their problems. Not all problems can be easily solved, and some are extremely complex. Nonetheless I do my best to advise a solution.
Edith Cavell said
Dear Ampotan
And I think you should look up the word sophism.
Best Wishes,
Edith
Aceface said
Edith:
Next time when you show up,let’s make discussion in a mode of “I report,You decide”manner,instead of your”I decide,You obey”thing.
They say that the road goes both way,and that is with good reason.
best,
Aceface
ampontan said
FOR GARRETT
Garrett: For some reason, the spam filter caught your comment and blocked it. I was marveling at the dreck it caught when I saw yours. I reproduce your note here, as it wasn’t spam.
– A
————————-
Is it unreasonable of the citizens of a republic to demand that their elected representatives act in accordance with their political views or wishes instead of in accordance with the wishes of the Japan lobby, which spends tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars every month to keep War-related issues undiscussed and unresolved.
I would guess that part of the reason for the seemin failure of some groups of Asian-Americans to assimilate is visible difference. An American of Irish descent could easily change his name and be indistinuishable from the WASPs across the way. No such ease for the American of, say, Korean descent. Add to that the lingering racism, both hard and soft, against non-Whites and it’s not hard to see why there might be some sense of separation there.
You’ll notice, though, that European immigrants and their descendants didn’t always integrate quickly or smoothly. Had they, there wouldn’t have been such a sea change in American life in the 20th century.
Large-scale Irish immigration began before the Civil War and the Irish were regarded as a separate ethnic group – by themselves and others – until at least WWII. Guys of my generation (late 20s, 3rd generation American) are often the first in our Italian families to be fully integrated, to think of ourselves as American fully and Italian not at all. Some of my generation will still tell you they’re Italian when asked their nationality.
It seems to me that there are different expectations being applied to Asian Americans in this case. For years, the IRA got most of its funding from Americans of (often vaguely) Irish descent, primarily through St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NY. The Sons of Italy contact just about every young man with a vaguely Italian name. It is in Irish bars in the US that the Catholic-Protestant split extends to whether a bar sells Bushmills or Jameson (nevermind that both are now owned by the same co.) Nevermind that most “Irish-Americans” are fourth, fifth, or even sixth-generation Americans and more the prodcut of “Irish” neighborhoods in the US than of Ireland itself.
2nd generation Cuban-Americans still base most of their political decisions on who is going to try to stick it to Castro.
America is a nation of identity politics. This can be good, as in the case of the Civil Rights movement, or it can be bad. Maintaining an interest in one’s “roots” often means maintaining an interest in the homeland’s politics. While this is often disingenuous, it need not be. Saying that the American son or grandson of a Chinese war vet should be less interested in what happened in his ancestor’s era than the son or grandson still in China is a lot like saying that Chinese-Americans shouldn’t speak Chinese in public because they’re in ‘Merica, damnit.
Tom Lantos is a Holocaust survivor. The US has a large, well-funded National Holocaust Museum. Is that unreasonable? Should the US tear that down?
Ken said
The point of my post was only that Japanese leaders haven’t dealt with the problem well. I point out that the form of its past apologies weakens the clarity of its stance on war issues, and allows these questions to be raised in the first place.
It’s not just the form of the apologies, but perhaps just as significant is the fact that once they are uttered, there are almost immediate rumblings from politicians at home who want it retracted or reevaluated. That takes away from the apology in the eyes of many.
Saying one thing to an ‘international’ audience and something different to a ‘domestic’ audience isn’t going to cut it. Well, it might cut it domestically at times. And this may be the choice they’re left with.
ponta said
I have a different perspective.
Surely there are some Japanese people who talk insensitive to the victims. But the most part of the reaction from Japanese, as I see it, are against the allegation that Japanese military systematically kidnapped women as a matter of policy.
Some people say it is difference without difference because anyway Japan provided infrastructure where many women were deceived into the brothels by the brokers and there were individual cases Japanese military were alleged to be involved in recruiting women forcibly against the policy.
In a way that is true, but note when Abe made a statement to the domestic audience to the effect Japanese military didn’t kidnapped women as a matter of policy, domestically, if I remember correctly, the statement itself didn’t bring about much fuss because people are relatively familiar with the debates on it, but internationally he was attacked as a denier because I think international media often talks as if Japanese military forcibly recruited women as a matter of policy.
