Financial Times: Washington Regrets the Shinzo Abe It Wished For

Since 1950s, the US has been demanding the kind of Japan that Prime Minister Abe is now advocating, says Financial Times.

Why is the US complaining, then? Buyer's remorse?

The subtitle "The US fears that Japan’s departure from postwar pacifism will provoke Beijing" almost reads like what Special Advisor to Prime Minister Seiichi Eto said in his Youtube video which was then taken down by the request from Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga the other day.

From Financial Times (2/19/2014; emphasis is mine):

Washington regrets the Shinzo Abe it wished for

The US fears that Japan’s departure from postwar pacifism will provoke Beijing

By David Pilling


It is fairly easy to assess the relationship between Shinzo Abe’s Japan and Xi Jinping’s China. Neither likes the other very much. Both are using nationalism as a prop to further policy aims. Both conceivably find it useful to have a “tough man” on the other side, the better to push against.

Less easy to calibrate is the state of relations between Japan and the US. This ought to be far easier to decipher. Japan is, after all, the US’s most important ally in Asia, the “unsinkable aircraft carrier” that has hosted US fighter aircraft and troops since the end of the second world war. Now, in Mr Abe, it has a leader who, after decades of American prodding, is finally willing to adopt a more robust defence posture and revisit the “freeloader” defence doctrine that pacifist Japan has long embraced. Yet having attained what it has long been after, Washington is showing signs it is getting cold feet.

One sign of that was its expression of “disappointment” after the December visit of Mr Abe to Yasukuni shrine, which is regarded as a symbol of Japan’s unrepentant militarism by China and South Korea. In the past, Washington has privately voiced its displeasure at Yasukuni visits, but has not publicly reprimanded Japan. Tokyo was taken aback by the use of the word “disappointed” – translated as shitsubo – which sounds harsh in Japanese.

There have been other signs of strain. US politicians have voiced concern at Mr Abe’s view of history. Virginia lawmakers ruled that school textbooks should also use the Korean name – East Sea – for the Sea of Japan. Washington is concerned that, under Mr Abe, Tokyo’s relations have also soured with Seoul, another important US ally.

From Japan’s perspective, Washington did not back it up with sufficient vigour when Tokyo’s control of disputed islands was cleverly challenged by Beijing’s announcement of an air defence identification zone. Washington did show its displeasure by flying B52 bombers over the zone, but Joe Biden, US vice-president, did not make a big deal of the issue when he visited Beijing.

Many officials in Tokyo regard Washington as having virtually capitulated to China’s unilateral move. They also regularly bemoan the absence of “Japan hands” around President Barack Obama, who has tended to surround himself with people far more steeped in China. More than one official in Tokyo speaks of a growing sense that Washington can no longer be relied upon to support Japan.

There is an irony to all of this that will not be lost on Mr Abe. Ever since 1950, Washington has been urging Japan to rearm and to adopt the sort of defence posture Japan’s prime minister is now advocating. No sooner was the ink dry on the 1947 pacifist constitution, written under the orders of General Douglas MacArthur, than the Americans regretted forcing Japan to forever renounce “the right of belligerency”. John Foster Dulles, appointed to negotiate the end of the US occupation, urged Japan to build an army of 300,000 to 350,000 men. China had gone communist and the US was fighting a war in Korea. It no longer suited the US to have a neutered “client state” in east Asia.

For years Japan resisted that pressure. Tokyo relied on the US nuclear umbrella and got on with the business of business. Its only concession was to form a Self Defence Force that was forbidden from fighting. Now, six decades later, Japan has a leader willing to take the US at its word. Mr Abe has the personal conviction, as well as the geopolitical pretext, to revamp Japan’s interpretation of its constitution or even to overturn pacifist article nine itself.

Now the moment has come, though, some in Washington are having second thoughts. John Kerry, secretary of state, according to one former White House official, regards Japan as “unpredictable and dangerous”. There is nervousness that Japanese nationalism will provoke a counter-reaction in Beijing. Hugh White, an Australian academic and former defence official, says the meaning is clear: “America would rather see Japan’s interests sacrificed than risk a confrontation with China.”

When Mr Abe went to Yasukuni, he may have partly been sending a message to Washington. It is a curiosity of the Japanese right that it has been the most ardent supporter of the US-Japan alliance while simultaneously being resentful of the postwar settlement imposed by Washington on a defeated Japan. Going to Yasukuni in defiance of US wishes is one way of signalling that Japan cannot always be relied upon to do Washington’s bidding.

