Blog Archives

Base issues

30/3/2015

mainichi.jp

The delineation of Japanese federal and prefectural legislative powers collided head on this week following the announcement on last week by Agriculture Minister Hayashi Yoshimasa that revoked an earlier directive from Okinawa Prefectural Governor Onaga Takeshi to halt construction work on the seabed surrounding the site of the future Henoko air base. This base, which is being built to replace the US base at Futenma in Ginowan City, has courted controversy from the time it was first proposed. Successive Okinawan prefectural governments have voiced their objections to the comparatively large US military presence in Okinawa and have strongly expressed a desire for this to be reduced. The Henoko base, which was meant to be a compromise solution between Naha and Tokyo, has instead flared up into a controversy in its own right and one that is once again pitting Okinawa against the federal government.

The latest round of claim and counter-claim stems from a directive from recently-elected Governor Onaga (independent, although preferenced by the JCP) on the 23rd of March to the Ministry of Defence Okinawa Office. Okinawan governmental surveys found that the concrete buoys weighing down floating boom gates (which were installed to prevent protestors from reaching the main construction site off the shore of Henoko) were causing damage to the seabed, and that all construction therefore had to cease within a week in order for impact assessments to be made (the boom gates had apparently been approved, but not the means of anchoring them). Governor Onaga insisted that if any objections were made to this, then he, as governor, would revoke the office’s right to continue construction (J).

This news did not go down well in Tokyo, where Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga stated in a media conference that construction would continue unabated, while the Ministry of Defence insisted that it could continue with the construction irrespective of the governor’s directive. Matters came to a head on Saturday when Agriculture Minister Hayashi made his announcement, apparently after consultations with Defence Minister Nakatani Ken (J). As to whether the federal government can legally halt a directive of a prefectural governor is a subject that deserves closer examination in a future post, however suffice to say Governor Onaga wasted no time in getting his message of protest to Tokyo, arriving in the capital earlier in the week hoping to meet with PM Shinzo Abe to discuss the issue.

That wish has yet to be met, although it was reported that Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga would meet with Governor Onaga on the 5th of this month (J). In the meantime, a survey of public attitudes towards the issue was conducted by the FNN news network, which found that a majority of those Japanese citizens surveyed were in favour of the manner in which Governor Onaga was addressing the matter (51.3% for versus 40.1% against) and were critical of the federal government’s response (50.4%) (J). The same survey also revealed that 86.9% of respondents had favoured either Secretary Suga or PM Abe meeting directly with Governor Onaga.

The manner in which the standoff has been handled has resulted in further criticisms of the Abe government, most notably from the comedian (and occasional social commentator) Ota Hikaru who expressed his views in fairly blunt terms (J). The perception among the general public appears to be in favour of some sort of conciliation between both parties, for example allowing the impact assessment to proceed but ensuring that this does not result in the cancellation of the construction project. However at this stage nothing has been discussed or decided, and the outcome might not resolve either side’s concerns.

Hideyoshi and Fushimi castle

27/3/2015

kurumaisu.service.kansai.nttdocomo.co.jp

This post, which comes admittedly quite late, takes as its source a newspaper article from the Yomiuri Shimbun concerning the castle at Fushimi, and which I’ve taken the liberty to translate.

It is interesting to learn what Fushimi castle once looked like, not least because the modern version of Fushimi castle is little more than a tourist attraction, a simple keep in the late Sengoku style but not all that spectacular (the fact that it is just outside Fushimi, which is now a neighbourhood of Kyoto rife with apartment blocks, middle to lower income housing, gambling parlours, and the occasional bōryokudan hideout, doesn’t add anything to the historical atmosphere that should surround such a landmark.)

What is more interesting about the article translated below is the fact that the three tiered pagoda that once graced the grounds of Fushimi castle is now located within the Mii-dera temple complex outside Otsu City in Shiga prefecture. When I was living in Yamashina ward in 2008, Otsu City was a mere 6 or 7 minute train ride over the border from Kyoto City. In late Autumn I paid a visit to Mii-dera and saw the very three tiered pagoda referred to below. It’s an impressive structure, and the details of its past make it even more fascinating.

Fushimi castle – The black-lacquered keep that sparkled with gold (first appeared in the Yomiuri Shimbun homepage as follows: 金箔輝く漆黒の天守・伏見城　秀吉編＜１０＞) http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/chubu/feature/CO012894/20150329-OYTAT50030.html

Toyotomi Hideyoshi was responsible for moving the ‘aristocratic’ castle of Jūrakudai from its original location in Hirano-gun in Heian-Kyo (the old title for Kyoto) to a mountain top at Fushimi, south of Kyoto.

