24-5 Sakuragaoka-cho, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 150-0031
Tel: 03-5456-8082 Fax: 03-5456-8388
Mail: info@japancivilization.org
http://www.japancivilization.org/

Newsletter Vol. 9 Autumn 2017

On 21st August, the ninth symposium held by the Japanese Civilization
Institute took place at the Japan University of Economics in Shibuya, Tokyoon the theme of “Realism and the Nation-state.” The panelists were journalist and commentator Soichiro Tahara, scholar of international politics
Lully Miura, and author and director of the Japanese Civilization InstituteNaoki Inose, who moderated the panel. During the two months since ourlast symposium, critical elections were held in Germany on 24th September,the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China convened
in Beijing on 18th October, Japan’s House of Representatives was dissolved
and a snap general election held, also in October. Meanwhile, North Korea
still shows no signs of halting its development of more advanced ballistic
missiles. The heated discussion at our 9th Symposium shed light on theseand other vital issues facing Japan today, including the question of whether to preserve or alter Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, the possibilityof instating military conscription, and the future of nuclear energy in Japan.
Here we present just an extract of the lively discussion that took place.
(Reprinted from “Shukan Dokushojin,” November 3rd, 2017)

Greetings
Ms. Kimiko Tsuzuki—Chairperson of Japanese Civilization InstituteThanks to the support of you all, I am happy to announce that the Japanese Civilization Institute is now in its third year and is holding its ninth symposium today. Recently, when we encounter unexpected heavy rain, we often call it “guerrilla rain,” but the word
“guerrilla” in Spanish actually means “unpredictable.” When we look at our lives today, we can say that it is not merely the weather
that seems unpredictable. Our lives, politics, economy, nation, and international affairs seem increasingly chaotic, and full of guerrilla-like situations. It is no exaggeration to say that we are heading toward an unpredictable era of unpredictability.
The Tsuzuki Group’s founder left us a book entitled, “Wa-shite Nagarezu” (Harmonize, but don’t flow). There is also one of the “rongo” (Analects of Confucius) that reads, in Japanese: “Wa-shite dozezu” (Harmonize, but be unmoved).
How can we protect our national identity while still maintaining peace and harmony? How can we meet the challenges of this new
era while preserving our identities and independence? Today we have once more invited Mr. Soichiro Tahara, together with Ms. Lully Miura, to address these complex questions from a global perspective. We look forward to hearing their wide-ranging opinions basedon a realist view of the world. Please enjoy today’s panel to the very end.

“Is There an Operational Check & Balance Function in Japan Today?”Toshio Goto, President

On my bookshelf at home there is an old tome entitled “Fumetsu no Enzetsu” (Immortal Speeches). In this book we are introduced tospeeches by such notables as Yukio “Gakudo” Ozaki—known as the “God” of constitutional government in Japan—and Takao Saito—an
unforgettable presence even today.
I am sure that many of you here today know about professor Gakudo Ozaki, who was famous for the many things he called for in his addresses. Today you can still find his statue standing near the Diet. Among those many speeches, I would like to introduce to you just one,that he gave in 1913. Ozaki that year delivered a well-known address calling for the impeachment of Prime Minister Katsura, declaring:“…I suspect they use the Imperial throne as a bulwark to defend themselves from attack by their political opponents, and use “Shochoku”(Imperial edicts) as political bullets with which to topple their opponents.” This aggressive address created a sensation, and led to the toppling of the third Katsura Administration of Prime Minister Katsura Taro. Apparently speeches played an important role in those days,
enabling people to attack, even to bring down an entire administration.
Yet what about speech in Japan today? Both the media and the opposition parties are a disaster. Strong language, but we have to say whatmust be said. Is not democracy a political system that can only be created in an environment in which a decent, functional structure ofchecks and balances exists? While keeping the theme of today’s panel discussion in mind, I would like to ponder this point with all of you
here today.
About the groupJapanese Civilization InstituteEstablished in August 2015

Address: 24-5 Sakuragaoka-cho, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 150-0031
Tel :03-5456-8082 Fax:03-5456-8388
Website: http://www.japancivilization.org/

Designed by artisancompany

A Report on Our 9th Symposium

Realism andthe Nation-state
What should Japan believe in, when a
new world order is in transition?
Soichiro
Tahara（ journalist)

The Nation-stateand Globalism
Inose: I believe that the nation-stateis the most delicate model for a nation of any created in the 19th Century. It’s a kind of system where there
are tax payments, military conscription, and a Congress, to take but one
example of a real-world nation-state,a system in which every citizen cantake part and in which every citizen
is responsible. It’s the system of a nation in which any citizen can becomea bureaucrat, and in which decisions
are made by winning the majority ofthe votes in Congress.

Soichiro Tahara

2

vs.

（

Lully
Miura

vs.

Naoki
Inose

scholar ofinternational politics） （director of Japanese
Civilization InstituteTahara: Yet President Trump has announced that he is “quitting globalism.” Instead, he’s insisting that theUnited States stick to being a “nation-state.”
Inose: Trump thinks that the nation-state model has collapsed due toglobalism. There are also people in
the U.K. who think that their sovereignty has been weakened by their
participation in the EU, causing
Britain as a nation-state to crumble,
and Brexit (the U.K. voters’ referendum decision to leave the EU) to
happen. Meanwhile, on the otherside of the globe in China, there is
still no “nation-state” at all.
Miura: The reason that there has
been no other replacement for thenation-state since the 19th Century
to today is that there is still no world
government. Yet in reality, there aremany individuals and companies
that are working outside the realm ofnation-state, resulting, for instance,in the inability of nation-states tocollect taxes. Meanwhile, even within nation-states there are some people
who are living peaceful lives, whileothers are forced to take on burdensthat profoundly affect their lives, likejoining the army.
As Mr. Inose said, taxation is thevery basis of the nation-state. There’s）

conscription, too, of course, but today let’s just talk about taxation. Taxation is a problem that all companies
have to address when they start doing business overseas. These issues
are not so familiar in Japan as they
are in other countries yet, simply because Japan is not yet truly facedwith full globalization.
Meanwhile, in the United States,
they are finding it harder and harder
to even define what is meant by“their people,” which is one of thereasons why their nation-state has
begun to collapse. When the U.S.
declared its independence and created a new nation, there were only 13
states. Since then, it has expanded its
land area, tearing off parts of Mexico
and increasing its number of states.
And now, even after expanding its
territory, huge numbers of new immigrants have come rushing in. The
U.S. is finding it hard to distinguish
who are “its own people” and whoshould be considers “outsiders.”
In this context, Trump has tried tocontrol illegal immigration, and restrict the further acceptance of immigrants to one people who have highskillsets, like Canada and Japan do.
He attempted to incontrovertibly define the U.S. border, and to control
the number of immigrants that enterLully Miurathe country.
Then, after the U.S. has succeededin clearly establishing that border, hethen wants to share income within
the United States. This is what theRepublican Party call “tax reduction.”
Similarly, Trump thinks that“childcare support” is not about
spending loads of money to build newnursery schools. Rather, he sees it asbuilding U.S. competitiveness by deducting the total amount a family
spends on education from their taxes
when they file their tax returns.
The nation-state Trump envisages
is by no means a challenge to globalization. Instead, he’s simply suggesting: let’s pause, draw a line on what
has been going on so far, and rearrange things. That’s the way I see it.