Some people say Abe was trying to minimize responsibility. I don’t know his intention. But it seems to me that it is legitimate for, say, Korea to deny the possible allegation that they systematically kidnapped women, though there were in fact reported cases in which the women were raped and made prostitutes by military officers and the most women worked against their will.(OhmyNews(2002-02-26)
That said, I don’t think it was wise for Japan to insist on difference between the coercion in narrow sense and broader sense. In hindsight it might have been even mad, especially in a international situation where talking about the post ww2 Korea for the comparison is a taboo and shedding a doubt on the allegation counts as a denier.
In any case, I am afraid the resolution 121 will only result in fueling nationalism. It will make nationalists in Korea and ethnocentric Americans happy—it might not be so unreasonable to infer from this who is promoting the project most excitedly behind the scene—and it will anger Japanese nationalists. All I hope is that they acted in a cool head way. Note in passing even Asahi questions some points of the resolution (「決議案に疑問がないわけではない」—though it blames Abe and nationalist movement much more vehemently(2006-6-28)—that means there is much more room for nationalists to criticize the resolution.
Lastly for those who are interested in the German case for the war victims, http://www.yorozubp.com/0705/070514.htm
(Japanese)
Bender said
Everlasting,
You like stating legal stuff, but you do seem to fall short since you like to discuss the morality of things rather than how issues were dealt legally in the past. If you are in fact a lawyer, I think you are competent enough to understand what was agreed in the San Francisco Peace Treaty and subsequent bilateral agreements between Japan and her former adversaries, and most significant, Korea. You underevaluate how much effort was made to compensate and the extensive negotiations that went between the countries at that time. Just because you don’t like it, you don’t negate treaties.
Sure, the Japanese leaders might be A-holes trying to assert past glory or whatever. I agree that their statements undermine what was agreed and arouses criticism and distrust all over. But criticizing one nation’s leader for being an A-hole is one thing, demanding another country’s diet to make resolutions for apology is quite another. How should the US react if the Chinese People’s Assembly passes a resolution demanding the US congress to apologize for black slavery and reinstate all affirmative actions in the states with a quota? I’d say there’s much arrogance on the side of the US congressmen here. And is this even an issue so important for the American lawmakers to resolve?
I think you’re mixing up the unjustness of things (sure, the Japanese were cruel- whoever doubts that?) and the issue of whether the US should do anything about it in the 21st century- and not to forget that Japanese leaders up to Tojo and down to military officers in the field were punished (executed) in various war tribunals and Japan was confiscated all its assets overseas… I think it’s quite enough. Demanding another “formal” apology seems quite arrogant and disgusting to me.
Aceface said
Ken:
“Saying one thing to an ‘international’ audience and something different to a ‘domestic’ audience isn’t going to cut it. Well, it might cut it domestically at times. And this may be the choice they’re left with.”
Is this really happening?If you know any I want some hard cases.
All I know is Pwhen M apologizes and occasionary somebody says another.I don’t see this as a double speak.It seems to me just a difference in opinion between two different individuals.When this somebody is a member of the diet of the very apologetic PM,then things are different.Usually to my understanding the lower ranker resign and PM’s aplogy lives.The thing is the critics abroad simply do not want end this business of war with Japanese apology for the reasons far beyond me.
Aceface said
Pwhen m,
correction:when PM.
ampontan said
“Saying one thing to an ‘international’ audience and something different to a ‘domestic’ audience isn’t going to cut it.”
Could you cite specific examples of the same person saying one thing to an international audience and to a domestic audience in regard to this issue?
I certainly hope you don’t mean the prime minister, and I certainly hope your opinion in this matter hasn’t been influenced by sloppy American journalism.
Aceface said
Not that I disagree with Ken’s argument entirely because Tokyo tends to send complex signals to outside in the history issue,as you now see in case of Kyuma on A-bomb.(Though I’m with Kyuma on this one,I can hardly say it was a wise move considering he is from Nagasaki…)
Maybe we should all think about the meaning of “strawman’s argument”once again and try to be more accurate about what we are talking.