The castle at Fushimi (upon which work commenced in 1594 and was completed soon after. The castle later collapsed in an earthquake and had to be rebuilt in 1597) possessed panoramic views of the surrounding countryside in a similar manner to Oda Nobunaga’s former castle at Azuchi. One could say that for Hideyoshi, who died the year after reconstruction of Fushimi castle was completed, Fushimi was the sum of his life as a warrior.

However we do not know what the actual appearance of the keep at Fushimi castle was. This is because in the aftermath of the Battle of Sekigahara in 1600, Fushimi castle was burnt to the ground. There are around 10 or so folding screen prints that depict Fushimi castle, yet all of these depict the keep of Fushimi with white-washed walls in a similar manner to the keeps at Nagoya castle and Himeji castle. This suggests that the keep depicted in the screens was one that was rebuilt by Tokugawa Ieyasu after Sekigahara.

However, in 2010 the Nagoya City Museum put on display for the first time a folding screen that depicts scenes of Kyoto both within and outside the capital. In this screen, Fushimi castle is depicted with black lacquered walls. According to Tsuda Takako, an art curator at the Museum, “This is a very valuable artwork that almost certainly depicts the castle at Fushimi as it appeared in Hideyoshi’s time, of which there are very few examples”.

Yet not all black-lacquered keeps were limited to the era of Hideyoshi. What confirmed that it is of Hideyoshi’s time is the presence in the picture of a three-tiered pagoda. According to the Chancellor of Nara University (and castle archaeological expert) Senda Yoshihiro, who was the first to indicate the importance of the pagoda…”Hideyoshi, when he moved to Fushimi, also moved a three-tiered pagoda from Nara to the same location. After Hideyoshi’s death, Ieyasu donated that pagoda to another temple. Hence could it be the same pagoda?” That three tiered pagoda is currently the property of Mii-dera (just outside Otsu City in Shiga prefecture), the main temple of the Tendai Jimonshū sect of Tendai Buddhism, and has been designated as an important national heritage site.

The folding screen picture held by Nagoya City Museum also depicts the walls of Fushimi castle as being inlayed with gold coloured designs. This is similar to the depiction of Osaka castle in the “Osaka Castle Folding Screen Print” that dates from the Hideyoshi era, yet the Fushimi castle design is very unique. It is for this reason that some experts believe that the design in the picture was artistic licence and is not how the walls of Fushimi castle actually appeared in their heyday.

Yet according to Professor Senda’s explanation “The walls of the main shrine of Tsukubusama shrine, located on Chikubushima on Lake Biwa, uses the same wooden relief carving decoration used on Fushimi castle (as the materials for the shrine came from Fushimi castle). It is therefore possible that the same relief, which was decorated in gold leaf, was used on the keep of Fushimi castle”. If this is true, then it would be in keeping with Hideyoshi’s sense of taste, with his preference for gaudy display (such as his gold-leaf decorated tea room).

Fushimi castle, which was steeped in Hideyoshi’s own personality and his martial nature, was linked with Osaka castle (which was a ‘private’ castle compared to Fushimi) via Lake Ogura (which was located in front of Fushimi castle, and which has since dried up and disappeared) and the Yodogawa river. When Fushimi was completed, Hideyoshi took up residence there with his 5 year old son Hideyori, and came so close to realising his ambition of becoming ruler (in Fushimi castle) together with his household (in Osaka castle). Yet after Hideyoshi’s death, Hideyori returned to the secure walls of Osaka castle, and in his stead Tokugawa Ieyasu took up residence at Fushimi.

The aristocratic power that Fushimi castle possessed was eventually diminished by either Ishida Mitsunari, or else Hideyoshi’s concubine Yododono. Then again, Hideyoshi himself may have been responsible for Fushimi’s eventual demise, given the reputation of Osaka castle for being impregnable and thus the most appropriate residence for Hideyori.

(Okamoto Kōki)

Abe goes to Washington for a second time

17/3/2015

mofa.go.jp

It’s approaching Spring in the northern hemisphere, a time when leaders in countries smothered in snow suddenly realise that winter is retreating and that balmy days will soon be here again. The diplomatic merry-go-round is cranking up again to provide opportunities for dialogue, rumour, and plots. In the midst of such activity (dialogue, not the plotting), Japanese PM Shinzo Abe is again making his way to Washington to speak to President Barack Obama among other notable dignitaries.

