(OT) Abe's Yasukuni Shrine Visit and the "Disappointed" US: State Dept Spokesperson Tells Chinese Reporter to Go Get a Dictionary

and learn the difference between "disappointment", "regret" and "concern".

The Chinese reporter's question is quite legitimate, as the words used in diplomatic statements are (or should be) strictly defined and used to convey specific meanings. The US State Department, following the example of the US Embassy in Tokyo, chose the word "disappointed" in their statement regarding Japan's PM Abe's visit to Yasukuni Shrine on December 26, 2013.

But Ms. Harf, deputy spokesperson of the US State Department, told the reporter to get a dictionary and look up.

In passing, Ms. Harf also debunked the story floating in Japan and clearly in Asia that the State Department consulted the White House in choosing the word "disappointed". So much for that story.

From the Daily Press Briefing at the US State Department, 12/30/2013:

QUESTION: Some media reports that U.S. officials from State Department discussed with officials from White House and finally chose the word “disappointed” rather than “regret” or “concern” to express a stronger or tougher tone. I mean, what kind of message does U.S. trying to send to the Japanese Government?

MS. HARF: Well, I think our message is very clear from the words we chose. I don’t know those reports about interagency communications. Obviously, we talk to our colleagues at the White House all the time. I think we’ve made very clear that we were disappointed, that we think this will exacerbate tensions. I think those words are very clear in their meaning, and I wouldn’t probably wordsmith them any further to try and get deeper meaning out of them.

QUESTION: So you have no differences between “regret” --

MS. HARF: Us and the White House?

QUESTION: No, I mean the differences between “disappointed, “regret,” or “concern.”

MS. HARF: I’m happy for you to get a dictionary and look up what the difference is. I think it’s pretty clear what I mean when I say “disappointed.”

If you are in Japan or following the Japanese media and social media, you would know that this "disappointed" statement by Caroline Kennedy's US Embassy in Tokyo and the State Department has been causing a tremendous stress among Japanese citizens on and off the net.

It is almost comical to see people who normally accuse the Japanese government (particularly the LDP one under PM Abe and more specifically Mr. Abe himself) of always taking orders from and following orders of the United States quite upset that Mr. Abe defied the US (who had reportedly expressed opposition to the visit) and so upset the US that the US issued "such a strong statement" using the word "disappointed".

Most Japanese only understand the Japanese word for "disappointed" - which can be translated into Japanese as 失望 (shitsu-bo), or literally "loss of hope", and that's the Japanese word that the US Embassy chose (I presume, and not Googled) in the provisional (reference) Japanese translation.

In the Press Briefing video, Ms. Harf looks annoyed that she has to work at the end of December.

Tweet

(OT) Obama Administration Welcomes the Passage of Japan's State Secret Protection Law, and Japanese Press Goalseeks

In the minds of the Japanese press and their readers, the United States government under the Obama administration dislikes - if it doesn't, it should and it must - the Japanese "right-wing" administration of Shinzo Abe, and it condemns - if it doesn't, it should and it must - the State Secrecy Protection Law that just passed the Upper house in Japan.

So when the Japanese reporters write about the US reaction (if any) to the law, they try their best to elicit the response they want to hear; failing that, they still hear what they want to hear and write about what they believe they hear. In other words, they goalseek.

First it was Mainichi Shinbun (12/7/2013) who reported on the US reaction to the passage of the State Secret Protection Law:

ハーフ副報道官は「情報の保全は同盟国間の協力に決定的な役割を果たす」と述べ、日米両政府が共有する情報の保全が必要であるとの認識を示した。ただ、ハーフ氏は「表現の自由、報道の自由などの普遍的価値の共有が我々の同盟関係の基盤である」とも述べ、同法を根拠に言論の自由を制限することがないよう日本政府に求めた。

Deputy Spokesperson Harf said "Information security plays a critical role in alliance cooperation," indicating security of information shared by both the Japanese government and the US government is necessary. However, [Ms.] Harf also said, "A foundation of our alliance is a shared commitment to universal values such as freedom of expression and freedom of the press," by which remark she requested the Japanese government not to limit the freedom of speech based on the [State Secrecy Protection] Law.

