From: keis@psy.uwa.oz.au (Keis Ohtsuka)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: The Northern Islands
Date: 10 Oct 1992 10:49:10 GMT
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: wapsy.psy.uwa.oz.au

fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:

[Quoting Yuzuru Hiraga here]
>>The Japanese declaration that war should not be used as a means of
>>gaining land [I don't remember the exact words] should be understood as
>>a commitment on the Japanese side to not cause or enter a war,
>>based on a deep reproach and remorse on what she had commited in the past
>>(which, by the way, you do not seem to believe in.  Another note:
>>this is taught in all Japanese schools).

>You'll have to pardon my skepiticism here; your comments about Japan's deep 
>remorse do not seem to jibe with the rest of Asia's perception of Japan, with
>Japanese pronouncements on the comfort women, with the controversy over the
>text books, etc. Your statement about Japan's commitment not to cause or 
>enter a war seems to ignore the new law allowing Japanese troops to go overseas
>and to carry firearms. Japan's deep commitment seems to be to perceived
>expediency; not in and of itself a bad thing, but certainly not as pure an
>intention as indicated above.

I'm not sure if I'm in a forgiving mood for this one, Mike. :)
The Japanese delcaration of not using a war as a means of policy implementation
is in the Japanese Constitution. Never mind it was written by Americans
and handed down to Japanese. The majority of Japanese think that this is
a good idea. Regarding others' perception, Japanese cannot do anything except
that a conduct of the country in the international community proves her
commitment. Why on earth are you complaining about sending the Japanese
self-defence forces personnel as part of the UN Peace Keeping Operation
in Cambodia?  In my opinion, the Japanese participation on the UN Peace
Keeping Operation is long over due and the scale is less than satisfactory.
It is preposterous to equate a UN Peace Keeping Operation, which is under
the UN command based on the consensus of UN members, with "a war" that
is used as an instrument of gaining territories.
In case of Cambodia Peace Keeping Operation, Cambodians want Japanese
to be there (three factions sans Khmer Rouge) as well as other important
Japanese allies such as Australia does. Not to mention that the USA
has been asking Japan to contribute to the maintenance of the regional
security.  

By the way, "expediency" is a derogatory term. I don't know why you think
it is not a bad idea. I have no problem about Japan voicing "deep committ-
ment" and making lofty statements because of the history of the Japanese
aggression. The Japanese government talks about the principles because
the Japanese people demand it. Even if the Japanese government "wants
to take advantage of the situation," as "expediency" suggests, it would
be very difficult doing it without causing the political crisis at home
-- not all voters agree on how and how much the Japanese should 
contribute to a maintenance of the regional security.


>"Whimsical attitude of Yeltsin"? The man is sitting on a potential economic
>disaster, Japan has not made ONE move to help his nation, and you call
>Yeltsin "whimsical". It seems that Japan is being "whimsical", not to mention
>selfish and short-sighted.

Yes, Mr. Yeltsin is well known for his colourful ideosyncratic way to
do the business.
He was characterized as whimsical on his way of running politics by others.
(on the issues unrelated to Russo-Japanese diplomacy.) 
It can be evidenced in the way he evicted Gorvachev's think-tank from 
its office last week.  Adding the fact that Mr. Yeltsin already declared
that he won't run for the Russian President for the next term, some
people do worry how trustworthy he would be in a long-term basis.

Keis Ohtsuka