Everlasting said
Bender,
“You like stating legal stuff, but you do seem to fall short since you like to discuss the morality of things rather than how issues were dealt legally in the past.”
As I am indeed an attorney, I do understand just how far a legal solution can go, and just how much it leaves unanswered. It’s something all attorneys learn early on in their careers, and something we often see layman having a difficult time understanding. One of the first things you learn in law school is that the legal solution only solves a legal problem. It doesn’t anything else. It is naïve to think that in real life problems end after a court judgment.
“If you are in fact a lawyer, I think you are competent enough to understand what was agreed in the San Francisco Peace Treaty and subsequent bilateral agreements between Japan and her former adversaries, and most significant, Korea.”
Regarding the San Francisco Treaty. I’ve read it numerous times, I once helped a professor write a comment regarding part of it, and just read law review articles regarding it. But I’m hardly an expert on it, though I am aware that it is not a cut and dry document. I know that it is open to interpretation on some issues. I know that despite its language, up until the late 90s even the government of Japan’s official stance was that it did not waive claims against states. I know that some countries take issue with its formation. China and the Koreas, object to be bound by it, since neither were represented in its deliberations, had any input, or were present for its signing. I disagree with them, and feel that for all purposes the Treaty’s effect is here to stay. I RESPECTFULLY disagree, I do not pour vitriol on their reasoning simply because I disagree, and most of all I do not disparage their intelligence because of that.
“You underevaluate how much effort was made to compensate and the extensive negotiations that went between the countries at that time. Just because you don’t like it, you don’t negate treaties.”
I am aware of the negotiations between Japan and China and South Korea. I have written about them elsewhere, most notably on Chinese blogs to make a point about the importance of Japan’s post-war contributions, its efforts to early efforts normalize relations and how its ODA provided essential assistance to China’s early modernization efforts. I also encourage you to actually read my statements. No where have I stated I didn’t like the San Francisco Treaty. NO WHERE did I state that I would negate it. I find it hard to believe that you can deduce so much of my opinion on the Treaty from half a sentence I wrote.
“How should the US react if the Chinese People’s Assembly passes a resolution demanding the US congress to apologize for black slavery and reinstate all affirmative actions in the states with a quota? I’d say there’s much arrogance on the side of the US congressmen here.”
The US conducts an annual review of the human right’s situation in China. China in turn retaliates by publishing a sordid tabloid-like collection of human rights problems in the US. China fumes, the US does not. Europe on the other hand has taken to criticizing the US for human rights violations in Guantanamo, its alleged extraordinary renditions, actions abroad, and so forth. The EU has sought to condemn the US for such cases. It has sought to arrest US officials. This comes from an ally, and the US takes note. It does not explode in a fit of anger. Indeed it seems that the US recognizes Guantamo is a major international issue that sullies its image, and is slowly changing its tactics, even if our President Bush disagrees. Implicit between close allies is an understanding that criticism is natural, and a healthy part of bilateral relations. China does not see any kind of criticism of its system as healthy. It sees and labels such as “internal interference,” “arrogance,” an attack on its “sovereignty” and a host of other one-liners.
“And is this even an issue so important for the American lawmakers to resolve?”
One can argue that the US has many other pressing matters. But when has that stopped the US from addressing anything it sees fit? When have people protested the US when it passes a resolution condemning human rights abuses in far off countries, in Burma, Darfur, China? Undoubtedly the US has an intrinsic stake in the stability of Japan’s relations with its neighbors. History, regardless of its merits, riles these relationships. Maybe that’s not very important. In any case it isn’t for me to decide, because so long as US citizens think an issue is important, they can exercise their right to make it an issue.
“I think you’re mixing up the unjustness of things (sure, the Japanese were cruel- whoever doubts that?) and the issue of whether the US should do anything about it in the 21st century- and not to forget that Japanese leaders up to Tojo and down to military officers in the field were punished (executed) in various war tribunals and Japan was confiscated all its assets overseas…I think it’s quite enough.”
Your argument is that Japan has been punished enough. Implicit in your view is that further apologies are a kind of punishment. You seem to see any call for further apologies as an extension of this punishment. It is a callous to equate apology with punishment, especially past death and carnage. It entirely misses what an apology is about. You seem obsessed with the belief that those who question Japan’s apologies, or call for a stronger one, do not recognize Japan’s contributions, Japan’s past suffering. Your focus is self-centered and misplaced.