Xi Jinping andtoday’s China
Inose: On 26th August, Liu Beixian,
the former head of the ChineseNews Service, was held and put under investigation. Just from this single news item alone, you can see howmuch Xi Jinping is suppressing freedom of speech in China. Mr. Tahara,
you are a member of the Japan-China Journalist Exchange Meeting andyou have spent time with Liu Beixian, haven’t you?
Tahara: Yes I have. Liu was the leader of the Chinese team. I founded
the Japan-China Journalist Exchange
Meeting, and we have been holding
meetings once a year, alternating between Tokyo and Beijing in turns.
Inose: Liu Beixian didn’t seem to be
opposed to the Chinese establish-

ment. So why was he arrested?
Tahara: Liu’s position in China was
the same as, say, the president of
Asahi Shimbun in Japan. I think thetwo most problematic societies in
the world today are China and the
U.S. Trump has had one of his mostprominent supporters, Steve Bannon, submit his resignation. Meanwhile, in China, Xi Jinping has expelled Sun Zhengcai, who had been
widely said to be the next contender
for top leadership. Before that, Xi also arrested Bo Xilai, the influential
governor of Chongqing.
Miura: I heard that No Xilai’s successor as governor of Chongqing has
been arrested, too.
Miura: Having successfully gotten
through the National Congress, China has now further strengthened its
suppression on freedom of speech.
The other day a TV station evenasked me to comment on why images and messages of “Pooh” have been
expunged from Chinese websites.
Inose: What do you mean by “Pooh?”
Miura: Winnie the Pooh! Some timeago, when President Obama met
with Xi Jinping, images of Obama as
Tigger, the tiger character from Winnie the Pooh, and Xi Jinping as Winnie the Pooh circulated widely on
the Chinese Internet. That was before the party meeting, and China
was on high alert for any kind ofcriticism directed at those in power.
If you even search for the phrase “Xi
Jinping” on the Internet in China,
you’re immediately detected and investigated. That’s just how it is. So
it’s only natural that Internet users
might use secret words such as“pooh” to describe Xi.
It sounds absurd, yet riots begin
in some unexpected place and spreadin the blink of an eye in today’s information-driven society. In order to
nip any such revolts in the bud, theChinese authorities restricted the usage of the word “pooh.”It’s often the case that these kindsof riots happen among people whoare at the forefront. But then again,
Chinese bureaucratic organizations
like to try to read between the lines.
However, in reference to the arrestof the former head of Chinese News
Service that you just mentioned,
there is no doubt at all that he supported the government. So what was
the reason? Did he just say something wrong? Or perhaps he was intouch with the wrong kind of people
inside the establishment?
Tahara: One of the things thatstrikes me when talking with Chinese executives is the fact that China
will never give rise to an individual
like Mikhail Gorbachev. It has been
said that the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union dissolved because
Gorbachev tried to embed freedomof speech in the USSR during theperiod of Perestroika. In otherwords, the one-party dictatorship of
the Communist Party in China will
never come to an end.
During the last days of Hu Jintao,
when his administration was at the
point of collapse, there were people
who talked just that way, and I think
Xi Jinping himself has a similar senseof crisis. Furthermore, Xi Jinping
may well be intending to follow in
the footsteps of Mao Zedong. Normally, his term would end in anotherfive years. But perhaps he will continue in power for another ten years,
or possibly remain at the top for the
rest of his life, and kill anyone whogets in his way.
Miura: I think it’s natural that theCommunist Party of China—or the
Liberal Democratic Party of Japan,
for that matter—would be more busy
worrying about the future of theirparty than they are worrying about
the future of their nation. But Japanis, to some extent at least, a democratic nation, while China is a country
dominated by single party and where
there is no freedom of speech.
A country collapses when there’s
no counter force, and its leader only
thinks about himself. If we consider
the future of the Chinese Communist Party, it’s better that Xi Jinping
doesn’t become another Mao Zedong. I don’t know if Xi will in fact
push that and try to become the next
Mao. But at present, his only political rivals are within the CCP itself. I
refer to the followers of Jiang Zemin.

3

Naoki Inose

If Xi Jinping doesn’t defeat these followers, it has been said he won’t lastanother five years. That’s the state ofthings in China today.
Tahara: There’s something that I
said to the Chinese participants
when I first launched the Japan-China Journalist Exchange Meeting. I
told them: “China has liberalized its
economy. However, the governmentis still dominated by a single party
and no other effective parties exist,
which creates an unbalance. I told
them that if they liberalized the Chinese economy, they should liberalize
the Chinese government, too. “Why
can’t you do that?” I asked them.
At first, they simply answered,“No way.” But after a few discussions, they said they thought China
should have multiple parties. Or, if itcannot have multiple parties, that itshould at least democratize the CCP.
And in order to do that, we people
with the power of words at our disposal should make the effort. That
was what they all said to me at thetime.

