See no evil

See no evil: A slush fund is revealed in Japan
The Economist: 18 May 2010

The below is an old article from The Economist.
Hiromu Nonaka, a retired prominent figure of LDP (a leading party in Japan), confessed that when he was a chief cabinet secretary, it was a regular custom for Prime Minister Office to gift the secret money to journalists and television commentators, asking for favourable comments on their party.
.
The other information from the related Japanese articles :

 (1) 70 percent of Japanese citizens trust the cont...ent of Newspaper/Magazine/TV while only 20 percent of US Citizens do the same. Since media credibility is such high in Japan, public opinion may be easily manipulated thru these media. (from Newsweek Japan)
..
(2) 2 years ago, LDP established an organization called Jimin Net Suppoters Club. Its members are consists of some LDP policy makers, media experts from big private companies and 15,000 voluntary staffs from citizens. They monitor the internet opinion about LDP politicians/policy, request to delete or object criticism, and analyze the opinions for how to promote their members/policy. Some doubt if they are also agitating or manipulating public opinion. (from the blog of a legal scholar)

........................................................................................................

IN BRITAIN, after the Daily Telegraph broke the story last year that members of parliament had blatantly fiddled expenses, all the media had a field day. In Japan details are leaking out of a large secret fund kept in a black box near the prime minister's office that for decades has been used to curry political favours, including, it is said, among journalists and television commentators. Tellingly, the Japanese media is reacting to the scandal like the three wise monkeys of Nikko: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

The existence of the slush fund has long been known to insiders. But details of its size and the way it was spent were unknown to the public until Hiromu Nonaka, a former chief cabinet secretary, revealed last month that from 1998-99 he spent up to ¥70m ($600,000 at the exchange rate of the time) a month from his secret little piggy bank. That included ¥10m to the prime minister, ¥10m to politicians in the then-ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), and more scattered among political commentators and opposition-party members, including those going on trips to North Korea.
Mr Nonaka, who is 84, says he made the confession because he did not want to carry the secret to the grave about what he rightly refers to as taxpayers' money. But he may also have been making mischief for the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), which drove the LDP from power last year. It has since come to light that the new government of Yukio Hatoyama, elected on a platform of transparency and accountability, has been dipping into the cabinet office's slush fund as freely as its LDP predecessors.

On May 14th Hirofumi Hirano, Mr Hatoyama's chief cabinet secretary, confirmed, in answer to a largely unreported parliamentary question by the Japanese Communist Party, that he had withdrawn ¥360m ($3.8m) from the fund between September and March, and spent all but ¥16m. He claimed to have returned the unused portion to the exchequer. But, he also said, for the time being he did not intend to disclose what the money was spent on, nor did he expect to stop using the pot.
Mr Hirano also appeared reluctant to investigate the outgoing LDP administration led by Taro Aso, which raided the fund last year just before it handed over power to Mr Hatoyama. Two days after the election, and two weeks before leaving office, it withdrew an impressive ¥250m.

Some people might shrug off the fund as part of the old Japanese tradition of gift-giving, admittedly involving some pretty generous presents. Mr Hirano says money is necessary to gather information “for the benefit of the nation”. But for a government that has long promised to dig up the “buried treasure” hidden in government accounts in order to improve shaky public finances, it is extraordinary that it, too, is taking such brazen advantage of this darkest of slush funds. Just as extraordinary, not to mention suspicious, is the impressive silence from most of the powerful mass media. More evidence, if it were needed, of its central role in Japan's longstanding political dysfunction.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2010/05/slush_fund_revealed_japan

Historical revisionism undermines Abe’s apology

Historical revisionism undermines Abe’s apology

East Asia Forum: 2 November 2015

 