Not once have I called into question either the truthfulness or sincerity of Japan’s past apologies. Not once have I questioned the value of Japan’s postwar contributions. Not once have I disregarded how much Japan suffered in defeat.
All I have done is to question whether the course of action Japan has taken is an effective one. I see an intrinsic flaw in Japan’s past apologies, arising from their haphazard form. Each of Japan’s past apologies been unable to withstand criticism both from within Japan, and outside of Japan. As Ken has noted, just as significant (or may be more) than its apologies is how Japanese groups treat the apologies. Ignoring for a moment the foreign detractors, one can see that domestically at least, its apologies are subject to constant and sustained attack. There is ample domestic reason to reassess the question of apology.
“Demanding another “formal” apology seems quite arrogant and disgusting to me.”
Allies criticize one another, nudge one another, and strong allies take such acts with maturity. I see little, almost no cost to Japan if it were to reassess the weaknesses of its past apologies. It does not cost precious soft capital; it does not cost millions of lobbying dollars. An apology born of full government participation, carried through the full legislative process, imbues the apology with strength. It gives those who suffered from Imperial Japan’s actions a morally stronger message of contriteness. Japan has little to lose, it doesn’t somehow become more guilty, it doesn’t become more legally liable, it isn’t somehow shamed. It does not solve all problems, it will not end all criticism, but it elevates Japan’s status.
Where you see an act of arrogance and disgust, I see an opportunity to resolve lingering problems. I see only pride as the cost.
ampontan said
“Where you see an act of arrogance and disgust, I see an opportunity to resolve lingering problems.”
I’ve made this point repeatedly, but I’ll do it again.
Nothing Japan does will ever resolve “lingering problems” (assuming you think any exist). Neither the Chinese nor the Koreans want to see “the problem” resolved, as they have made clear. It is simply part of their political tactics with Japan.
Anyone who thinks it will resolve anything is at best naive.
All the more reason for the US to not become involved; it’s stirring up a pot and it has no idea of the ingredients it contains.
ponta said
“Allies criticize one another, nudge one another,Allies criticize one another, nudge one another, and strong allies take such acts with maturity.”
That is all it will all bring about. It will not end periodical skirmishes between Japan and China/Korea.
As for me, I think the best response for Japan is to ignore it just as China will ignore the resolutions against China.
Japanese right-wingers will not object apology itself, but will demand more clear and detailed terms for what happened for the accuracy. That will in turn anger Korea, and so on. And for some Japanese it will be symbolic for what the U.S. stands for.
I really wonder why the U.S. has to get involved in this.
Everlasting said
Ponta, I apologize for any misgivings.
Looking back on the past few years, I see that some of my core views have changed, and that I’ve even come to understand certain positions I could or would not have. People change, things change, it’s best not to be too cynical.
Let’s just keep our minds open and wish for the best shall we?
ponta said
Everlasting
Let’s just keep our minds open and wish for the best shall we?
Yes. Let’s keep our minds open.
I don’t belong to any political party. I don’t hold any specific political ideology. I was educated by the leftist history teacher who hates the emperor system. I have a bit of patriotrism. I often make mistakes. I don’t think criticizing Japan is anti-Japan(反日）. Examining Japan, her history and her policy is beneficial. I just like the discussion which will bring deeper understanding. As you say, things change, people change, and I change, in particular through an open dialogue.
ponta said
The issue of comfort women are not legal problem.
For instance
Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea
That is why congressional report service warns.
Besides if this issue is diputed in the court, I doubt if many of testimonies were admissable and i wonder in what sense the U.S. has a standing.
In my veiw, this issue is political through and through, promoted by jounrnalists and human right activists who desparately tries to turn a blind eyes on post ww2 Korean comofort women.
bender said
Where you see an act of arrogance and disgust, I see an opportunity to resolve lingering problems. I see only pride as the cost.
What problem did it solve? As a fellow to your profession, I sincerly hope the cases you deal with every day won’t get to your nerves. BTW, thanks for calling me a “layman”.