Removing the
Statue of General
Robert E. Lee
Tahara: I frankly have no idea what
President Trump is trying to do.
However, because of his actions,among those American voters who
say they support the Republican Party, 70-80% still favor Trump.
Miura: In August, there was an intense dispute over whether a statueof General Robert E. Lee, a South-4

ern hero of the Civil War, should be
removed[from a university campus
in the state of Virginia that was hisalma mater. Statues like this of Lee
and other Confederate officers andpoliticians stand in various cornersof the American South, like the statue of Takamori Saigo in Japan.
Nonetheless, many people, mostly
liberal Southerners, insisted thatstatue should be taken down because
it was a symbol of slavery and racial
discrimination.
In response, right wing Southerners there opposed the plan, sayingthat Lee was a hometown hero andhis statue should not be removed.
Up to this point, it was all right.
But then white supremacists fromthe North and across the Southjoined in and rushed to the scene.
General Lee was an army commander of the Confederate States of America, but he doesn’t necessarily represent racial discrimination. Rather,
defenders of the statue argued, Lee
was a historical figure in American
history, who led the Confederate army when the South succeeded fromthe North and established the Confederacy.
Ultimately, this confrontation exploded in a riot. In addition, President Trump’s own comment after theriot aroused further criticism. In his
first comment, he clearly avoided criticizing counter-demonstrators who
had attacked the demonstrators calling for the statue to be pulled down.
But in his second comment, he did
criticize them. In his third comment,
he just lost his mind.
Nonetheless, opinion surveys after
the incident showed that it hadn’t
really affected his approval rate
among U.S. conservatives. His support rate was still at 67%, amongconservative voters, a drop of only,
say, 7% to 8% And this was even after he fired Steve Bannon.
Tahara: Wasn’t Bannon the memberof Trump’s team who was most opposed to removing General Lee’s
statue? If the incident didn’t hurt
Trump, why did he fire Bannon?
Miura: A person died in that riot. A
little girl—the daughter of a humanrights activist—was killed by a rightwing counter-demonstrator. The incident reminded many Americans of
the white supremacist group, the Ku
Klux Klan (KKK). That was simply
unacceptable for some many American people.
Moreover, because the President
essentially melted down in public on
the subject during the press conference, there was anxiety among theRepublican Congressional leadershipthat many core conservatives andbusiness leaders might leave him.
Therefore Trump had no choice but
to sacrifice Bannon in order to maintain his public image. Even if the riot
hadn’t happened, it has been widelyreported that there was a set plan inplace to fire Bannon at the same timethat he appointed a new WhiteHouse Chief of Staff.
So Bannon is now out of power.
But he has said that the Trump phenomenon that he supported andclaims to have created himself is now
complete. He’s going to try and fightfrom the outside now.
The media misunderstands thispoint. They think that in the coming
months hardline conservatives in the
GOP will attack mainstream GOP
conservatives, and that Trump willlose his support among right-wingers
and eventually lose power altogether.
This is wrong. Bannon is going tof ight from the outside to try andeliminate moderate Republican Party
candidates who are opposed to
Trump’s policies during the primaryelections for the Congressional midterm elections a little over one year
from now, and again as the next presidential elections a little over three
years from now approaches. If farright media like Bannon’s Breitbart
News get together with the alt-rightand work together to eliminatedmoderate Republican candidates in
the mid-term elections and nextpresidential election, it will ultimately work out in Trump’s.
We must view all that is going onin U.S. politics now cynically. Realistically speaking, I think it is a mistake for liberals to make optimistic
assumptions.

Inose: “Political correctness,” which
proved effective in addressing somediscrimination and prejudice, was apervasive aspect of the Obama Administration. Even though in his
own hometown General Lee represented a heroic military figure, rather than being seen as a symbol of opposition to the emancipation of
black slaves, he nonetheless became acontentious phenomenon in a present-day dispute.
Tahara: Ms. Miura, I am sure that
there are white people out there who
do think they are superior to blacks
and other races, but isn’t there a general understanding in the UnitedStates today that it’s unacceptable toexpress that?
Miura: I think that kind of feeling isdifficult for Japanese people to understand. Of course they don’t hateor fear black people. They see black
people everyday, whenever they go
shopping in supermarkets, for example. They shake hands and have conversations with them. But economic
disparity is rooted in our race, andyou can’t avoid the differences thishas caused in class.
To take one concrete example, yousee virtually no black people at the
racing circuits of NASCAR (National Association for Stock Car AutoRacing), America’s largest motor
sports association.
There are these underlying, unstated rules, and eventually somewhite people start saying that they
don’t want black people—in short,people who are not like themselves—using the tax money that they themselves paid.
In the end, it’s all about taxes. In
the third press conference, where
Trump so notoriously had his melt
down, he declared, “the racial issue isall about employment.” The liberal
media thought this comment wasabsurd. They criticized Trump forbeing ignorant of the history behind
racial discrimination.
Yet I personally think that there’s
some truth to his words. The racial
issue is not only about whether people of different races can ride thesame bus. It’s ultimately about eco-nomic disparity, which is causingclass differentiation.
Inose: The racial issue is very
deep-rooted. When Japanese andChinese people immigrated to the
U.S. West Coast before the war, justlike the Mexican immigrants today
they were accused of having comethere to take over the country. They
were Asian, so they were called “yellow.” Similarly, the people of theMongol Empire were called “yellow
face” when they invaded Europe.
The Japanese people, too, werefeared as being “colored people” withan army when they defeated Russia
in the Russo-Japanese War. Meanwhile, Japan hoisted the flag of
Pan-Asianism, insisting that they
were fighting for justice by fighting
off the powerful Western countries
that were trying to invade Asia. We
see this continuing up to andthrough the Pacific War.

How and why
the Pacific War
happened
Tahara: Japan informed Englandand France, members of the Leagueof Nations, in advance that it wasplanning to invade Manchuria.
When the Lytton Commission arrived in Mukden to investigate theManchurian Incident, the Japanese
government thought it would becriticized for occupying Manchuria,
but it wasn’t. In fact, the League of
Nations moved to acknowledge Japan’s occupation of Manchuria. It
was the Kwantung Army (Japan’sarmed forces in Manchukuo) that ignored the big picture of international affairs and egoistically invaded Rehe Province, leaving Japan no choice
but to exit the League of Nations.
Subsequently, in 1935, an English
delegation visited Japan and asked
the Japanese government to cooperate with England in helping fund theforces of China’s Chiang Kai-shek,
who was effectively broke. If you
agree, they said, they would persuade
Chiang Kai-shek to approve Japan’s
occupation of Manchuria.