Kuniko Inoguchi, a diet member from Abe’s LDP and a former scholar, has sent 2 English translated books to more than 100 scholars and journalists worldwide. The books are about asserting re-interpretation of history (Japanese military’s behavior at wartime) and victimization of Japan on history war. As I posted earlier, those who criticize about the Japanese revisionist movement are not limited to China and Korea. Former diplomat of Singapore said “as we reconciled diplomatically, we forgave but do not forget”. Some civilians of Southeast Asia, which wartime problem is already solved so no more confliction on this matter, mentioned they heard about what Japanese imperial army did from their grandparents. Western media also expressed confusion about contradictory behavior while making apology statement repeatedly. Even those who sympathize with Japan for the security threat of China do not support Japan on this matter.
.
Her intension may be to improve Japanese status under such circumstances, but method is wrong and the result should be opposite. According to a Japanese scholar of the University in the USA, who received the books, “the books are full of emotional slogan with too many words like anti-japan, truth or fact. The books do not mention reliable source to support their opinion, therefore these are useless as academic material.”
.
Before entering into politics, Dr. Inoguchi was a professor of the University who influenced her students by valuing liberal, democratic and pacifism ideology. Now many of her students feel betrayed and disappointed with her change. It seems as if she is brain-washed by “Cult” politic lobby of Shinto extremism.

.........................................................................................................................

On 14 August, the day before the 70th anniversary of the end of the Pacific War, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe issued a long-awaited statement on Japanese memory of the war and his vision for the future. In it, he emphasised that the apologies given by previous Japanese cabinets ‘will remain unshakable into the future’. Abe’s statement received mixed responses from around the world.

While some expressed concern at its account of 20th century history, the United States welcomed Abe’s ‘expression of deep remorse for the suffering caused by Japan during the World War II era, as well as his commitment to uphold past Japanese government statements on history’.

But recent events raise serious questions about the commitment of the Abe government to upholding past apologies.

For the past several weeks, prominent members of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) have sent unsolicited gifts of two books to academics, journalists and politicians in the English-speaking world (mostly in the United States). The books are accompanied by letters that draw attention to Abe’s 70th anniversary statement. They claim that history is being distorted by certain unnamed individuals and urge the recipients to read the books as a corrective.

The first book is Getting Over It! Why Korea Needs to Stop Bashing Japan, by Oh Sonfa, a naturalised Japanese citizen of Korean origin who is best known in Japan for publications disparaging her former homeland. Oh’s book urges Japan to turn its back on China and particularly on South Korea, which, she argues, suffers from incurable ‘narrow egotism and prejudice’ reflecting the nation’s ‘history and its racial characteristics’.

Echoing Japanese wartime propaganda, Oh paints Japanese colonial expansion, in opposition to Western colonialism, as essentially good. While she describes Western imperial powers as brutal and exploitative, she claims Japanese colonial control of the Korean peninsula ‘implemented no policies aimed at exploiting Korea’, ‘did not use armed suppression to govern’ and even ‘abolished restrictions on freedom of speech’. All of this will come as news to most historians of Asia.

The second book, History Wars, Japan — False Indictment of the Century, is written and published by the right-wing Sankei newspaper. It pours vitriolic scorn on the historic 1993 Kono Statement, which apologised to former ‘comfort women’, who were sexually exploited in Japanese military brothels during the war. The Kono Statement, along with the Murayama Statement, is the most crucial of the Japanese government official statement on wartime history that Abe declared Japan’s ‘commitment to uphold’ in his statement.

History Wars claims that there is no evidence to support Japan’s 1993 admission that some ‘comfort women’ had been recruited against their own will, at times with the direct involvement of Japanese military or officials. A number of the book’s arguments echo those presented in June 2014 by a team created by the Abe government to investigate the processes that led to the Kono Statement, though the Sankei book expresses these arguments in more extreme terms.

History Wars depicts the surviving Korean ‘comfort women’ as confused old women tempted into giving false evidence by promises of money. And it claims that the Japanese government made the apology knowing it to be factually baseless, simply out of an ardent desire to appease South Korea. These bizarre claims are based on a selective misreading of the available historical evidence and have been strongly denied by former Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono, who issued the 1993 apology.