As this article from Japan Today explains, Abe’s visit is one of only two visits by Asian leaders to be made this year. Who else is going to Washington? Why, no less than Chinese President Xi Jinping, that’s who. In a sense, this arrangement resembles that which Canberra experienced last year – the leaders of Asia’s two largest economies visiting to promote bilateral ties and further economic integration. Like last year, Abe will be getting in first, mostly likely to do a number of things.

The first of those things will be to ensure that the US is still committed to its pivot to Asia. Since the announcement in 2011, the US has made some effort towards shifting assets to the Indo-Pacific region, but clearly the region does not think that the US has done enough to increase its presence here. It is true that the US has been distracted somewhat by its own domestic political impasse and the events going on in Syria and Iraq, not to mention negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, yet when an US administration makes an announcement on commitment, its allies expect that the US will, well, commit to it.

The second thing will be to discuss the establishment of the new Marine base at Henoko, and the eventual closure of the base at Futenma. In Japan of late, protests against the construction work taking place at Henoko have grown larger, with protestors taking to small sized vessels in an attempt to disrupt the building (and clashing with the Japan Coast Guard in the process). Abe might argue that the US should shoulder a larger burden for the construction costs, given that the base will primarily be for US use and that it will the Japanese government that will have to deal with the protests that will inevitably continue*.

The third thing will be to gain a sense of where the US is at in its own debate on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Domestic debate on the subject in the US has stalled, and the concern of members of Congress of the agreement’s impact on American manufacturing means that a bill to enable President Obama to fast-track negotiations on trade deals is unlikely to appear in Congress until the Summer. Meanwhile PM Abe, whose own domestic agenda depends on increasing export markets for Japanese goods, has been watching events in Washington with a growing sense of concern. The trip will at least allow PM Abe to learn where President Obama stands on negotiations with Congress and how he might then have to explain this to Japan’s agriculture and business sector.

The fourth, and possibly the most controversial point, will be PM Abe’s chance to explain what he intends to do regarding his statement on the 70th anniversary of the end of WWII. This statement has been the source of a lot of speculation in Japan and abroad about what Abe plans to say, and whether it will placate or provoke Japan’s neighbours. Abe’s speech to the UN University in Tokyo on Monday should provide some indication, with Abe expressing the sincere remorse (that word again, taken from the Murayama Statement) of Japan over the war, and Japan’s progress since that time as a democratic nation dedicated to the rule of law and human rights (J). Nevertheless, there are some in the US who are concerned about Abe’s previous statements about Japan’s role in WWII, particularly the American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor Memorial Society, who have written to Congress members to voice those concerns and urge Abe to acknowledge Japan’s actions.

Abe certainly plans to stay in the US for some time, undertaking an almost week-long visit to Washington, Boston, San Francisco and Los Angeles (originally Abe was to visit Honolulu and Pearl Harbour, but this was vetoed out of concern over backlash from within the US)(J). Abe may also find time to announce new initiatives aimed at boosting Japan studies in major US universities, the first time such measures will have been used in 40 years, and an obvious soft power move aimed at stemming some of the influence that China and South Korea have been exercising in US campuses in recent years.

Will it be a success? That depends on what Abe comes away with. The US may give its reassurances, but no firm promises with regard to either the TPP or base arrangements. That may prove difficult for Abe to sell domestically, but at the same time it will allow him to gauge just how much he can expect to rely on the US in the future. As one of the most travelled PMs in Japanese history, Abe may again start journeying abroad in search of new friends and allies.

*Some time ago I wrote about the impact of the Futenma base on Okinawa and the possibility of violence arising out of frustration by Okinawans at both the Japanese and US government intransigence over the removal of the base from Okinawa. Yesterday it was reported that a resident of Okinawa had begun making threatening phone calls against US Ambassador to Japan Caroline Kennedy, along with bomb threats against Camp Schwab in north eastern Okinawa. It’s a disturbing development, but not unanticipated. The only hope is that this individual was working alone (which he certainly appears to have been), and that these are not the actions of a group.

In spite of all that has happened...

10/3/2015

Albert Gardiner Source: NLA

This particular post will take a deviation from my usual observations on Japan to mark what will soon be the 100th anniversary of the Anzac landings at Gallipoli and Australia’s formal introduction to the industrialised warfare of the First World War. World War One defined much of what was to become Australian identity, and with good reason – from a total population of less than 5 million, Australia suffered 60,000 casualties. 420,000 Australians enlisted in the armed forces during the course of the War, representing 38.7% of the total male population. When this is compared with casualties, Australia suffered a casualty rate of 64.8%, itself one of the highest proportions of any country involved in the War (Source: AWM).