The Japanese government moves
to agree to this proposal but again theJapanese army, which by then had
grown so powerful political, once
again disagrees. And this is how Japan
becomes so isolated.
Inose: Ignore Chiang Kai-shek, correct? Konoe’s so-called “Declarationof a New Order in East Asia”?
Tahara: That’s right. It’s a truly absurd story.
In fact, Konoe even formed theShowa Research Group, some ofwhose members − like Hotsumi Ozaki and Kiyoshi Miki − were close tobeing leftists. The group was opposedto the Sino-Japanese War, and when
Konoe was then Prime Minister, theywanted to stop the war right away.
So Kouki Hirota actually asks
Germany’s Adolf Hitler to arrange ameeting for him, and he succeeds inmeeting with Chiang Kai-shek in thecompany of the German ambassador
to China, Oskar Trautmann. Just
when this back-channel negotiation
is about to succeed, the Japanese Army invades Nanjing. Moreover, arrogant members of the Japanese Army
actually order Chiang Kai-shek to
pay compensation to Japan. ChiangKai-shek refuses. Because Konoe wasa timid man, he did not want to belooked down upon by the JapaneseArmy, and gives his fatefu] order toignore China’s Nationalist Government.
Inose: America was keenly interested
in the Pacific and China, so they
were on the look out against Japan, acountry that might ultimately joinin the battle for those rights. It is thisdispute that ultimately leads to the
Pacific War.
Tahara: I personally prefer to believein the theory put forward by Ms. Miura’s professor, Junji Banno. Bannoargues that as the Sino-Japanese War
dragged on, the Americans became
concerned that Japan might becomea new Germany in Asia. So they felt
the need to strike against Japan. It isin that sense that Banno says it was
ultimately the Americans who in effect “started” the Pacific War.
Miura: The world maps that we use
in Japan show Japan in the center of5the map, and the other countries of
the world on both sides, correct?
There was a study that came outsome time ago, but according to it,
the U.S. Navy at the time used thesame kind of map that we Japanesestill use today. In other words, when
you look at the world using this kindof map, when you cross the Pacific
Ocean from the U.S. West Coast,
you first end up in the Philippines.
There was actually a time when the
United States occupied the Philippines, from its defeat of the Spanishin the Spanish-American War. It
seems the U.S. Navy, at least, had already realized from the beginning of
the 20th Century, that they needed
to build up the military logistics tobe able to cross and hold the Pacific.
Of course there was no air force atthe time, so the only military force inthe U.S. that rivaled the political influence of the navy was the U.S. Army. The army was looking at a world
map that had America located in thecenter.
When you look at the world using
this map, Japan is far, far away in the
Far East. The US. Army badly wanted to cross the Atlantic first, because
the Nazis of Germany seemed a far
greater threat to them than did Japan. So at this point in time theAmerican government and militarywere seeking a way to win the support of the people for crossing theAtlantic and joining the war against
Germany. But they couldn’t find apersuasive reason. Traditionally, Americans had never gotten involved inEuropean wars. Even when WWI
erupted and the U.S. finally sent
troops, the war ended almost as soon
as they reached Europe.
But then one day, a small country
in the distant Pacific named Japan
attacks Pearl Harbor in the Hawaiian
Islands. The American government
was delighted that Japan had provided an incident that was so convenient for them to use. The attack
galvanized the American public andCongress, and eventually America
succeeded in joining the war in the
Atlantic and the European theater.
In other words, America never6

wanted a fight with Japan, but it justso happened that Japan gave it a convenient opportunity to join the war
against Nazi Germany.
Inose: That’s true. After all, even
Perry only came to Japan after firstcrossing the Atlantic and Indian
Oceans.
Japan wins the Russo-Japan War
shortly after America occupies thePhilippines and Guam and establishes its own military bases there. Inthat sense, it was true that Japan was
becoming a potential threat to U.S.
interests when they considered establishing U.S. supremacy in the Pacific. After all, in those days it would
have taken the Americans 10 days tocross the Pacific and reach the Philippines. Japan was much closer, so
naturally they regarded Japan to be athreat in the Pacific. This sense of apotential crisis in the making led
America to prepare a contingency
plan for the invasion of Japan called“War Plan Orange.”
Of course America also wanted tosecure its power over China, just likethe other powerful European countries had. The Philippines and Guam
were a kind of bridgehead for thisplan, and they feared that Japan
could invade them both at somepoint in the future.

Are the people
responsible forprotecting theirnation?
Tahara: Changing the subject, Ms.
Miura, is Japan truly a nation-state?
Miura: Yes. Japan is a nation-state. I
am avoiding strict definitions, ofcourse, but Japan is a homogeneous
nation over which Japanese people
have sovereignty.
Tahara: And yet, on 11th August,when I said on the TV program“Asa-made TV!” (TV Until Morning!) that “the people have the responsibility to protect their nation,”most people disagreed.
Miura: They all had different reasons for opposing you, I expect. In

that panel discussion the phrase thatyou used, that the people “have theresponsibility to protect one’s nation” was equated with old indigenous Japanese notions like—“if Japan is ever invaded, it will fall into
the sea and drop dead,” or, “yet evenso, we are going to stay in this landand die fighting.”
I personally think that there might
exist a moral obligation to protect
one’s country. Yet I don’t think every
individual has an inherent, legal responsibility to protect their country
in the face of such a crisis.
Tahara: In that case, then, I have aquestion I would like to pose to you.
Japan possesses the right ofself-defense. Who, then, is the one to“execute” self-defense?
Miura: Japan the nation is the onethat executes self-defense if needed.
The definition of war was decided
long ago, when the Crusaders kept
losing in battle in the Holy Lands,
and numerous kings and knights began to think that perhaps theyshouldn’t decide to go to war just on
the basis of following the voice ofGod. In other words, the head of thenation—at that time, usually theKing —should declare war.
Since that time, all wars otherthan civil wars or private wars are declared by the head of the nation. In
today’s Japan, that individual would
be the Prime Minister.
Tahara: Even so, Japan is a country
where, under the Constitution, ultimate authority is vested in its people. So if the chosen leaders of thepeople decide to begin a war, in effect it is something that the people
have decided, too.
Miura: Yet it remains a representative system. So the exercise of thepeople’s authority is not direct?
Tahara: Yes. But the people who are
executing political decisions are individuals who were chosen by the people through elections to represent
them. So in effect, authority is still
vested in its people. And that being
the case, how can people say that it
doesn’t concern them?
Inose: You’re saying—because elected officials represent the people,