Thus, according to Mainichi, the US Obama administration has expressed concern that the Japanese government may restrict freedom of speech under the law.

That's odd, I thought, coming from this US administration.

Then, the Asahi Shinbun reporter whom I follow on Twitter tweeted about part of the US State Department Press Briefing on December 6, 2013, which concerned the State Secrecy Protection Law that passed the Opper House on December 6 (Japan Standard Time) and became the law of the land . He said:

秘密保護法の制定は米政府が日本に長年求めていたとの指摘については、米国務省の報道官はコメントしなかった

There was no comment from the [deputy] spokesperson to the reporter when he pointed out that the State Secrecy Protection Law had long been requested from the United States for Japan to prepare it.

That piqued my interest further. So I followed the link in the tweet to the State Department Daily Press Briefing (transcript) page (12/6/2013) to find out exactly what was said and who it was who asked the questions.

Here's the transcript of the section about Japan (emphasis in the transcript is mine):

QUESTION: On Japan?
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: National secret protection law has finally passed the parliament in Japan today. Can we have any comment on that?
MS. HARF: I do. Just give me one second. As you know, information security plays a critical role in alliance cooperation, and we welcome progress on strengthening policies, practices, and procedures related to the protection of classified information. A foundation of our alliance is also a shared commitment to universal values, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, so those are – that’s our response to that. Obviously, we’ll continue talking to them about it if --
QUESTION: Is the freedom --
MS. HARF: -- it’s a topic that comes up.
QUESTION: The last part is regarding this huge national debate in Japan that law might – press – the freedom of press practice in Japan. Is that the reaction you are making?
MS. HARF: Well, as I said, a key part of our alliance is also the – our shared commitment to freedom of the press, and we believe it’s also important to protect classified information. So obviously – I know there’s been some debate about this there, but this is the extent of our response to that.
QUESTION: Did you know that – I mean, can you comment on this law’s character? It has been long requested from the United States for Japan to prepare it.
MS. HARF: I just don’t have any further comment on this new Japanese law.

Well, it may be possible to interpret her remark "A foundation of our alliance is also a shared commitment to universal values, freedom of expression, freedom of the press" as a caution, a warning to the Japanese government as Mainichi reported, but it is also possible to interpret it as simply delivering the statement that the US-Japan alliance is based in part ("a foundation") on freedom of speech and freedom of the press, therefore there is not much to be concerned about.

But it still doesn't satisfy my curiosity as to who asked the questions. The reporter seemed to want to elicit the particular response from the spokesperson when he asked if the US State Department thought the law might suppress the freedom of speech and freedom of press in Japan.

So I watched the video of the press briefing. The video was much more instructive than the transcript.

It was a Japanese reporter, probably from a major Japanese newspaper (my guess is Asahi) who asked the questions about Japan's newly-passed State Secrecy Protection Law.

Ms. Harf, in response to the request for comment on the passage of the law, flipped through the loosely bound papers in front of her and delivered the sentences (as opposed to speaking to the reporters) from the paper she located:

As you know, information security plays a critical role in alliance cooperation, and we welcome progress on strengthening policies, practices, and procedures related to the protection of classified information. A foundation of our alliance is also a shared commitment to universal values, freedom of expression, freedom of the press

Watching the manner by which the sentences were delivered (reading off the words rapidly and business-like), I do not get the impression at all that these sentences form a criticism, or at least a caution, from the US to the Abe administration as reported by both Mainichi and Asahi.

Rather, my take after watching the video is still that she is saying that "foundation" of "shared commitment to universal values, freedom of expression, freedom of the press" has already been in place, and the US government is not too worried about that aspect of the alliance.

The reporter asked, But, but, what about the press freedom? Is the last part of your comment a criticism of the law?

Well clearly not. Ms. Harf's answer (or rather, the sentences that she was told to deliver) is instructive if you read carefully.