If these books had been distributed by a fringe right-wing organisation, they might have caused minor embarrassment. But they are being distributed by leading politicians from the ruling LDP, including a key member of the party’s International Information Investigation Committee (LDP/IIIC). One of the politicians actively distributing the books in the United States has since been appointed the special advisor to the prime minister on cultural diplomacy.

On 19 June 2015, the LDP/IIIC presented Prime Minister Abe with an interim report on proposed measures to counter the ‘anti-Japanese propaganda of China and South Korea etc’. Abe’s reported response was to exhort the committee to ‘further strengthen its efforts’. On 19 September, the Committee passed a resolution that blamed the distortion of ‘international society’s perception of our country’s history’ on ‘lies’ disseminated by the liberal Asahi newspaper. It went on to call for a national information policy that would ‘change from the merely “neutral” or “defensive” stance to a more positive dissemination of information’. The dissemination of History Wars and Getting Over It appears to be a step in this ‘positive dissemination’ campaign.

This is deeply concerning as it suggests that the campaign has been endorsed by Abe and is being carried out by key figures in the ruling LDP party. These actions are inconsistent with Abe’s promise to the global community in his statement on 14 August. Historical revisionism that denounces the Kono Statement and whitewashes the record of Japanese colonialism is incompatible with Abe’s expressions of ‘deep remorse’ and promises to ‘engrave in our hearts the past’.

There is no evidence to suggest that the extremist views expressed in these two books are shared by most ordinary Japanese people. The actions by members of the LDP are undermining decades of hard work by many Japanese civil society groups to heal the wounds of past violence. Such factually inaccurate accounts of Japan’s war history can only damage the standing of Japan in the international community. The time has come for a more reasoned approach from all participants in these tragic and destructive ‘history wars’.
Professor Tessa Morris-Suzuki is an ARC Laureate Fellow based at the School of Culture, History and Language, at the College of Asia and the Pacific at The Australian National University.

 

Comfort Woman: Closure on thorny issue will come down to political will

Comfort Woman: Closure on thorny issue will come down to political will
Nikkei Asian Review: 2 November 2015

SEOUL -- Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe let out a small sigh of relief as he walked into the elevator of the Lotte Hotel in Seoul after addressing the press Monday afternoon.

 He had just ended his first meeting with South Korean President Park Geun-hye and was generally pleased with the outcome. Their talk lasted an hour and 45 minutes, the first hour of which was dedicated mostly to the wartime "comfort women" issue. Despite it being the thorniest matter lying between the two countries, "there wasn't a single moment when either side got emotional," according to a Japanese official who was there.

 

 The words exchanged between the leaders were positive. Whether that feel-good atmosphere evolves into real-world results will ultimately come down to the political will of Abe and Park.
     There were three new elements to Abe's stance when he met Park at the presidential Blue House. First, he said he wanted to "settle the issue as soon as possible," which is a shift from the Japanese government's official stance that the issue has already been settled.

 He also pointed out that this year marks the 50th anniversary of the normalization of the Japan-South Korea relationship, and that "with that anniversary in mind, we agreed to accelerate negotiations" for a settlement. Park had been signaling in interviews leading up to the meeting that she wanted a settlement by the end of the year.

 Perhaps most importantly, Abe said he did not want to "leave the comfort women issue as an obstacle for future generations as the two countries build a future-oriented cooperative relationship." The words signal that the Japanese leader wants to solve the issue once and for all while he is in office.

New confidence

The decision to take on the contentious issue -- which no previous Japanese government has been able to resolve -- is based on the confidence he gained from the positive response to his statement in August marking the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II.

 Although he received criticism from both the political left and right -- for either conceding too much or not conceding enough -- "he managed to quell the debate," said Kunihiko Miyake, research director at the Canon Institute for Global Studies. "Nobody is talking about it anymore; not the Chinese, the Koreans, the right or the left. He managed to find a minimum consensus."