their decisions become the people’s
decisions, correct?
Miura: If you look only at the system, that is the way it works. But
when you are actually invaded, andyou realize you are only armed withbamboo spears, whether you choose
to fight or not depends on your own
personal philosophy. Or so I think.
To rephrase the question, the nation
exists to protect its people. When thenation proves unable to protect its people, do the people still have an obligation to remain loyal to their nation?
Tahara: A while ago, Mr. Shii, chairman of the Japanese Communist
Party (JCP), mentioned that the Self
Defense Force should be dissolved in
the future. When I asked him what
we should do if an enemy invades
our country, he replied, “If that happens, we’ll have every citizen gather
together and fight with what they’vegot.” Exactly as Ms. Miura just said,
it’s all about bamboo spears!
Miura: I think that was probably
just simply JCP rhetoric. I’m surethey wouldn’t say the same thing if
they ever assumed the reins of government.
Now, this is an important point,
so I will return to what we weretalking about earlier.
Individual people, one by one, do
not have authority. But because authority is vested in “the people” as awhole, power is born when a majority is formed. We as a nation declared our commitment to pacifism
so that small groups of people would
not run out of control and makemistakes. That is why we have Article 9, paragraphs 1&2, of the Constitution.
Moreover, the allied powers demilitarized Japan after the end of thewar. In other words, because Japanthrough its actions had seemed to be
unaware of international law before
the war, the allied powers now specifically wrote it down in the Constitution. They said there is a pact that iscalled an anti-war pact under whichinternational law prohibits all war
apart from defensive war. So don’t
you ever start a war again like people
did back in the 19th Century, whenstate leaders would suddenly just declare war? This is what is written
down, again and again, in Article 9.
Tahara: If the Constitution was
something forced upon Japan against
its will by General Headquarters,
why didn’t successive prime ministers try to change?
Inose: When the Korean War erupted in 1950, GHQ ordered Japan tocreate what it called a “Police Reserve Force.” This later evolved into
today’s Self Defense Force.
GHQ originally asked for a troopstrength of 300,000 for the Police
Reserve Force, but Prime Minister
Shigeru Yoshida said Japan could only provide an armed force of of
75,000.
Why was that?
Firstly, because Yoshida didn’t
think the Korean War would end
quickly. He thought the war woulddrag on and on, like the Sino-Japanese War had. If so, a large force ofapproximately 10,000 technically illegal Police Reserve Force troops
might find themselves left behind on
the Korean Peninsula. If that were tohappen, they might start doing
things that were not in line with decisions made by the central government in Tokyo.
Moreover, those troops might be
exposed to socialists and state socialism and start supporting it, like somein Japan did before the war. They
might even start off a war themselves. Yoshida feared that thesekinds of things might happen, and so
he limited the size of the Police Reserve Force.
Tahara: Shigeru Yoshida also said
that Japan should revitalize its economy first, but once that had beenachieved to a certain extent, he said
Japan should also revise the Constitution. But why didn’t subsequent
Prime Ministers Ikeda, Sato, Tanaka
and Nakasone mention revising theConstitution?
Inose: I think it became a kind oftaboo. Nationalism is a kind of “potential power” that is produced
whenever a nation-state is created.
Japan expended its nationalism andits power during the war.

After the war, Japan replaced nationalism with pacifism. There weretimes when nationalism did raise its
head again, in various different
forms, such as when Rikidozan, thelegendary pro-wrestler, delivered karate chops to the Sharpe brothers, orwhen huge anti-American demonstrations were organized by students
opposed to signing of the Japan-U.S.
Security Treaty of 1960. Yet theseflare-ups were like the ashes of the
Pacific War being stirred up one lasttime. I think the belief in protecting
our country by ourselves is gone altogether.

The Self Defense
Force and nuclear
plant workers
Tahara: About 20 years ago, whenGermany was not yet unified, I had
an opportunity to visit West Germany. They still had conscription inGermany at the time.
During a discussion I had with aWest German scholar, I insisted that
conscription was ridiculous. Both
Germany and Japan have fundamental human rights, I told him. Doesn’t
the act of telling everyone to enter
the army violate that?
The scholar answered that those
who don’t want to join the army didn’t
have to. Instead they could choose tocare for the aged or take part in otherprivate voluntary activities for thesame period of time as military service.
I had no reply to that.
Miura: Conscientious objection?
I believe what you are trying tosay, Mr. Tahara, is that the Japanesepeople have been skimming thecream off the top. Am I right?
In other words, Japan started out
by creating the Police Reserve Force,
which later became the Self Defense
Force. As a result, Japan now has oneof the largest militaries in the world,
yet its people have probably neveronce seriously even debated whether
they have an obligation to protect
their country or not. Is this what you
have in mind?
Tahara: Japan’s overall military

7

strength today is the 4th most powerful in the world. And the Japanese
Maritime Self Defense Force comesin second among world navies.
Miura: Yes. And bearing that inmind, I would like to return to thebasics, and say that a nation exists toprotect its people.
We must never fight a war inwhich the aims and measures arewrong, and we have no obligation toobey the rules put forth by any nation that gets involved in such war.
According to contract, a soldier may
not abandon his weapon and fleefrom battle. But no less a figure thanThomas Hobbes said that it is wrong
to hang a normal citizen just because
he tried to run away from war.
A human being is granted only
one life. Ever since I wrote “Civilian’s
War: On the Origins of Aggressive Democracies” (Civilian no Senso),” I havebeen arguing that a war that is decided
by the majority but fought by a minority is wrong. That’s why we should
restrain ourselves when it comes towar. That is all I am trying to say.
But if that is the case, then why
didn’t the leaders of the Liberal
Democratic Party revise the Constitution under the 1955 system, when
they could have easily done so? Regarding Shigeru Yoshida, I think
you’re both right. However, Japaneseleft-wingers were still very powerfulafter the 1955 system.
Tahara: The left wing had considerable power until the 1980s.
Miura: Before the end of the Cold
War, up until the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, Japan’s leftists
believed their philosophy was correct
and never doubted it. But the Cold
War ended in the Soviet Union’s defeat and socialism collapsed. The
left-wing’s pride today lies in nationalism. They always believed nationalism was the identity that kept the
weak afloat. But they lost their pride
with the USSR’s defeat.
Furthermore, it was the Japanesearmy and a conservative political administration that started the war, sothey also had to regard nationalism
to be wrong and evil. Ultimately,
they turned to the pacifist post-war