First, "our shared commitment to freedom of the press". Note that it is just a "commitment", little more than a promise. It is not obligation for the government to guarantee under the Constitution (which is what it is).

Then, her last remark of "this new Japanese law". It is "Japanese" problem, whatever the problem may be, not the US.

The reporter could have framed the question in a way relating more to the United States interest - i.e. defense alliance against China in the Far East. The US government could care less, probably, about what's happening in Japan. A protest against the law for the concern of freedom of speech? That's Japan's problem.

Sadly for the Asahi reporter that I follow, her remark is about emphasizing the supreme importance of freedom of the press, and about the US government's continuing the effort to talk with the Japanese counterpart on the importance.

Tweet

(OT) Obama Administration Instructs US Commercial Airlines to File Flight Plans with China in Newly Declared Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ)

...leaving Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe hung to dry. Nice job, Mr. Obama.

After kindly informing China the other day that its two B52 bombers that flew inside the Air Defense Identification Zone over Senkaku Islands were unarmed, the United States government now says it is requesting the US commercial airlines to adhere to China's new rules and submit flight plans to China, to be safe.

The State Department Office of the Spokesperson (from 11/27/2013 daily press briefing, released on 11/29/2013; emphasis is mine):

China's Declared ADIZ - Guidance for U.S. Air Carriers

Question: Is there any specific guidance or information we are giving to U.S. carriers operating in China's recently declared Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ)?

Answer: Freedom of overflight and other internationally lawful uses of sea and airspace are essential to prosperity, stability, and security in the Pacific. We remain deeply concerned by China's November 23 declaration of an "East China Sea Air Identification Zone."

The U.S. government generally expects that U.S. carriers operating internationally will operate consistent with NOTAMs (Notices to Airmen) issued by foreign countries. Our expectation of operations by U.S. carriers consistent with NOTAMs does not indicate U.S. government acceptance of China's requirements for operating in the newly declared ADIZ.

Well, even NHK News is taking this as "acceptance".

From NHK News (11/30/2013):

これについてアメリカ国務省は、２９日、報道官の談話を発表し「アメリカ政府は、国際的に運航するアメリカの航空会社は外国政府が発表する航空情報に従うべきだと考えている」として、アメリカの航空各社に対し、中国当局へのフライトプラン＝飛行計画書の提出を、事実上求めていく考えを明らかにしました。

[NHK quoting the State Department answer (second paragraph of the answer above), then says that] the US State Department has made it clear that it is the intention of the US government to effectively request the US airlines to file flight plans with the Chinese authority.

NHK also quotes part of the New York Times article on the matter, with the officials in the Obama administration putting safety first.

According to The New York Times article (11/29/2013):

While the United States continued to defy China by sending military planes into the zone unannounced, administration officials said they had made the decision to urge civilian planes to adhere to Beijing’s new rules in part because they worried about an unintended confrontation.

... It was not immediately clear if the Obama administration had notified Japan, a close ally, of its decision.

Well they hadn't. At all.

The clearly irate Ministry of Foreign Affairs official says they haven't heard anything like that from the US counterpart, as reported by Mainichi Shinbun (11/30/2013):

防空識別圏:米国の新方針に外務省「聞いていない」

ADIZ: Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the new US policy "We haven't been informed"

米政府の方針について、外務省幹部は３０日午前、毎日新聞の取材に「全く聞いていない。これまでの米国の行動とは全く異なる対応だ」と語った。

A top official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spoke with Mainichi Shinbun in the morning of November 30 on the US government policy, and said "We haven't been informed at all. It is a completely different response from what the US has been doing."

日本政府は中国の防空識別圏設定について「何ら効力を有するものではなく、これまでのルール通りの運用を行っていく」としており、中国への飛行計画提出は不要との立場。国土交通省を通じ航空各社に、こうした方針を伝えている。政府は今後、米国に詳細を確認する方針だ。

The Japanese government's stance on the Chinese ADIZ is that it does not have any enforceability, the Japanese government will continue to follow the existing rules and that there is no need to submit flight plans to China. The Japanese airlines have been informed of the government stance by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. The Japanese government will ask the US for the details of the new policy.

