How to Deal with Unpredictable Terrorism

The Japanese had long been distant from terrorism in Islamic world. “Terrorism is scary, ‘cause it is unpredictable,” stated former PM Junichiro Koizumi right after September 11 attacks occurred in 2001. That showed the innocence of a Japanese leader on terrorism. Even if it is unpredictable, he needed to learn about terrorism. The response of the government of Japan to the terrorists’ assault on a petroleum plant in eastern Algeria revealed that it learned few from the experience of Koizumi.

“We confirmed that terrorism is never be tolerated,” told PM Shinzo Abe in press conference right after the meeting with Indonesian President S. B. Yudhoyono in Jakarta on Friday. He cancelled some events in Indonesia and flew back to Tokyo to conduct the hostage crisis. Concerning that terrorists’ attack was hard to predict, perhaps harder than prediction of earthquake, Abe’s management would not be criticized so much.

The problem, howcver, was scarcity of information. On Thursday, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tokyo could not get accurate information about Japanese hostages and victims. Sources they mainly relied on were wire services such as Reuters or Al Jazeera. They sent a Parliamentary Vice-Minister to Algiers, only resulting in getting nothing from In Amenas city where hostages were, because it was too far from the capital.

The crucial fact we knew was that the government of Japan was not informed of the military operation for liberating hostages by Algerian forces before it started. Although Abe announced the necessity of importance of hostages’ lives, his request was ignored by the government of Algeria, which was actually in a fight with terrorism. Japan has no grip on this incident so far.

If we cannot stop terrorism, we at least need to learn more about terrorism. Louise Richardson defines terrorism as “deliberately and violently targeting civilians for political purposes.” She lists seven characteristics of terrorism; 1) politically inspired, 2) involving violence, 3) sending message, 4) having symbolic significance in act and victim, 5) act of groups, not states, 6) difference between the victim and the audience, and 7) deliberate targeting of civilians.

Among those seven points, Japan has to focus on 4). We should think about what was the symbolic significance for terrorists of taking Japanese businessmen hostage. This act of terrorism obviously means that terrorists recognize the Japanese as one of the targets. It is not clear when Japan became a target. When it sent its troops to reconstruct southern part of Iraq in 2003, no personnel was killed or injured by local terrorists. In Japan, it was recognized as a kind of soft power, which Japan had obtained in long-time cooperation with the Iraqis. One specialist in Middle East study told that the Iraqis believe in Japan, because it exported good reliable products including cars, TVs or refrigerators. Those goods proved Japan’s resilience from disaster of World War II, which was respectable for the Iraqis. It is possible that terrorists regard the Japanese as enemy while Japan has been standing by US in the war on terrorism.

Now we are seeing terrorists hostile toward Japan. Japan needs not only to denounce act of terrorism, but to reduce hostility of terrorists against Japan.

Unrecoverable Disaster

Who is responsible for land pollution? It is polluter’s responsibility. Who is the polluter of Fukushima area by disseminated radiation from the First Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant (1F)? Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). Does TEPCO recover the area for the residents to live there again? With the help of the government of Japan, yes, they do. Is it possible for human being to clean all the land up? Nobody knows. That is the problem.

The government of Japan calls the process of cleaning the land “the first attempt in the history of human being.” The government urged each local government to establish a cleaning plan, and some local government has started washing their land. According to the guideline of the Ministry of Environment, the cleaning will be done around houses, schools and some other public buildings in FY 2012 and 2013.

Most part of the land in those rural towns and villages, however, consists of mountain, forest or paddy field. When are those places cleaned? Nobody knows, because the Ministry has no plan after FY 2014. If they clean all the area up, the cost for it will amount to astronomically high. Fiscal need is the main reason for them not to be able to have the plan.

Nevertheless, they insist on retuning displaced people to their hometown. They groundlessly insist on land cleaning. The reason is clear. If they give it up, it means that the accident in 1F was unrecoverable. They have to give in to the criticisms that the government of Japan is responsible for their energy planning heavily dependent on nuclear power. It will harm their dignity and authority as the top elites in Japan. All they want to do is to protect themselves, not sufferers, by devaluing the accident to the level that the accident was still manageable for human being.