Distaste in Washington for Mr Abe is by no means universal. In some ways, the Japanese prime minister is exactly what the US doctor ordered. He has a plan to reflate Japan’s economy. He is the first leader in years with any hope of solving the festering issue of US marine bases in Okinawa. He is willing to spend more on defence after years of a self-imposed limit of 1 per cent of output. Those policies, however, come with a price tag: a revisionist nationalism that many in Washington find distasteful.

“As China grows, Japan has more and more reason to be anxious about China’s power, and less and less confidence in America’s willingness to protect it,” Mr White says. The US, he argues, must either commit itself unambiguously to defend Japan’s core interests or help Japan regain the “strategic independence it surrendered after 1945”. Japan’s answer to that dilemma is to hold on ever tighter to America – and to pull away.

Tweet

(OT) "Hacked PCs falsify billions of ad clicks", according to Financial Times

Financial Times article (3/19/2013) says the so-called "botnet scheme" highjacked 120,000 residential computers in the US, simulated the mouse cursor movements as if there were viewers who actually visited the sites, and generated 9 billion impressions every month across over 200 sites, costing the advertisers about $6 million a month.

Built on a tower of sand...

Tweet

Financial Times: China Is Trying to Expel Japanese From China's Territorial Waters around Senkaku Islands

Apple's unique and unintended "solution" aside, China is taking a tougher line over the Senkaku (Diaoyu to Chinese) Islands. Whether because of the "head in the sand" mentality of the Japanese, or because of a translation problem, the Japanese don't seem to pay enough attention.

China Daily quoted the Chinese vice foreign minister saying:

China will have no alternative but to respond forcefully so as to remove disturbance and obstacles

China Daily's quote is from the official Chinese news agency Xinhua. So, regardless of the original language the minister used (probably Chinese), the English translation must have been carefully vetted. The word "forceful", however, was translated into Japanese by the Japanese media as "strong", as you see in this Yomiuri Shinbun article (10/27/2012):

我々に退路はなく、強力に対応しなければならない

There is no backing down, and we should respond strongly.

Forcefully or strongly, what's the difference? Some English sites that quoted the China Daily article seem to think "forcefully" means "by force". I thought so too. But clearly not people in Japan, not even those on Twitter (it's possible that I'm only following a peaceful bunch of people) about the vice minister's comment. I wouldn't pay much attention either, if all I read was Yomiuri's article.

Then, Financial Times (10/30/2012) says China is trying to expel Japanese ships from their "territorial water" around their "Diaoyu" Islands. According to FT,

• Chinese surveillance ships approached the waters that Japan claims it controls, with a warning sign that says "You are in waters administered by the People’s Republic of China. You are already breaching the law. Move away immediately", warning the Japanese that they were operating "illegally" on Chinese waters.

• An expert in the Chinese government says the situation changed when the Chinese created a legal basis for enforcing their claim by announcing the territorial baseline for the islands in September.

Apparently, the Chinese have been doing this for twelve days straight. Yomiuri Shinbun (10/31/2012) reports this incident as follows:

中国監視船５隻、尖閣接続水域に…１２日連続... 海上保安庁の巡視船が領海に近づかないよう警告を続けている。

Five Chinese surveillance ships enter the adjacent area near Senkaku territorial waters, 12 days in a row... Japan Maritime Safety Agency's ship has been warning the surveillance ships not to come close to the territorial waters.

In the minds of Chinese, it is Japan who is invading the Chinese territorial waters, and that is what's reported in an English media.

Despite the professed concern by many in Japan over how they are portrayed and perceived by foreigners, most do not pay real attention to the substance of what's reported. Rightly or wrongly, Chinese is building a case for their claim's legitimacy by using the foreign media, and Japanese are asleep at the wheel, or at most only snickering at Chinese. "Look how stupid they are!"

A similar recent case was over Mr. Seiji Maehara's speech in the US. "Oh what a pathetic English pronunciation! What a disgrace in the eyes of the world! I'm ashamed as a Japanese!" was the most popular and common reaction among Japanese people on Twitter. I don't think anyone bothered to listen to the speech and understand what he said (he spoke like a real prime minister), how he delivered the speech (at ease), and how he was received (very warmly). The only comment I got from my followers about my tweets listening to his speech was "He's just a pro-US dog."

Hate to say it, but it's a cultural thing. Style and label over substance, and they do not comprehend the world around them, and the world doesn't comprehend them.