It was only several days ago the Secretary of State John Kerry and the Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel issued a strong statement condemning China.

But it was also only several days ago that National Security Advisor Susan Rise made a strange speech at Georgetown University which was interpreted in Japan as a sign that the US will form a partnership with China as the two biggest powers in the world, leaving Japan hanging in the air.

Ms. Rice, of lying-through-her-teeth-on-Benghazi fame, indeed said, "When it comes to China, we seek to operationalize a new model of major power relations."

She mentioned China 20 times, Korea 11 times, Japan 7 times. No mention of Senkaku Islands.

(Operationalize? What kind of ugly verb is that? DCSpeak?)

Tweet

US State Department's Response to Osaka Mayor's So-Called "Apology": Nothing but Unspoken Disdain

The State Department Acting Deputy Spokesperson Patrick Ventrell said they don't comment on the remarks by a mere local official in a foreign country.

From Daily Press Release transcript at the US State Department (5/28/2013), "Comments by Local Official" (emphasis is mine):

QUESTION: Japan?

MR. VENTRELL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Osaka Mayor Hashimoto retracted his remarks that U.S. servicemen in Okinawa should use the adult entertainment industry to avoid the sex crimes, and he apologized to the Americans and the U.S. military. Do you have any comment?

MR. VENTRELL: Well, we’ve addressed his comments previously and really don’t have anything new to add. The one thing I’ll say is that we can’t be commenting on every state and local and provincial official around the world when they make outlandish or offensive or reprehensible comments. So we really can’t say much more beyond that. This is a local official.

QUESTION: Just one more: He canceled his U.S. trip. You have anything to say on his --

MR. VENTRELL: Again, I’m not going to comment on every move or action of some local official. We’ve been clear that the U.S.-Japan alliance remains strong, and we’re committed to that alliance.

QUESTION: Okay. So does that mean that the bar has got to be – it’s got to be a national official? A mayor doesn’t do it for you, but if the guy’s a cabinet minister or a --

MR. VENTRELL: When we have concerns --

QUESTION: -- member of parliament or something like that, then you’ll talk more?

MR. VENTRELL: When we have concerns about somebody at the national level who’s made comments that are disparaging or difficult, we may make a comment.

QUESTION: Can you – where is the bar?

MR. VENTRELL: Well, again, my point being, Matt, is that there are hundreds and thousands of mayors and local officials around the world. We can’t respond to every single one of them.

QUESTION: Yes. Are there hundreds of thousands of local mayors around the world that run a municipality where there are large amounts of U.S. troops?

MR. VENTRELL: Are you trying to make some broader connection about the importance of the mayor of --

QUESTION: I’m saying that I think the mayor of Okinawa – right? That’s who we’re talking about?

MR. VENTRELL: No, this is the mayor of Osaka.

QUESTION: Oh, mayor of Osaka, okay. I stand corrected.

MR. VENTRELL: I was trying to figure out which American troops were in Osaka, but --

QUESTION: I apologize. So, okay – all right, well, if the mayor of Okinawa said something, would that not meet your bar?

MR. VENTRELL: (Laughter.) Now we’re going into wild hypotheticals here.

Ouch. And the reporter thought Hashimoto was the mayor of Okinawa... Ouch.

700 people have petitioned in four days to disbar Mayor Hashimoto from the Osaka Bar Association, and the the Association says it is quite surprised at this unprecedented event, reports Kouta Kinoshita (who is apparently at the press conference of the Bar Association).

Tweet

#Radiation in Japan: US State Dept Does Say Risk is Higher Within 80-km Radius

When Goshi Hosono, Minister of the Environment and Minister in charge of Fukushima nuke accident, said "It's a great endorsement by the United States government on the Japanese government effort in winding down the accident", he was talking about the supposed decision by the US government to "shrink" the area for the US citizens in Japan to avoid from the 80-kilometer radius from the stricken plant to the 20-kilometer radius.