8Constitution as their anchor. Article
9 seemed to embody their ideals, andthus it has become their identity.
The fact that Prime Minister Abe
has stressed that he only intends to
add a third paragraph to Article 9
instead of revising the language ofthe existing two paragraphs showsthat he understands that the identityof left-wing supporters rests on thecurrent Constitution.
Tahara: I think that people on theleft in Japan want to leave the Constitution completely alone. They don’t
want to see any changes made to it.
Inose: It’s like they are under a curse,
and cannot deviate from that one
ideal. They aren’t capable of thinking
realistically.
Tahara: If I were to take that one
step further, I would point out thatthe very people who are against revising the Constitution also believe that
the U.S. will protect them. They
think the U.S. will act as a deterrent.
Inose: When I appeared on NHK’s
television program “Hakunetsu Kyoshitsu” (Incandescent Classroom)with Professor Michael J. Sandel ofHarvard University the issue we talked about the most was conscription.
There is now no compulsory military duty in the U.S., and this has
resulted in a number of effects. Professor Sandel explained that now
poor people find work in the military, while people in the upper classfound ways to avoid it.
He observed that, in the case ofJapan, we should try and think of it
as similar to the situation regarding
nuclear plant workers. Workers whoare exposed to radiation in theirwork at a nuclear power plant cannot
remain on their job at the plant once
their exposure dose levels reach a certain limit. So, when each nuclear
plant worker does reach their limit as
they do, someone else has to befound to take their place.
Sandel pointed out that if we
don’t think of such situations in thesame way that we think of military
duty and tackle them seriously, problems that affect the interest of theentire nation cannot be solved.
Tahara: Surprisingly enough, there

is no single person in the Liberal
Democratic Party with ultimate responsibility for the nuclear plant issue. In other words, right now not
one person is thinking seriously
about how to deal with the issue.
I have personally asked some ofthe senior leaders of the LDP like
Akira Amari and Yoshihide Suga to
become the point man on the nuclear plant issue. They all said they
didn’t want to. I have questioned every Minister of Economy, Trade andIndustry about the nuclear plant issue, but they have all said they don’t
want to comment on it.
When the Tokyo Electric Power
Fukushima plant accident happened,
the Democratic Power of Japan—today’s Minshinto—were holding thereins of government. There were many people in the party who liked totalk, but very few who were eager todo the dirty work.
Yet among them, Yoshito Sengoku
alone stood up and said that hewould tackle the problem. Then
Goushi Hosono, Yukio Edano andSeiji Maehara gathered around him.
Government officials like Takashi
Shimada—who is today serving as
Vice-Minister of Economy, Tradeand Industry—and Takaya Imai—
who is now a Personal Secretary to
Prime Minister Abe—also took part.
At the time, the Liberal Democratic Party was an opposition party.
Among LDP members Tadamori
Ooshima—who seemed qualified totake responsibility and tackle the issue—was asked to cooperate with
Mr. Sengoku because the issue did
not concern just the Democratic Party, but the nation as a whole. Ooshima accepted the task, and joined
Sengoku in addressing the crisis.
At the time, I thought that if the
Liberal Democratic Party were to regain power again, it was a sure bet
that Ooshima would be put incharge of the nuclear plant issue.
However, I was wrong. Prime
Minister Abe saw him as being argumentative and difficult, and madehim a party committee chairman.
And so now there is no one handlingthe issue today. The person in charge

of energy inside the LDP is Fukushirou Nukaga. I have met with him
three or four times to try and persuade him to become the point manon the nuclear plant issue, but hekeeps refusing.
Inose: I thought that 3/11 would
prove a historical turning point, inwhich the concept of the “post-disaster” period would f inally take hold,and would be looked back upon historically as a turning point. But itturned out that we as a nation could
not create a structure under a responsible person eager to tackle theproblem where citizens could cooperate by volunteering to take on different obligations. If we cannot evenaccomplish that, then it may be diff icult for us to revise Article 9 of theConstitution, too.
Tahara: So, then the question. Can
we really call this kind of country anation-state?
Inose: That’s exactly my point.

People’s awarenessand national
decisions
Miura: Yes, there is no doubt thatthe issue of burden sharing and theissue of the people’s awareness -- notto mention the issue of the nation’s
decision-making apparatus and willpower – are all critical.
But obviously, there’s a question
mark on all sides. It would be dreadful if the nation proves unable to
make decisions despite having a centralized government.
At the moment, the Japanese Constitution has defects. For example,
what happens if the Self Defense
Force is dispatched for PKO (Peace
Keeping Operations) and a crime occurs? Are they going to apply Criminal Law to the case because there is
no existing Military Law?
Or again, regarding nuclear energy
policy. Even if we extend the operation of nuclear plants that have already passed their designed operational life-span for another decade or two
now, we will still have to decommission them someday. The real problem

lies not in – in this example the lifetime of nuclear power reactors – butin the fact that instead of facing theseissues head-on, our political leadership and other actors are just postponing them into the future. Japan’s
attitude toward tackling these kinds ofissues has not changed in the least.
Tahara: There is another fundamental lie regarding what is going on in
Fukushima.
Tokyo Electric Power Company istrying to remove the nuclear fuel debris resulted from the Fukushimameltdowns. Yet the nuclear specialists say that it’s impossible to do it.
They say that the best option available is to cover it over with cement
and other shielding as they have at
Chernobyl.
So why not do that? The reason
why they cannot do it is because Tokyo Electric Power made a rashpromise to the local population thatthey would remove and transport thenuclear fuel debris somewhere else.
They will not be able to removethat debris, no matter how many
years they try. Yet people are bound toa promise that was, and still is, a lie.
Miura: The Japanese people tend toward what could be called “partial
optimization.” But in order to solve
issues on the scale of nuclear energy
policy, that will not work. They
should try and see the big picture,keep costs low, and reduce risk.
Tahara: In a similar vein, Yukio
Hatoyama is ultimately behind all
the confusion over the relocation of
the U.S. military base in Futenma,
Okinawa to Henoko in the north of
the island. When Ryutaro Hashimoto and Keizo Obuchi were prime
ministers, they had officials of thecaliber of Hiromu Nonaka, Seijiroku
Kajiyama and Yukio Okamoto literally walk around Okinawa, talking
to the people, and they secured local
approval to relocate the U.S. militarybase to Henoko.
Moreover, it was the people of
Okinawa themselves who f irst suggested the relocation. Prime Minister
Obuchi personally thanked Okinawa
for accepting the relocation, and inturn made a decision to hold theSummit Conference of the Leading
Industrialized Nations in Okinawa asa sign of his gratitude.
But when Hatoyama became
Prime Minister, he said he wouldfind a place for U.S. forces to relocate
to other than on Okinawa. Then,
having said that publicly, he struck asecret agreement to relocate the baseto Henoko after all. Hatoyama is theone who truly confused things.
Miura: Then there are the people
who are against the U.S. militarybases on Okinawa for purely political reasons.
It’s natural that there should be different thoughts regarding this issue.
But the government should not makepromises that cannot be kept. Accepting as fact that the U.S. militarypresence is protecting us against potential threats, we should then compare and consider what are the advantages we get out of that arrangement,
and what are the disadvantages that
we have to come to terms with. Aslong we Japanese are “borrowing” thelives of of the U.S. armed forces, wehave to accept risks that are in the linewith the risks we would accept if it
was an army of our own.
Also, another problem with Japanand its attitude toward its own defense is that when, for example, theJapanese government says it wants toalter the Japan –U.S. Status of Forces
Agreement, it turns out that the Japanese side has not even read the original text of the agreement, nor compared the terms of the agreementwith similar agreements in the rest of
the world.
Tahara: I would like to add a comment on that.
Prime Minister Abe has succeededin revising the Security Bill and winning approval for the right of collective defense.
I met Prime Minister Abe after
that, and observed that -- now that
we have approved the right of collective defense -- we should also revise
the Status-of-Forces Agreement. I
asked him why he doesn’t negotiate
the agreement with the U.S.
Prime Minister Abe replied that infact they have already revised the Sta-9