No resident in Fukushima believes in the recovery scenario made by government people. Before the accident, they had been aware of thyroidal disease of workers in 1F. They had been aware of what would happen, if a nuclear disaster occurred. They also know how deep the mountains and forests are, and how small their residential area is. It is common knowledge that it takes thirty years for cesium 137 to be reduced in half. Even how they clean the land around their houses, rains and winds transport radioactive materials to their place. It is impossible for them to imagine their land all cleaned up, and living with old neighbors in their hometown.

The responsibility of the government is clear. It is to show a plan with when and how the people will be able to return. Otherwise, the government must not escape from announcing that some people have to eternally give their hometown up, and compensating for them as a result of failure in national energy policy.

Abe’s Southern Tour

The Prime Minister Shinzo Abe embarked on his “southern tour” this morning. He will visit Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia, to reconfirm positive relationships with those nations. Acknowledging the expansion of influence of China, his main purpose is to let those Southeast Asian countries be on the side of Japan. His fundamental error in diplomacy is that he tries to persuade Asian nations to follow 

Japan with no effective incentive except US-Japan alliance.

Regardless of its effectiveness, diplomatic message of DPJ administration was clear. Former PM Hatoyama upheld East Asian Community Initiative, in which Japan had leadership with ever less influence of US in this region. PM Noda explained that his economic strategy was to achieve Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP) by simultaneously achieving Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Free Trade Agreement (FTA) of Japan, South Korea and China, and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

PM Abe has announced no concrete diplomatic plan toward Southeast Asia. We still don’t know whether he will follow the concept of Arc of Freedom and Prosperity at the time of his first administration. If he does, it will be possible that China recognize it as a containment policy against China. The greatest difference from the policy of Noda administration is PM Abe, as the leader of Japan, has not decided whether he will pursue joining TPP. Holding a lot of lawmakers who has interested in agriculture, LDP will get into big mess, if Abe decides to join it.

Without any clear view to the Southeast Asia, what is he doing in his Southern Tour? His offer to US to visit there and meet with Obama as the first foreign tour was dismissed, because he has no plan to settle bilateral issues between Japan and US. Southeast Asia is an alternative destination for him to visit. Appealing “rocket start” of his second administration, it was unacceptable for him to stay in Japan doing nothing in diplomacy. In other words, he needed to cover his mishandling up in “indispensable Japan-US alliance.”

The question is whether Asian countries welcome this Japanese leader. Abe is saying to the leaders in the region that “Ok, I came here to greet you as a new PM of Japan. As a leader in this region, I insist you not to look to China, but Japan. It is important for you guys to follow the policies of freedom and democracy exercised by Japan and US.” Without clear words, his attitude reveals his true intention showed above.

It is obvious that Asian nations don’t want to follow Japan’s selfish and narrow-minded strategy, but are interested in what kind of partnership they can develop in relation with Japan, on which Abe has no idea. The problem of Japan’s diplomacy is not able to recognize Asian country as partners, but regarding as followers of Japan’s leadership.

DPJ’s Bodybuilding

Bipartisan system in Japan is facing a crisis of collapse. The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) has not recovered from historical defeat in last general election of the House of Representatives last month. Although the party obtained over three hundred seats in the election of 2009, it diminished to the level of fifty-seven this time. With the victory of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) with two hundred ninety-four seats, it is impossible for Japanese parliamentary system to maintain “replaceable” bipartisan system, in this situation. Whether DPJ can regain power depends on how it exercises its bodybuilding as a political party.

The survivors of DPJ looks like losing their minds, realizing the magnitude of their defeat. Because of its smallness, DPJ lawmakers are contained in small rooms, moving from large space they occupied before the election. Meetings are held with small numbers of its members. Most leaders, including former Prime Minister, Yoshihiko Noda, refrained from running for presidential election, emphasizing their responsibility of the defeat.

New president, Banri Kaieda, and chief secretary, Goshi Hosono, started a tour of visiting its local organizations to reestablish the party’s basis. But all they hear is frustration against the handlings of party leaders before the election. Kaieda also announced that the party is going to start a discussion to review its platform. However, there seems to be no solidarity to rebuild the party’s body.