Here's what Yomiuri Shinbun quoted Hosono on October 8 as:

細野原発相は８日午前、米政府が東京電力福島第一原子力発電所事故に伴う米国人向けの避難勧告の範囲縮小を発表したことについて、「米国とは（避難区域についての）考え方のすりあわせを長い間かけてやってきた。我々の取り組みが国際社会の理解を得られたという象徴的な出来事で、歓迎したい」と述べた。

Hosono, Minister in charge of the nuclear accident, commented in the morning on October 8 on the US government announcement to shrink the area that the US government recommends for the US citizens in Japan to avoid. "We have been discussing with the US government for a very long time to come to a consensus on the evacuation area. This decision by the US government is a symbolic event that we welcome. It shows the international communities consider our effort in a positive light".

(Effort? What effort? Oh that one about spreading the radioactive debris all over Japan?)

And the US government decision as reported (10/8/2011) by the same newspaper which grew to one of the largest newspapers in Japan under the leadership of a known CIA agent and Japan's first Director General of the Science and Technology Agency (Matsutaro Shoriki):

米国務省は７日の渡航情報で、福島第一原発の半径５０マイル（約８０キロ）としていた米国人向けの避難勧告の範囲を半径２０キロに縮小すると発表した。

The US State Department announced on its October 7 Travel Alert that it will shrink the area for evacuation recommendation for the US citizens from the 80-kilometer radius from Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant to 20-kilometer radius.

　この範囲外でも、日本政府が定めた「計画的避難区域」や「特定避難勧奨地点」は避けるよう求めているほか、妊婦や子供、高齢者は３０キロ圏内に居住しないよう呼びかけている。

Outside the 20-kilometer radius, the State Department asks the US citizens to avoid the "planned evacuation zone" [between 20 and 30-kilometer radius] and "specific spots recommended for evacuation" [outside 30-kilometer radius in Fukushima]. It also advises that pregnant women, children, and the elderly should avoid residing within 30 km of the plant.

　米政府は放射性物質の放出が止まらない事態を想定し、３月１６日に８０キロの避難範囲を設定した。原子炉の状態が落ち着いてきたことを受けた今回の緩和により、日本政府が設定した半径２０キロの「警戒区域」と足並みがそろった。

The US government set the evacuation recommendation zone of 80-kilometer radius from the plant on March 16, assuming that the emission of radioactive materials would continue. As the situation of the reactors at Fukushima I Nuke Plant has stabilized, this loosening of the evacuation recommendation [by the US government] is in line with the Japanese government's 20-kilometer radius "no entry zone".

Isn't it interesting that the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan invited Dr. Wade Allison right before this announcement to assure the US businesses in Japan that there's nothing to worry about the radiation contamination in Japan, by suggesting 1.2 sievert/year exposure is still totally safe.

In line with the Japanese government, that's for sure.

But what did the State Department actually say? It said more than the select reporting by the Japanese MSM, which is the part about shrinking the original 80-kilometer radius evacuation recommendation. Here's from the actual State Department "Travel Alert" on October 7, 2011:

Other Areas Within 80km of Fukushima Daiichi Plant

TEMPORARY VISITORS: Government of Japan data measurements show varying levels of radiation in land areas outside of the area described above, but within 80 kilometers of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant. The U.S. government believes the health and safety risks to temporary visitors to these areas are low and exposure does not pose significant risks to U.S. citizens making visits of less than one year. We recommend U.S. citizens contemplating travel to these areas consult with Japanese authorities regarding local conditions at the proposed destination.

LONG-TERM RESIDENTS: The risks may be higher for U.S. citizens who reside for more than one year within 80 kilometers of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant. Out of an abundance of caution, we recommend that U.S. citizens who choose to reside for more than one year within 80 kilometers of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant consult with local authorities to receive current guidance on expected levels of radiation and recommendations for reducing exposure to radiation. In addition, pregnant women, children, and the elderly should avoid residing within 30 km of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant.