tus-of-Forces Agreement, but that
the U.S. side has insisted that theykeep it quiet.
Miura: I think they don’t want toemphasize it because Japan has no
Military Law of its own. When a soldier commits a crime, his sentences
may be heavier or lighter than thosehanded down in regular trials. For
example, punishment for sex crimes
is heavier for soldiers than for civilians. Sex crimes occur frequently inwar, so you have to keep the punishments for it severe, or you will not
be able to prevent them. But at thesame time, punishments for sex
crimes overall are extremely light inJapan. If we’re not even seriously
thinking about how to discipline ourown Self Defense Force troops, how
can we be prepared to punish soldiers of the American military if they
commit a crime?
Inose: If the Self Defense Force is
not mentioned specifically in theConstitution, then there is no legal
basis for addressing any of the issues
that we have just talked about. It’s
the same issues as leaving nuclear fuel debris in nuclear power plants thatare left unattended.
In terms of military strength, Japan’s Self Defense Force is 4th in theworld, and has a budget of 5 trillion.
Yet we can barely get permission toinspect its actual strength and content because the very existence of the
Self Defense Force is not written into
the Constitution.
For example, what kind of weapons does the SDF use? We presently
cannot confirm even that.
Therefore, Mr. Abe is suggestingthat we revise the Constitution byadding a 3rd paragraph to Article 9
and thereby include the Self Defense
Force in the Constitution. This addition would only acknowledge theexistence of the Self Defense Force,
and would create no other problems
beyond that.
However, if Japan as a whole does
not break the habit of putting off addressing today’s problems until tomorrow, there will be no meaningeven to taking these measures.

10

Tahara: When I met Mr. Abe in September last year, the Liberal Democratic Party had just taken 2/3rds
control of the Upper House in theJuly Upper House elections. I told
him that I thought that now was thetime to hold a public referendum on
whether or not to revise the Constitution.
But Mr. Abe replied, “I can’t say it
out loud, but there is now no longer
any need to revise the Constitution.”
That is what he said.
In other words, the U.S. has gone
quiet on this issue now that Japan has
approved the right of collective defense.
Yet in a survey conducted by the
Asahi Shimbun newspaper, 63% of
the constitutional scholars surveyed
said that the existence of the Self Defense Force violates the current Constitution. So in fact, it really is betterto mention its existence in the Constitution, as Abe said it is. I told him
that, in order to make it happen, hewould have to do it in a way that will
be acceptable to the Minshinto Japan
Democratic Party is able to accept it.
Miura: When Goushi Hosono wasstill a member of Minshinto, he announced the so-called “Hosono
Draft” in the May issue of “ChuoKoron.” magazine. The Jiseikai—thepolitical interest group to which hebelonged—was a group of conservatives within the then Democratic
Party. Yet even doing this, he wasunable to get approval from thegroup to even touch on Article 9. I
think it is important to understandthat this is still the current situation
within the Democratic Party.
I personally do not think that all
the current deception revolving
around the Self Defense Force and
the Japan-U.S. alliance will turn out
all right if we simply revise the Constitution.
Moreover, where will that self-identity and sense of nationalism andpride that many Japanese do feel for
Article 9 of the Constitution go, if
it’s changed? Many on the left in Japan have come to rely on Article 9 astheir personal replacement for nationalism. I am very concerned withthis. That is why I personally think
we should keep paragraph 1 of the
Article 9 exactly as is.
Tahara: I do not think this will happen for a long, long time. Yet, if the
U.S. should withdraw its forces fromJapan, do the Japanese people reallyhave the will to protect their country
by themselves?
Miura: Japan has no other choice
but to do so. Whether the UnitedStates withdraws its forces or not is
up to the U.S., not to us. I think it’svery wrong to think that Japan andthe U.S. are one.
Inose: The U.S. won’t withdraw
from Japan, for strategic reasons.
The U.S. military cannot reach the
Middle East theatre without bases
Japan. Although of course, they’ll
probably ask Japan to share more of
the expenses of maintaining theirpresence here.
Miura: I do want to point out that
there is a difference of opinion regarding this. Although that is theway things still stand today, it has
been said that the days of preserving
control of the sea is coming to an
end. Issues revolving around missile
defense are now at the forefront ofmilitary thinking, and in time even
that, too, is going to change, evolving into fighting wars with spacebased assets and cyber technology inthe near future.
Tahara: I think it is important forJapan today to seriously ponder ways
to co-exist with China. From the
Liberal Democratic Party to people
on the farther right—people like Toshiko Sakurai and Shoichi Watanabe—everyone seems to believe inthe “China Threat” theory. However,I personally do not think that the“China Threat” is a good paradigm
at all. The greatest mistake we madeas a country before the Pacific War
was that we continued to fightagainst China. I find myself in agreement with Toshihiro Nikai regarding
this point.
Miura: The fact that a person like
Nikai can still be a member of the
Liberal Democratic Party is an indication the broad perspective the party has regarding policy toward Chi-na. Nikai has even been saying that
he intends to put together a delegation of 5,000 people to visit China,
including the political hawks, including people living in big cities
and small towns and villages, not tomention representatives from companies and associations.
The “China Threat” theory is likea disease that is eating Japan. Of
course China is a threat. What weneed to learn is how to fear China
correctly. If the Chinese economy
soars, we can make money from it,
too. There are real merits. It’s unwise
if we try and do something about
external forces over which we haveno control, including China increasing its national power, globalization,and the withdrawal of countries frominternational alliances.
What we should focus on is not trying to stop the unstoppable, but how
to respond correspondingly and cor-