From the beginning of 1998, DPJ has been dependent on local organization, mainly labor unions that had been supported the Socialist Party. Although it introduced liberal lawmakers from LDP and merged with other parties, it could not either build new basis of supporters other than labor parties or erode LDP supporters. It led to the ambivalent concept of the party, in which, for example, new liberalism with willingness of constitution amendment and old socialism with strictly against the amendment co-exist.

One of the choices DPJ facing is whether or not they keep on depending labor unions. Most members want to independent on them to reinforce the party, but former chief secretary, Azuma Koshiishi, asked Japan Teachers Union of support in election of the House of Councillors this summer. As long as DPJ relies on those unions, its political basis will not expand. It needs to extend its arms from labor union to business sectors, from low-income families to more divergent middle class, and from left wing socialists to the majority of political independents.

Japan is on the watershed between moderate peaceful country and militarily active country. If we think how Japan can build better and sustainable relationships with foreign countries, rise or fall of DPJ has crucial meanings.

Oh, Comfort Woman--Embarrassing

One of the most embarrassing things for Japanese in foreign country is to hear about the discussion on “comfort woman,” which is dispute over the involvement of military in operating comfort stations, in another word brothels. As soon as new Prime Minister was chosen, this issue reappeared on politics in Japan. Pushed by revisionists in Japan, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is positive for reviewing Kono Statement in 1993, in which the government of Japan officially acknowledged the existence of comfort women and the coercion of the government in transferring women to the station. Actually, other nations are critical about this change of course. To what extent is this PM let us feel embarrassed?

The attitude of revisionism already accepts backlashes from foreign countries. The Foreign Minister of Australia, Bob Carr, cautioned Japanese government of reviewing Kono statement in the joint press conference with Japanese Foreign Minister, Fumio Kishida, on Sunday. Early this month, when the special envoy to South Korea, Nukaga Fukushiro, arrived at the airport of Seoul, a right wing activist protested his visit by injuring his belly with a knife, close to hara-kiri performance.

As well as then National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, murmured at the time of September-eleven attack, one question is coming up: Why do they hate us so much? I heard the answer many times. “Even if the government of Japan apologize again and again, other leaders soon overturn that apology. We cannot understand which is the true voice of Japan,” told a man demanding a resolution for denouncing Japanese government on dealing with comfort woman issue in US Congress. The resolution passed in the House of Representatives in 2007.

The response of Abe administration is not to face with those criticisms, but to turn their back. Abe is preparing to deliver new statement, which is replacing Kono Statement. He is setting up new consultative council for new statement. Without any new study on the issue, he tries to prove the innocence of Japanese government. The purpose of the council must be reviewing Kono Statement from the beginning.

Long after the World War II, the Japanese made their mind to stand firm on the basis of pacifism, though someone falsely take it as an appeasement. The position of Japan in the world community is defined by that recognition by other countries. To change that basis may fundamentally undermine the efforts of the many who worked long for persuading other nations to believe in Japan getting rid of militarism. Revision of Kono Statement can break the basis up.

The current argument in the administration also shows his lack of leadership, leaving foreign voices and his embarrassed nations behind, and looking only to his fellow conservative allies around him. If Abe seriously think about the Japanese occupying “an honored place in an international society” just as the Constitution of Japan says, he needs to finally settle this dispute.

Competition Killed a Captain

It is fun for sports watchers to see an emotional head coach who screams, rebukes his players and desperately holds his head. It’s a part of sports show. What if hitting or kicking or taunting his players? It’s not a show, but an exercise of violence or even a crime. In Japan, it sometimes happens in a sport team, typically in a high school or a college. One basketball player in a high school in Osaka city killed himself after severely hit by his head coach. Political leaders criticize the coach and emphasize the necessity for educational reform. “If you introduce your educational reform plan, we will see more tragedies like that,” I would say.