 The South Korean side is asking for two things: a "sincere apology" from the Japanese leader and compensation for the thousands of women who had to work in wartime brothels. In the meeting, Park expressed hope for a solution that is "acceptable for the victims, and satisfactory for the Korean people."

The Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea of 1965 -- which established diplomatic relations between the two countries -- noted that with that treaty, all claims between Japan and South Korea were settled "completely and finally."

The Japanese side says because of that treaty, any monetary assistance to the victims cannot come as government compensation. "It would be like opening Pandora's box. It would invite all sorts of new claims," Canon Institute's Miyake said. The two leaders would have to search for another way, such as "humanitarian assistance," which is what they discussed during Monday's meeting.

Japan has attempted this approach before, when dovish Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama established The Asian Women's Fund in 1994. Former comfort women in South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, the Netherlands and Indonesia were offered a signed apology from the prime minister, as well as 2 million yen ($16,570) each.

 Yet, because the source of that money was donations from Japanese people and not from government coffers, most South Koreans declined to accept the cash.

Abe's team will explore the possibility of establishing a similar fund, but one that the South Koreans would be ready to accept. It will be up to Park to convince her people that this would be the final solution. And with the victims getting older by the day, it will be a race against time.

 Why would a plan that did not work in the 1990s work now? "The biggest difference between then and now is that the hawkish Abe, and not the dovish Murayama, will be leading the negotiations," said Miyake.

 For years, Abe has been one of the strongest critics of the 1993 Kono Statement, released by then-Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono after the conclusion of a government study that found that the Japanese Imperial Army had "forced" comfort women to work in military-run brothels during the war.

In the final weeks of the year, there will be a renewed effort to reach an agreement that both sides can accept. Is there a minimum consensus that just might be reached by the people on both sides? At stake is the future relationship of two neighbors who are close in many ways yet so far apart in others. Which leader will blink?

The Threat to Press Freedom in Japan

The Threat to Press Freedom in Japan
The New York Times: 20 May 2015

TOKYO — During a press conference in March, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga expressed concern over comments I had made during a program on TV Asahi, a major private broadcasting network: I had announced that I would no longer be appearing on the show after being subjected to “fierce bashing” from the prime minister’s office. According to the daily Asahi Shimbun, Mr. Suga said, “We will closely watch how the TV station handles the issue in line with the Broadcast Law” — a veiled threat to revoke the station’s license.

 

On April 17, a special panel of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (L.D.P.) held a special meeting at party headquarters and summoned executives of both TV Asahi and NHK, a public broadcaster, to discuss two TV programs the party thought had been critical of the administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

 

After I appeared on Tokyo MX TV, a local station, on April 25, an executive member of the L.D.P. reportedly told some journalists, “I heard that there was a TV station which allowed Mr. Koga to appear on a program. What a courageous TV station, I should say!”

 

And so it is that the Japanese government tampers with the media’s independence. This is happening partly because of longstanding structural characteristics that govern the relationship between the media and the state in Japan. But the Abe government has been especially aggressive in using those to its advantage, and major segments of the industry are quickly internalizing its preferences.

Instead of pushing back against Mr. Suga’s intimidation, for example, TV Asahi reprimanded the employees who had produced the TV program during which I criticized the government. And instead of invoking the anti-interference provisions of the broadcasting laws to resist questioning by the L.D.P., those TV executives complied with the party’s summons.

 

In Japan, relations between the state and journalists are formally maintained through a network of reporters’ clubs, or kisha kurabu. There is a reporters’ club for each ministry, each local government, each political party, each industry association. Membership in the clubs is generally limited to reporters at major media companies. Typically, only members are allowed to attend the press conferences, and only members have access to the organizations’ officials. In return for endowing reporters with this privileged status, the officials take it for granted that their organizations will get favorable coverage. And very often they do.