Tweet

FT: "Divisions over radiation risk have been exposed after Fukushima"

The article written by Mure Dickie and Clive Cookson for Financial Times that appeared in November last year seems to have engendered a lively discussion in the comment section regarding what is the "safe" radiation dose, if there is one.

From Financial Times (11/11/2011):

Nuclear energy: A hotter topic than ever

By Mure Dickie and Clive Cookson

Divisions over radiation risk have been exposed after Fukushima

In front of the government office in Japan’s Iitate village, the radiation monitor – a large metal box topped by warning lights – displays airborne levels in real time on a glowing digital display. A handheld dosimeter carried by local forester Toru Anzai gives more personal readings. In the nearby prefectural capital, sophisticated germanium detectors hum into the night analysing the radioactivity of local foods.

Eight months after a tsunami sent the Fukushima Daiichi atomic power station into near meltdown, data are pouring in across Japan on the scale of contamination caused by the world’s worst nuclear crisis in 25 years. Yet none of these detectors or their data can tell their users just how worried they should be. For the crisis has laid bare an absence of scientific and social consensus on radiation risk, which is undermining a disaster response already weakened by fractious leadership and an often slow-moving bureaucracy.

Uncertainty about radiation danger is not a problem for Japan alone. Atomic plants around the world are ageing fast, and more are being built in developing countries where there is often limited public oversight and high levels of corruption. It would be foolish for the world to assume that this crisis will be the last.

On one side, analysts say bowing to exaggerated fears of radiation will stunt global development of nuclear power, slowing economic growth and increasing pollution and global warming from fossil fuels. On the other, experts accuse the nuclear industry and government officials of playing down the dangers.

In May, radiation safety researcher Toshiso Kosako tearfully resigned as a scientific adviser to Japan’s prime minister after the government decided to set the limit for exposure in schools at 20 millisieverts a year, a level usually applied to nuclear industry workers. “It’s unacceptable to apply this figure to infants, toddlers and primary school pupils,” Professor Kosako said.

But Wade Allison of Oxford university says the 20mSv a year limit for evacuation should be raised to 100mSv a month, arguing that the principal health threat posed by the Fukushima Daiichi crisis is “fear, uncertainty and enforced evacuation”.

Underlying such stark differences lies a lack of clarity about what radiation does to the body at doses below 100mSv per year, the level at which an increase in cancer becomes clearly evident in epidemiological surveys. Prof Allison and many other scientists believe that, below a certain threshold, radiation is likely in effect to do no harm to health at all. However, the mainstream assumption is that even very low doses carry some risk, even if it is not yet measurable.

The result has been highly precautionary limits on artificial radiation exposure, such as an international safety standard for the public of just 1mSv in a year. That is less than half the exposure most people receive naturally from background radioactivity in rocks, soil and building materials, and from cosmic rays. This may make sense in normal times – but it means that in a crisis people tend to assume exposure above the limit is dangerous. The problem for authorities is that it is next to impossible to judge exactly at what point it will be safer to move a population away from the radiation or to limit its exposure by, for example, keeping children indoors and closing schools. Such moves themselves have health risks: evacuation can kill the elderly and thrust younger people into unemployment. Disrupted education can mar children’s future careers. Loss of exercise habits makes people vulnerable to illness and obesity.

David Boilley, a nuclear physicist and head of the French citizens’ radiation testing group Acro, believes the Japanese evacuation line of 20mSv a year is too high, but acknowledges that a 1mSv level would be unrealistic. French government experts have suggested setting the evacuation trigger at 10mSv per year – although this could mean adding another 70,000 people to the 150,000-200,000 evacuated from areas near Fukushima Daiichi.

“Evacuation is terrible [and we] need to weigh the burden and benefit,” says Mr Boilley, whose group is helping with monitoring in Fukushima, adding that the appropriate trigger point varies not only by area and exposure but also by individual. “Where to put it? That’s a very hard question,” he says. “I am happy I am not a politician who has to decide.”

(Full article and the comment section at the link)

Professor Wade Allison left his comment, saying:

I have written and explained in accessible language, but in some depth, why the evacuation level should have been set in the region of 100 millisievert per month, that is 1200 per year -- that is 60 times the current value, not five times, as quoted in this FT article.

Hey that means I was right, saying in my post that Professor Allison's annual limit was 1.2 sievert...

(H/T TS)

Tweet