So, the US government is saying that living within the 80-kilometer radius for more than one year may increase the risks, and should the US citizens choose to do so at their own risk they should get the information about radiation from local authorities. (Good luck with the last one.)

The Japanese government is entertaining the IAEA Decontamination Mission right now within that 80-kilometer radius. It will be also inviting 10,000 foreigners to Japan, free of charge, so that they spread the word via the Internet that "Japan is safe". I'm not sure if this is different from the previously announced project of inviting the social media writers with big followers to the disaster-affected area, but judging by the number of foreigners it intends to invite, it is a separate project.

(OK, it is a separate project. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs will invite social media writers, and the Japan Tourism Agency under the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism will invite 10,000 foreign tourists. Total 2.6 billion yen giveaway, courtesy of the Japanese taxpayers.)

A full-on "safety" campaign is on in Japan right now, using various media outlets (more later). The details of the US State Department's announcement are just that, details. Who cares about the details?

Tweet

US State Dept's Crowley Resigns Over WikiLeaks Remark, But He Should Have Resigned Over #Japan's Tsunami Remark

...as far as I'm concerned.

It was reported in the Japanese media (here's one from Sankei Shinbun, in Japanese) right after the earthquake that P. J. Crowley, chief spokesman of the US State Department, tweeted about Japan's earthquake of March 11.

The particular tweet on March 11 was later removed, but from what I can figure from the Japanese translation that was reported there, Mr. Crowley seems to have called the democratic movement that's sweeping the north Africa and Middle East a tidal wave - tsunami, and equated that tsunami with what just hit Japan.

Many Japanese, shaken right after the largest earthquake they have ever known, took his tweet to mean Mr. Crowley was equating the democratic movement in the Middle East with the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, and he considered both to be good, albeit implicitly.

The Japanese may be overreacting, but Crowley's tweet was insensitive to say the least. And it came right after Kevin Maher, director of the State Department's Office of Japan and American Consulate General in Naha, Okinawa, was fired for calling Okinawans "lazy" and "master extortionists". (That was on March 10, one day before the earthquake...)

Here's Crawley's tweet, as I reconstitute from the Japanese translation back into English (and therefore not exactly what Mr. Crawley may have written):

I'm looking forward to seeing (democratic) tsunami rushing to all of Middle East. Right now I'm seeing a different kind of tsunami rushing to Japan.

Tweet

WikiLeaks Strikes Again, and It's A Quarter-Million Confidential State Department Documents

According to New York Times, which is one of the three papers in the world that have received the WikiLeaks' leaks (the other two being The Guardian of UK and Der Spiegel of Germany),

WASHINGTON — A cache of a quarter-million confidential American diplomatic cables, most of them from the past three years, provides an unprecedented look at back-room bargaining by embassies around the world, brutally candid views of foreign leaders and frank assessments of nuclear and terrorist threats.

Some of the cables, made available to The New York Times and several other news organizations, were written as recently as late February, revealing the Obama administration’s exchanges over crises and conflicts. The material was originally obtained by WikiLeaks, an organization devoted to revealing secret documents. WikiLeaks posted the first installment of the archive on its Web site on Sunday.

What's amusing to me is the bit of information about how the State Department tried to "make a deal" with foreign countries. The "deal" offered by the US was either bribery using aid money or bribery using Obama as an "incentive":

Bargaining to empty the Guantánamo Bay prison: When American diplomats pressed other countries to resettle detainees, they became reluctant players in a State Department version of “Let’s Make a Deal.” Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President Obama, while the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in Chinese Muslim detainees, cables from diplomats recounted. The Americans, meanwhile, suggested that accepting more prisoners would be “a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe.”

Neocon Senators like Claire "I love TSA love pats" McCaskill (D) and Lindsey "Let's attack Iran" Graham (R) are of course squawking again about prosecuting the leakers. I'd say let's arrest all these bungling, clueless US government officials squandering a huge wad of money and goodwill across the globe.

I wonder if Slovenia agreed... (I'm sure these girls want to meet Obama...)

Tweet