A captain of basketball club of Sakuranomiya High School in Osaka city killed himself last December. The day before the suicide, the head coach of the club hit him four or five times during a practice match, because he was not good at taking loose ball. The hitting is supposed to be routine matter and done on each of club students. Parent of the captain, however, remembers his son saying “I was hit thirty to forty times today again.” Moreover, the coach indicated, to the captain’s desperation, that he might be relegated to the second team.

On the background of that violence, there is a belief that corporal punishment makes a team strong. Sakuranomiya High School has one of the strongest basketball teams in Osaka. The coach has been in the school last eighteen years, longer than usual. As long as the team had been strong, no one cared for his way of discipline. With that circumstance, no one in the club can resist his corporal punishment, and the club was occupied by a dictatorship. It is close to the situation of Japan’s Imperial Army during World War II, in which sergeants hit privates without any specific reason everyday.

The mayor of Osaka City, Toru Hashimoto, denounced the high school and the Osaka Board of Education of leaving the problem behind. But Hashimoto is also responsible for the incident as the top leader of Osaka city. Instead of expressing his responsibility, he emphasized of the necessity of the reform of the Board. He looks like taking advantage of this incident for his political goal.

The purpose of the reform is to introduce competitive concept in education. Letting the students competing each other, he tries to raise score in examinations. But harsh requirement in top-down system only send problems from the top to the bottom. It is likely that teachers will force their students hard work to fulfill the requirement from the top. With physical or unphysical violence, it is worried that more suicides of students happen by the educational reform.

The same can be said to the educational reform of Abe administration, because it welcomes more competition in education. Looking at world college ranking in which Japanese university’s position is getting low, political leaders encourage schools to study hard. But the problem is not about how much students study, but how. Without changing from traditional input-oriented, or memory enhancement, study method to balancing input and output, Japan cannot produce many winners in the world and the competition creates more losers.

Home Works Incomplete

The Prime Minister Shinzo Abe decided to visit Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia next week. He wanted to visit the United States first, before the end of January, for demonstrating his seriousness for improving bilateral relationship. US President Barack Obama, however, suggested that the visit should be February or later, because of tight presidential schedule. Japanese media reported that the reluctance of Obama was a reflection of his frustration in handlings on issues between two nations. The home works are unfinished.

Okinawa issue is, as usual, on the top among the home works. Japan and US agreed in 2006 to relocate Futenma Marine Airbase to Henoko area in Okinawa. It should have been done by 2014, but both governments gave up the schedule. Main reason was resistance of the people in Okinawa. Frustrated with DPJ administration, the governor of Okinawa, Hirokazu Nakaima, changed his standpoint from accepting the base in Henoko to requiring the base to get out of Okinawa. PM Abe still doesn’t have any plan of solving the problem. In this situation, it was obvious for Obama that the meeting of two leaders would make no progress in Okinawa issue.

Another unsolved problem is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a framework of free-trade by multiple Pacific nations. Although US is expecting Japan to join the framework to enhance free-trade network in the region, Abe administration is reluctant to decide joining the negotiation, because a lot of LDP lawmakers who have been interestd in agriculture. If Abe wants to make the meeting fruitful, he needs to get a conclusion on this issue.

Abe knew that he would not settle those issues before his US visit. He simply wanted to show his loyalty to US by visiting it before any other counties. It is actually a typical Japanese way of thinking, which the Americans hardly understand. In his first administration, he failed to build a close relationship with George W. Bush. He is serious not to make the same mistake. But it is anything but loyalty for Obama. For a President who just embarked on legacy-making term, all he need is practical outcome. Obama’s message to Abe would be “Ok, Shinzo, I believe you will solve the problems very soon. So we can soon have a productive meeting, instead of accumulating meetings in a short period.” Abe couldn’t have a rocket start in Japan-US diplomacy.

Alternative trip to Southeast Asia will appeal Japan’s seriousness on the relationship with the region. Abe’s diplomatic concept toward this region is represented by “The Arc of Freedom and Prosperity.” But what do you remember from the words of “Southeast Asia” and “prosperity?” Yes, it is Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere, the concept which US apparently don’t like. Moreover, there is a great sentiment in the region against Japan’s current conservative tendency of political leaders. It is not clear that the trip would be successful for Abe.