With armistice called on November 11, 1918 and with the Paris Peace Conference underway in 1919, Australians would have felt justified in imposing on Germany and its allies a crippling level of debt in order to recoup its losses in manpower and materials. Yet not all Australians felt this way. One such Australian was a Senator in the federal Australian parliament from New South Wales, Albert “Jupp” Gardiner, a member of the Australian Labor Party and a former carpenter and gold miner.

During a debate on war reparations in June of 1919, Gardiner made a number of comments which remarkable for the time in which they were made and for the sentiment that they express. Not one to unduly blame Germany for its actions, Gardiner instead issued a very level-headed, reasoned argument for leniency towards the former enemy by warning of the consequences of seeking revenge. What therefore follows is from the Commonwealth of Australia’s Hansard records for the Senate, dated Thursday, 26th of June 1919.

“Senator GARDINER - It was a matter of circumstances, and now, in the calm light of peace, this comparison which I have instituted should be vividly kept in mind, particularly by those who were anxious that we should do more than we did. They used to taunt our party with Mr. Fisher's (Andrew Fisher, Prime Minister of Australia, September 1914 – October 1915) statement that we would stand by the Empire in this momentous struggle to the last man and the last shilling. I say that literally we adhered to the pledge. We stripped ourselves of our manhood to such an extent that we would have been powerless had we been attacked.

So far as the last shilling is concerned, not only did we spend it, but we borrowed money upon which we shall have to pay an annual interest bill of from £20,000,000 to £30,000,000. I have gone to the trouble of putting these facts and figures before honourable senators because I think that they should be placed upon record. At the outbreak of the war it looked as if nothing could prevent the foe from winning. At that time Germany appeared to be a world conquering force, whose objective was domination…

Now we are confronted with the Peace proposals, and I know that there will be much diversity of opinion as to what should be done. "The culprit must be punished," will be the thought that will instinctively rise to the mind of every man. If the culprit could be centred in one man or even in a number of individuals there is no doubt that civilization would insist upon their punishment. But an enduring peace cannot be obtained unless it is based upon justice. Without justice we shall be sowing the seeds of future discord. Of course it may be argued that no consideration should be extended to men who were guilty of the acts of which our enemy were guilty.

But the people who will govern Germany and Austria in the future will not be those who created this war. When it is urged that they indorsed the war my reply is that the first duty of citizenship is to offer one's life if necessary in the defence of his country. In the hour of danger the first duty of a citizen is to fight for the country in which he lives. If we accept that maxim none of us can punish the German soldiery for fighting for their country. We may insist upon reparation being made for the wrong which has been done, but with sentiments like those in our hearts we cannot say that the men who answered the call in Germany were doing other than their duty to their own nation.

These truths must be kept in mind in the peace that is now being forced upon the world whether by the strong arm of the military power or by wise counsels at the council table. I believe that Peace has been signed, and that the German people will, if they have agreed to certain proposals, carry them out. We have only to look back to the occasion when Germany conquered France in 1870 and 1871. I suppose that the most powerful German statesman at that time was Bismarck. Bismarck was forced by the pressure of public opinion in Germany to assent to an unjust peace, a peace that took much territory from France. He himself pointed out the dangers attendant on a peace that would leave France with a lasting grievance, and that, I believe, was one of the Teal causes of the present war. Probably that was the germ - a nation proud in arms as France was, being humiliated by cession of territory - that was responsible for this awful world conflict. Let us beware that history does not repeat itself. Let us beware that in the hour of out triumph, we do not seek to impose upon Germany an unjust peace that will leave a lasting grievance in the minds of the conquered (Source).”

These sentiments were obviously not shared by many others, and the reparations imposed upon Germany by the allied powers have often been cited as one of the principal causes for the rise of National Socialism. Yet the fact that an Australian politician was prepared to argue that an unjust peace would lead to more conflict is evidence of a maturity in thinking that surpassed many of Gardiner’s contemporaries. He knew that those that started the war would not be burdened with the consequences of it, that future generations would have to assume that responsibility and, depending on the conditions imposed on Germany, that they might resent their treatment at the hands of the victors.

Amid the great amount of literature and correspondence on Australia’s reaction to the First World War, Gardiner’s comments still strike me as some of the most honest and well considered of all of Australia’s political class at the time. They are a credit to the man that expressed them, and I hope that they might receive more recognition in this of all years.