Ken said
All the more reason for the US to not become involved; it’s stirring up a pot and it has no idea of the ingredients it contains.
I think this is well put, in a sense. The US is not stirring any pot. The 29 members of a House Committee who voted for the resolution to move on are hardly “the US.”
Is the pot being stirred up? Well, that’s up to Japan. If it ignores the resolution, points out the fact that it’s non-binding, and refrains from publishing what are bound to be offense and self-defeating views in full-page US newspaper ads, it would have much less to be worried about. Japan needs not fear the pot being stirred, but that someone is there to watch it being stirred. And Japan seems to be the most intent watcher to date. Kudos to Shiozaki for pushing Japan away from that role.
I agree that the US lawmakers hardly understand the ingredients. But I don’t think that’s something they worry about. The State Department sets foreign policy, and this vote has no effect upon that entity.
tomojiro said
>….refrains from publishing what are bound to be offense and self-defeating views in full-page US newspaper ads……
tomojiro said
I don’t know, why but my comments wouldn’t show up.
ponta said
”Well, that’s up to Japan. If it ignores the resolution, points out the fact that it’s non-binding, and refrains from publishing what are bound to be offense and self-defeating views in full-page US newspaper ads, it would have much less to be worried about.”
The Japanese group that published the Ad is hardly “Japan”.
I don’t think Japanese media will ignore the resolution.
And of course Korean media will be rejoiced.
Asahi and other media will use the resolution to attack the government whoever will be next Prime Minister.
Then some factions of Japanese conservative will counter it.
I am not worried that military alliance with the US will be shaken;military people in both the U.S. and Japan know quite well how important the alliance is.
What I am worried about is it might cause some kind distrust in the U.S. among Japanese people.
Notice almost all the media including Asahi is not satisfied with the resolution.
Who is loser? —Japan and the U.S.
Aceface said
“Asahi and other media will use the resolution to attack the government whoever will be next Prime Minister.”
Not exactly,Asahi has been pretty calm and reasonable on this matter and same with Mainichi.Monthly Ronza could be somewhat sympathetic but Weekly Asahi had non-Asahi like turnaround to jingoism lately.
Sure,Japanese media would write about the resolution just as we’ve been covering this issue for past decade or two.But the thing is neither Abe nor MoFA is wrong on the issue(perhaps they’ve handled it badly,but that’s another story).
The real problem is that the trust to Koreans will dissappear in all wings of politics.
It has been the right who had supported Seoul for pol-mil reasons,Left for idealism regarding democracy and historical reconcilliation and overcoming the prejudice toward zainichi.Business community and bureaucracy was keen on neutral economic ties.
Now it’s all gone.Seoul is doing everything they can to support Pyongyang and damage Japan’s diplomatic effort to pressure the North to solve nuclear/abductee issue.They’ve also dumped FTA negotiation with Tokyo which has been carefully researched for nearly a decade and suddenly switched to FTA with Washington taking just couple of months of negotiation period.They killed Asian Women Fund and harassed those who have been faithfully working for the salvation of the ex-comfort women long before Koreans taint the issue from human rights issue to nationalstic one.
We will kiss America’s ass no matter how wrong they are and it is evident in the current situation relating war on terror.But this is real politics and not much else.
If there is a loser in this whole issue,it will be the liberal and internationalist Japanese seeking enlightend self interest in bilateral ties with Seoul.
tomojiro said
Does anyone has read the new book by Onuma Yasuaki “Ianfu mondai toha nani dattanoka?( What was the comfort women problem)”,published at chuko shinsho this month?
Pretty much interesting. Here is an interesting review from a blog written by a public servant who has also donated to the “Asian women’s fund”.
http://bewaad.com/2007/07/03/190/
Anyway, recently even the once over (or blindly) pro-korean leftist and feminist like Ueno Chizuko and Wada Haruki has began to criticize the ultra nationalistic movement of some Korean NGO’s and feminists.
But it’s too late. They should have done that 10years ago. Once I have read an interview of Noam Chomsky, shortly after 9/11. I don’t agree with his political view, but what was impressive was, although being harshly critical against the American government and President Bush, he never used the anti-american feeling of the Japanese interviewer.
He questioned and counter argued the anti-american view of the interviewer.