rectly. There is no point to simply sitting around analyzing theoretical military threats and worrying about thethreat posed by the Chinese economy.
Inose: China is a country about
which—if you look at its politicalstructure and see events like Xi Jingping suddenly arresting the presidentof the Chinese News Service—you
can come away with the impressionthat it is impossible to know or predict what it is going to do.
Yet at the same time, China is acountry of vast range and depth. In
my book, “Defeated in War in theSummer of 1941,” there is a section
where I write about the “Soryokusen
Kenkyujo” (Total War Institute) for
military studies. The chief of the institute asks the research students,“What kind of people are the Hanrace (the Chinese people)?”The correct answer is: “a flexible
race like water, a race that can trans-

form itself into a round shape if itwere to be placed on a round plate,
and a square shape if it were to placedon a square plate.”
Having gone through so manylong years of absolute monarchy,
with dynasties changing from one toanother, the Chinese people are imbued with a certain unique kind of
power and flexibility.
As exemplified by the Fukushima
nuclear fuel debris issue and Article
9 of the Constitution that we havediscussed earlier Japan has a tendency to take measures without looking
closely at the real problem and making informed decisions. I think thatin the years ahead, this will truly
have to change.
(Reprinted from “Shukan
Dokusho-jin,” November 3rd,2017)

The panelists
Soichiro Tahara
Journalist. Born 1934. He is now creating new horizons in TV journalism on TV Asahi’s programs“Asa-made Nama TV (Live TV Until Morning)” and “Sunday Project.” Specially appointed professor
at Waseda University, and head of the Ookuma School focusing on leadership skills. He has also
appearing in numerous other TV and radio shows including BS Asahi’s “Gekiron! Cross Fire (Heateddiscussion! Cross Fire),” and is the author of numerous books.

Ruri Miura
Scholar of international politics. Born in 1980. Miura is a graduate of the University of Tokyo Faculty of Agriculture in 2004 and the Graduate School of Public Policy (GraSPP), She earned her PhD
from the Graduate School for Law and Politics of the University of Tokyo. She is currently a lecturer
at the University of Tokyo’s Policy Alternatives Research Institute (PARI). In 2014 she launched her
blog site “Yamaneko Nikki,” featuring her incisive critique of political views centered on international politics, Japanese domestic politics and Japanese society. Miura is the author of “Civilian’s War:On the Origins of Aggressive Democracies” (Civilian-no Senso) and “Understanding Contemporary
Japanese Politics and Diplomacy (Nihon-ni Zetsubou-shiteiru hito-no-tameno Seiji Nyumon).”Naoki Inose
Author. Born in 1946. In 1986, he received the Souichi Ooya Nonfiction Award for his book “Mikado
no Shozo” (Portrait of the Emperor).” In 1996, he received the Bungeishunju Readers’ Award for his
book “ Nipponkoku no Kenkyu” (A Report on Japan).” In June 2002, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi appointed him to the Promotion Committee for the Privatization of the Four Highway-Related
Public Corporations. He served as Tokyo Governor from December 2012 to December 2013. In December 2015, he became Special Advisor to Osaka City. His books include “Show 16-nen no Haisen”(The Defeat in Showa 16), “Persona—Mishima Yukio Den” (Persona: The Story of Mishima Yukio) and“Picaresque—Dazai Osamu Den.” (Picaresque: The Story of Dazai Osamu). Upcoming books include“Kyushutsu” (Rescue), “Senso, Tenno, Kokka” (War, Emperor, State), “Seigi ni tsuite Kangaeyo” (Let’s
Think about Justice), “Minkei” (Posse Man), “Tokyo no Teki” (Tokyo’s Enemy) and in collaboration
with Lully Miura, “Kokumin Kokka no Riarizumu” (Realism and the Nation-state).
Translation: Ayako Karino
11

Japanese Civilization Institute 2017 10th Symposium
The Liberal Democratic Party won big in the most recent the general elections. Yet it is time that we look beyond Abenomics and thinkof what else we can do from here.
How can Japan recover as a nation? First, we must learn to separate the macro and the micro, and re-examine the present situation inthat light. What kind of possibilities are to be found in regional revitalization? We will have Japan Civilization Institute’s tenth
symposium welcome Shigeru Ishiba, author of “Nihon Reetto Sousei-ron” (Japan Island Construction Concept) and Kazuhiko Toyama,author of “Naze Rokaru Keizai-kara Nihon-wa Yobigaerunoka?” (Why Japan will Recover, Beginning from its Local Economies), who
has participated in numerous business revitalizations. Join our tenth symposium to talk about regional revitalization, and administration
strategies for the future.
▶ Panel discussion:

Where should Japango from here?

Abenomics and reforming strategies beyond that
Shigeru Ishiba

Kazuhiko Toyama

Naoki Inose

Liberal Democratic Party, House ofRepresentatives member

Industrial Growth Platform Inc., CEO

Author, Director of Japanese
Civilization InstituteDate: 2
 9th November, 2017, 7 p.m.-9 p.m. (doors scheduled
to open at 6:30 p.m.)
Venue: J apan University of Economics, Tokyo Shibuya
Campus Hall (the hall seats approximately 100 people)
Address: 25-17, Sakuragaoka-cho, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo, 151-0031

Traditional Crafts
Online Site

Admission: 2
 ,000 yen (please pay at the door on the day) pply through the site below:
How to attend: a
http://www.japancivilization.org/
Contact: J apanese Civilization Institute03-5456-8082

Worldwide：https://shops.japancivilization.org
Japanese：http://japancivil.shop9.makeshop.jp

Messages from Director
Japanese Civilization Institute has been introducing and selling traditional crafts of Japan.
Although it is said that there is approximately 1,200 types of traditional crafts in Japan, its
production is declining. As part of our activities, we hope to discover valuable traditional crafts
spread across the nation, enjoy Japanese craftsmanship and its beauty inherited over the
centuries, and develop it with you.

Tsumami Kanzashi(Crepe)Folding Screen(half size)

Folding Screen(full size)

KYO-YAKI
Earthenware

Japanese Bamboo
Basket Tokyotrad

Odoshi Samurai Armor

Contact：Japanese Civilization Institute 24-5 Sakuragaoka-cho, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 150-0031 Phone : 03-5456-8082 Mail : info@japancivilization.org