 

Another problem is that the media in Japan is not regulated by an independent agency. For example, it is the government itself — specifically the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications — that grants licenses to TV stations, and these are up for renewal regularly. Consequently, TV stations are under constant supervision and fear losing their right to operate if they challenge the government. Given Japan’s parliamentary system, this means that the ruling political parties themselves have a large influence over broadcasting.

 

What’s more, there is virtually no separation of management and the newsroom at major media companies. A company’s chairman or president will often micromanage news coverage, or even the behavior of individual reporters. Few of them dare to challenge such intrusions because of the Japanese employment system: Historically, a job at a leading media company has meant security and a very high salary until retirement. Many journalists, recognizing that their bosses are obedient to the government and themselves eager to protect their own careers, hesitate to be critical of the government. Company loyalty trumps the professional ethics of independent journalism.

 

This system hardly is new. It has been in place since before World War II, and an independent agency regulating the media that was established by the Allied forces during the occupation was abolished in 1952 by Japanese conservatives. But recently the government has applied pressure on the media to an unprecedented extent. Under the Abe administration, the top executives of major media companies go out for fine meals or to play golf with the prime minister and high-ranking government officials. And they are unabashed about making this known to the public.

 

Last November, soon before the general election, the L.D.P. sent so-called request letters to major TV stations, enjoining them to ensure that their coverage would “not be one-sided” and with instructions on how to select topics to cover and commentators to interview. The party wrote to one station to complain that one of its programs had suggested Mr. Abe’s economic policies benefited only wealthy people — a view shared by many Japanese, according to opinion polls.

How can the media act as a government watchdog under such conditions?

 

The Abe administration’s treatment of journalists is worthy of an authoritarian state, not the liberal democracy Japan is supposed to be.

 

Shigeaki Koga, a bureaucrat in the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan from 1980 to 2011, is a writer and commentator.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/21/opinion/the-threat-to-press-freedom-in-japan.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0
 

From Okinawa to the UN, the Protest Against a US Military Base Continues

From Okinawa to the UN, the Protest Against a US Military Base Continues     
Global Voices: 27 October 2015


Long-held American plans to build a new military base in a remote part of Japan are being fiercely resisted by the people of Okinawa and their governor Takeshi Onaga. On October 13, 2015, Onaga exercised his right as governor to revoke a permit the US military needs to build the new base, effectively putting an end to base construction.

The move by the governor of Okinawa to block the base came after Onaga spoke at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva before a large number of Japanese journalists and observers on September 21 about Okinawans’ opposition to the plan.

It was the first time a Japanese prefectural governor had ever addressed that council, and happened shortly after a UN official had admonished Japan for human rights violations in Okinawa itself.

‘Sounding an alarm’ about human rights violations

Onaga attended the UN human right panel in Geneva to “sound an alarm” about the relocation of the US Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Okinawa to Henoko, an area further north within the prefecture, itself an archipelago located in Japan's far southwest.

Onaga said Okinawans’ right to self-determination has been ignored by Japan's central government in Tokyo, which had negotiated with the US Marine Corps to move the base.

There has been serious concern that construction of the new US military base would cause severe damage to this biologically invaluable area. Henoko Bay is known for its endangered species such as the dugong, a marine mammal found nowhere else in Japan, and rare blue coral (Heliopora coerulea).

The majority of residents oppose the plan, according to various polls throughout the years, but a small number of Okinawans do support the construction of a new base. Despite accounting for just 0.6% of Japan’s territory, Okinawa is home to over 70% of American military installations based in Japan. US military bases occupy at least 18% of the main island of Okinawa.

"20 years since the protest meeting against US solders’ rape case. Now 80% of Okinawan support Governor Onaga's protest against US base relocation to Henoko"

Okinawans have resisted the relocation of the base for 17 years, since a 1996 defense policy review suggested the move, and the American presence is still widely resented in Okinawa. Following a 2013 decision to formally move ahead with the Henoko move, protests have occurred in front of military bases almost non-stop.