Criticizing the Japanese government and the ruling LDP doesn’t mean that you have to nod at everything what the Korean and the Chinese are saying. If you are against nationalism and want to fight with nationalism then you should do that also with Korean or Chinese nationalism.
Otherwise it is just hypocrisy. Even Noam Chomsky did it. The Japanese Liberals did not. They’ve got the lesson too late.
Aceface said
I’m now reading the very book,Tomo!
And your Chomsky interview.I’ve always felt the same way after I read the interview of his at The Playboy Japan magazine conducted by Hennmi You辺見庸 some years back……
ponta said
“The real problem is that the trust to Koreans will dissappear in all wings of politics.
It has been the right who had supported Seoul for pol-mil reasons,Left for idealism regarding democracy and historical reconcilliation and overcoming the prejudice toward zainichi.Business community and bureaucracy was keen on neutral economic ties.
Now it’s all gone”
I am not sure if they have lost the trust in Korea.
But if you say so…
In any case I think Mofa should do something about Korea. It has been sending wrong messages.
“They killed Asian Women Fund and harassed those who have been faithfully working for the salvation of the ex-comfort women long before Koreans taint the issue from human rights issue to nationalstic one.”
I can’t agree more.
“We will kiss America’s ass no matter how wrong they are and it is evident in the current situation relating war on terror.”
I don’t like the wording, but I got the message.I think Japan need a friendly relations with the U.S. That is the best choice considering geopolitical, and ideological situation—-you need allies but China is not a candidate, and the U.S. is the best liberal democracy in the world.
But, you know, to be honest, I’ve come to understand, through the U.S-Japan relation, what some feminists say about a sentiment of the women who has to rely on a strong man for survival.
“If there is a loser in this whole issue, it will be the liberal and internationalist Japanese seeking enlightened self interest in bilateral ties with Seoul.”
We’ll see it.
I read the book ““Ianfu mondai toha nani dattanoka”
at the bookstore.
Probably, it should be “…..nannanoka?”; It is ongoing issue.
Ken said
Who is loser? —Japan and the U.S.
The #1 and #2 economies in the world? I don’t see either losing here.
bender said
Who is loser? —Japan and the U.S.
The #1 and #2 economies in the world? I don’t see either losing here.
I’m not sure what winning and losing means here, but America is always bombarded by anti-Americanism and Japan is by anti-Japan. It looks kind of different because many see as Japan as a non-democratic, “eastern” regime filled with unapologetic revisionists (oh my…). So in this sense, Japan is losing. In Japan, when the media says “western nations(countires)”, it includes Japan, but in the US, definitely not included. So I think this needs to be worked out, and the Washington Post ad surely had adverse effects on how Japan will be perceived (if anyone cared to look at the ad at all).
BTW, talking some Europeans, I’ve realized that Germany and the Germans haven’t been completely embraced by their neighbors as well. So it’s a difficult path for both nations.
ponta said
The resolution will have adverse effects on how many pro-American Japanese will perceive the U.S.
Ken said
Bender & Ponta,
I just don’t see those things being factors that keep foreign policy shapers (for example in the State Department or MOFA) up at night.
Bender has a great point: “if anyone cared to look at the ad at all”
Tempest in a teacup.
bender said
Ken,
Rather, I kind of think that’s one of the only things the MOFA gets to do by itself, if they decide to do anything at all. The other foreign policy goodies is up to other guys- e.g., trade (MITI), protection of IT (MITI), natural resources (MITI), financial stuff (MOF, BOJ), defense (Ministry of Defense), Fishing rights and Agriculture (not sure of the acronym- MAF?), inter-stellar relations (probably not MOFA)…etc.
Probably does hurt Japanese businesses in China if Japan keeps getting hated there. So I wouldn’t be so confident that all these WWII-stuff can be disgarded as mere rubbish. Oh, don’t get me wrong for those who like to glorify the past. Never said that, even once.
rate me said
Do not be tempted to switch off the central heating or the boiler.
Since lung is important to moves the qi downward to support the blood movement to the reproductive organ,
deficiency of lung qi reduces the kidney function in moving qi upward, leading to kidney deficiency.
When is the best time to launch a marketing campaign.