Money and Politics

2/3/2015

ameblo.jp

News this week from Japan, and indeed over the past two weeks, has been dominated by questions over money. More specifically, political money that was acquired by somewhat obtuse and certainly questionable means. This topic in and of itself is nothing new to most readers of Japanese politics, as money and politics in Japan are synonymous, yet the rate at which ministers within the Abe Cabinet have had to resign their positions as a result of seemingly ill-gotten gains has reached a point where it is no longer being regarded as just a curiosity.

On Monday last week, former Agriculture Minister Nishikawa Kōya handed in his resignation after being implicated in receiving donations from a Tochigi Prefecture lumber company (which itself was receiving subsidies from the federal government) on whose behalf Nishikawa had been active (among other allegations). This made Nishikawa the third minister to resign from the Abe Cabinet since September last year, when former Industry Minister Ōbuchi Yukō and former Justice Minister Matsushima Midori both resigned on the same day following allegations of misuse of electoral funds (J). Nishikawa’s resignation has sparked something of a political witch hunt, with current Education and Science Minister Shimomura Hakubun confirming on Tuesday that a branch office of the LDP for which he was representative in 2009 received a 100,000 yen donation from a company with ties to organised crime (J). Although Shimomura explained at first that the money was not a donation, he was later forced to recant, saying that the money had been returned when its source and purpose had been made evident.

Not even PM Abe himself has escaped the attention of the media and opposition parties. The Tokyo Shimbun reported on Monday that while serving as head of another LDP branch in 2012, Abe Shinzo received donations from a Osaka-based chemical company to the tune of 120,000 yen for over one year, while in 2013 the same office received a donation of 500,000 yen from one ‘Ube Sangyo’, a chemical company listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange and which has been receiving subsidies from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (J). In an explanation offered to the Diet Budget Committee on Tuesday, PM Abe stated that the money was not used to generate profits (and therefore not illegal under the Political Funds Control Act), but that he did not know that it had originated as a subsidy (J).

Of course, the Opposition DPJ did not escape scrutiny, with Opposition leader Okada Katsuya himself accused of receiving donations from private corporations (namely Nisshin Foods) that had originated as subsidies (J). With experts calling for a re-examination of donation laws (a particularly important point given the fact that many political offices have admitted that they were unaware of the origins of certain donations and whether they were illegal), the DPJ appear to have been spooked by their own strategy, with the Yomiuri Shimbun claiming that the DPJ executive rang Diet Legislative Committee Chief Sato Tsutomu to call a halt to questions surrounding donations (J). Whether there is any truth to this allegation is unclear, but media focus is bearing down on all sides of politics and the degree to which politicians receive donations that are ostensibly meant as subsidies to industry.

Note: From the National Tax Agency (author’s translation)

政治資金規正法の第二十二条の三　 Article 22, Item 3 of the Political Funds Control Act

（寄附の質的制限）(Qualitative Restrictions to Donations)

第二十二条の三　国から補助金、負担金、利子補給金その他の給付金（試験研究、調査又は災害復旧に係るものその他性質上利益を伴わないもの及び政党助成法（平成六年法律第五号）第三条第一項の規定による政党交付金（同法第二十七条第一項の規定による特定交付金を含む。）を除く。第四項において同じ。）の交付の決定（利子補給金に係る契約の承諾の決定を含む。第四項において同じ。）を受けた会社その他の法人は、当該給付金の交付の決定の通知を受けた日から同日後一年を経過する日（当該給付金の交付の決定の全部の取消しがあつたときは、当該取消しの通知を受けた日）までの間、政治活動に関する寄附をしてはならない。

Article 22, Item 3 Corporations and other corporate bodies that have received decisions for grants such as subsidies, contributions, subsidised interest payments, or other forms of benefit (not including political grants that accord to Paragraph 1, Article 3 of the Party Subsidies Act (Act No.5 of 1994) (including special grants in accordance with the regulations of Paragraph One, Article 27 of the same Act), or experimental research or surveys related to disaster recovery and other activities that do not generate actual profits) from the state are forbidden from making donations related to political activities from the day notice of the said grant decision is received (in the event that a decision on the relevant grant benefit involves the cancellation of the entire amount, the day on which the notice of cancellation is received) for a period of one year.

Base issues

Hideyoshi and Fushimi castle

Abe goes to Washington for a second time

In spite of all that has happened...

Money and Politics

Author

Archives

Categories