Military bases amount to ‘discrimination’ against Okinawans

Onaga's address to the UN Human Rights Council in September came after an August 2015 visit to Okinawa by Victoria Tauli Corpuz, a UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people. While in Okinawa Corpuz said that the presence of so many US military bases in the small, isolated prefecture amounts to discrimination against the people of Okinawa.

Since being elected governor of Okinawa in November 2014, Onaga himself has made every effort to prevent the relocation of the base, currently located in the middle of Ginowan city on the southwestern end of Okinawa island. Realizing that neither the US nor the Japanese governments were willing to address the concerns of Okinawans, Onaga decided to reach out to the international community to raise awareness of the issue in September:

"After World War Two, the US Military took our land by force and constructed military bases in Okinawa. We have never provided our land willingly. Okinawa covers only 0.6% of Japan, however, 73.8% of US exclusive bases in Japan exist in Okinawa […] […] Our right to self-determination and human rights have been neglected. Can a country share values such as freedom, equality, human rights, and democracy with other nations when that country cannot guarantee those values for its own people?"

Onaga's entire address in English can be watched here.

Governor's speech lauded by activists back home

Onaga's speech to the UN human rights council received applause from activists back in Okinawa. Jinshiro Motoyama, an Okinawan student acting aligned with Japan's SEALDs student movement, said:

"Mr. Onaga's speech was good. Thank you! Go Governor Onaga"

SEALDs Ryuku, the local affiliate of the national student activist movement, also tweeted:

"Oh wow, Governor Onaga is going to meet the foreign correspondents’ club tomorrow [in Tokyo, after his return to Japan from Geneva]. I want Onaga to keep communicating Okinawa's message to the international community.
“The existence of the US military bases is the biggest reason for neglect of human rights and right to self-determination. It is really disappointing to hear that the Japanese government says military bases have nothing to do with human rights.” – Governor Onaga as he continues to lobby the UN."

Seventy years of damage caused by US military presence

Speaking to reporters in Geneva, Onaga pointed out that during the 27 years that Okinawa was under the direct administration of the US military following the end of the Second World War, US soldiers were responsible for a number of problems, including the rape of young girls, a plane crashing into a primary school and hit-and-run incidents.

After administration of Okinawa was returned to Japan in 1971 a large amount of toxic contaminants left behind by the US military was discovered, but Okinawa was unable to do anything about it due to the Japan-US Status of Forces Agreement.

US aircraft still fly even after 10 pm, contrary to agreements reached between the two governments, Onaga said. After complaints about aircraft noise were made to the Japanese Ministry of Defense in Okinawa, as well as to other Japanese government offices, Onaga said he was only told that these would be conveyed to the US.

After Onaga's lastest move in October of canceling the permit the US military needs to build the new base at Henoko, representatives of the Japanese government are seeking to have Onaga's decision suspended under the Administrative Appeal Act.

Sanae Fujita is an associate fellow of Human Rights Centre, University of Essex, UK. Based in the UK, Fujita traveled to Geneva in September 2015 to report on Okinawa Governor Takeshi Onaga's address to the United Nations Human Rights Council. Fujita attended a press conference Onaga held following the address.
 

Greenpeace condemns Japan government’s go-ahead for Okinawa military base

Greenpeace condemns Japan government’s go-ahead for Okinawa military base
Greenpeace International: 27 October 2015

Tokyo, October 27 2015 - Greenpeace Japan today condemned the Japanese government’s decision to allow construction of a military base in Okinawa to proceed, despite 80% of local people being opposed, and despite the fact that the Bay where the base will be constructed is home to 262 endangered species, including the rare Japanese dugong.

Two weeks ago, Okinawa’s Governor Onaga rescinded permission for the landfilling of Henoko Bay. Today’s announcement by the central government overrides the Governor, who is acting with the support of the Okinawan people, and ignores recent revelations that the Environmental Impact Assessment was not only flawed, but allegedly corrupt.

“This decision is an insult to the people who have worked so hard, for so long, to have their voices heard. It is shocking that the government is failing to protect Japan’s endangered species and trampling over the wishes of so many Okinawans. Any responsible government would press pause, and support a full investigation into this debacle,” said Kazue Komatsubara,  Greenpeace Japan Oceans Campaigner.

On 19 October this year, the Asahi Shimbun newspaper reported that contractors and consultants associated with the proposed construction of the military base in Henoko had made financial “donations” worth 11 million yen, which were accepted by three members of the government committee set up to oversee the EIA process. The Committee and process were set up by the Department of Defense, even though the DoD had a clear vested interest in getting the construction approved.

The Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior is setting sail for Okinawa later this week, after accepting the invitation of local citizens’ groups and politicians for Greenpeace to pay a goodwill visit to the island. Greenpeace has stood with the people fighting the proposed relocation of this military base to Oura Bay in the past, with Greenpeace ships and crew acting in solidarity with local communities in 2005 and 2007, and have been actively working with local groups throughout 2015.

“We stand with the majority of Okinawans who are against the expansion of this base and demand the protection of Henoko Bay and the rare and vulnerable marine life that depends on it.”

Note to editors:  

On 27 October, 10 organisations jointly submitted a letter to the Defence Minister Gen. Nakatani, and Tamayo Marukawa, Environment Minister, addressing the flawed nature of the environmental assessment and strongly criticising the environmental monitoring committee, overseeing the landfill work of Henoko-Oura Bay.  Those 10 organisations are Greenpeace Japan, Ramsar Network Japan, Friends of the Earth Japan, Nature Conservation Society of Japan, Okinawa and Biodiversity Citizen Network, Okinawa Environmental Network, Save the Dugong Campaign Centre, Henoko relay, No Base in Churaumi and Yanbaru Citizens Group, and Peace Boat.

Americans disinclined to get involved in Asian conflicts

Americans disinclined to get involved in Asian conflicts
Nikkei Asia Review: 20 October  2015

TOKYO -- A survey by think tanks in the U.S., China, Japan and South Korea has revealed discrepancies among the four nations toward U.S. troops being deployed to Asia during times of crisis. While people in Japan and South Korea expect the American military to come to the rescue, the majority of Americans think otherwise.

Close

When asked if the U.S. should deploy its military in the case of North Korea attacking South Korea, 91% of South Koreans said yes. In the U.S., however, the support ratio was 47%; lower than the 49% who disagreed.

 

The Genron NPO of Japan, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs of the U.S., the East Asia Institute of South Korea and the Horizon Research Consultancy Group of China surveyed 7,000 citizens about their perceptions toward Asia. The results were similar for scenarios such as if North Korea were to attack Japan (71% of Japanese say the U.S. should send troops, 48% of Americans agree) and if China and Japan were to clash over the Senkaku Islands, called Diaoyu in China (56% of Japanese and 33% of Americans agree U.S. troops should be sent).

 As for a Taiwan crisis, Americans and Chinese showed similar opposition to U.S. troop deployment, with 68% of Americans and 82% of Chinese opposed.  Were the Korean Peninsula to be peacefully united, 62% of Americans believe it would be time to either:

• End the security alliance with the South and withdraw troops.
• Or maintain the alliance but withdraw troops.

Only 32% of Americans said U.S. troops should remain in a united Korea, while 57% of South Koreans and 45% of Japanese said they would expect the Americans to stay.  The tide of U.S. public sentiment could be a reason South Koreans seem to be warming up to China. When asked which country was important to them, 98% of South Koreans said the U.S. was and 97% said China was too.

 "There seems to be a seam emerging between the U.S. and its allies South Korea and Japan, who we thought shared the same views toward national security," The Genron NPO said. "Compared to past surveys, South Koreans are clearly tilting toward China."