#China’s #WarOnDrugs – or #Invasion of #Privacy?

Beijing has done some things that others may consider crazy, but have you heard about their version of War on Drugs?

In the United States, there is continued documentation that Blacks are more likely to be arrested and jailed for their use of drugs, over Whites-even when statistics show that Whites are more likely to use them. This is probably caused by police generally only searching for drug activity in low-income area… but what sort of message does this send?

You may remember Robert Downey Jr (yes, Ironman) finally being sentenced to prison in 1999 after repeatedly violating parole after being convicted for possession of heroin, cocaine and a firearm (in 1996); however, it was a long struggle to get him there. Were he black and not famous, he probably would have ended up in jail sooner…or shot because of the firearm.

But then there is China. They are working attempting to find a solution that is diametrically opposed to how we in the United States have been attempting (failing?) to solve the problem…and would probably upset a majority of the citizens in the United States. China is going after famous people-to make a statement.

On August 14, Chinese police arrested Jackie Chan’s son, Jaycee Chan, and a Taiwanese actor (among other people at the drug bust). And they continue to look forward to arresting more famous people. According to the article, “in the past couple of months, 11 celebrities” have been arrested for drug use… but that’s not where it ends. In China, the police send those arrested for drugs to detention centers for detox. And should that person be considered an addict their mandatory “stay” goes from 15 days to three years. With an additional three years for “community rehabilitation”. There is no jury trial, as the cops have found these criminals with drugs or drugs in their system and there is no need to “prove it” before a judge. The Taiwanese actor was released on 29 Aug; however Jackie Chan’s son remains in detention. Since January, 8,400 individuals have been detained.

On top of being detained, these individuals are then registered in a database where police can come back at any time to verify if they are or are not using drugs. There’s an example cited that talks about a man, who hadn’t used (been arrested for) drugs for 10 years, who checked into a hotel and around 3am in the morning, police barged in to the room and forced him to do a urine test and subjected him to questioning.  Could you imagine this being used as “probable cause” to re-arrest someone to conduct a urine check to determine if the person does or does not have drugs in his or her system?

Is this a violation of privacy or sending a strong enough message that people shouldn’t use drugs?

References:
Picture

Here in China, Our War on Drugs Shows No Sign of Relenting

When It Comes To Illegal Drug Use, White America Does The Crime, Black America Gets The Time

Robert Downey Jr. Gets 3 Years in Prison

Actor Arrested With Jackie Chan’s Son Released

#Alcohol is not the problem; #DraconianRant about #SexualAssault in the US Military

Note: I am not saying that rapes and real sexual assaults do not occur within the military.  They do occur and I’ve investigated those crimes as well.
Please read: My point is that there is a reason why the number of reported sexual assaults are on the rise and alcohol is not it (it may be a contributing factor, but it is not the cause).

Relative background to this Rant:
Primary occupation: Military/Law Enforcement (AFOSI)

A recent article discussed a “50-percent increase” in sexual assaults over the “previous [fiscal] year” — again citing the possibility that the numbers could be higher due to people not wanting to report the incident.  The Pentagon’s new tactic is now taking the fight to “alcohol” as the prime reason there are “so many new” assaults.

I do not believe they are doing a fair comparison, and here’s why: for those that don’t know, the Manual for Courts Martial (MCM), also sometimes referred to as the “Uniform Code of Military Justice” (UCMJ), was revised in 2012.

Here’s an excerpt from Preface of the most recent MCM/UCMJ (page 6):

“Article 120 was significantly restructured and broken into three new statutes: Article 120 for adult sex offenses; Article 120b for child sex offenses; and Article 120c for other sexual misconduct.  These changes take effect on 28 June 2012.  The 2012 MCM will contain all three versions of Article 120.  For offenses committed prior to 1 October 2007, see Appendix 27. For offenses committed during the period 1 October 2007 through 27 June 2012, see Appendix 28.  For offenses committed on or after 28 June 2012, see Part IV of this Manual.”

Now, I’ve highlighted the key areas (you are more than welcome to download and peruse the complete MCM, available here— Article 120 starts on page 352… there are 884 pages in this version)

45. Article 120—Rape and sexual assault generally
[Note: This statute applies to offenses committed on or after 28 June 2012. Previous versions of Article 120 are located as follows: for offenses  committed on or before 30 September 2007, see Appendix 27; for offenses committed during the period 1 October 2007 through 27 June 2012, see Appendix 28.]
a. Text of statute.

(a) Rape. Any person subject to this chapter who commits a sexual act upon another person by
…
(b) Sexual Assault. Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) commits a sexual act upon another person by—
(2) commits a sexual act upon another person when the person knows or reasonably should know that the other person is asleep, unconscious, or otherwise unaware that the sexual act is occurring; or
(3) commits a sexual act upon another person when the other person is incapable of consenting to the sexual act due to—
(A) impairment by any drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance, and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person; or
…
(g) Definitions. In this section:
…
(2) Sexual contact. The term ‘sexual contact’ means—
(A) touching, or causing another person to  touch, either directly or through the clothing, the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, or degrade any person; or
(B) any touching, or causing another person to touch, either directly or through the clothing, any body part of any person, if done with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
Touching may be accomplished by any part of the body.
…

Now that you are aware of how the code is now, let me show you what it was (2008 MCM, page 350):
Article 120
45. Article 120—Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct
a. Text of statute.

(a) Rape. Any person subject to this chapter who causes another person of any age to engage in a sexual act by—
…
(b) Rape of a child.  Any person subject to this chapter who—
…
(c) Aggravated sexual assault. Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) causes another person of any age to engage in a sexual act by—
(A) threatening or placing that other person in fear (other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping); or
(B) causing bodily harm; or
(2) engages in a sexual act with another person of any age if that other person is substantially incapacitated or substantially incapable of—
(A) appraising the nature of the sexual act;
(B) declining participation in the sexual act; or
(C) communicating unwillingness to engage in the sexual act; is guilty of aggravated sexual assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

So, as you can see — the law has changed so significantly, that no longer are Military Law Enforcement officials looking (and Judge Advocates prosecuting) for “aggravated” assaults, but now any form of touching relating to “intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire”  of the subject meets the letter of the new laws.

Let me give you two EXTREME examples (that became cases) that I was aware of, as I monitored criminal cases in the Pacific Theater being conducted by felony-level law enforcement officers.

i) Male (Driver) and Female (Passenger) are in a car.  An argument ensues, Male pulls over and tells Female to get out.  Female refuses.  Male reaches over to open passenger door, Male’s elbow brushes against Female’s breast.  Female reports incident.  With that contact, sexual assault case opened/conducted.
ii) Male and Female are at club.  Male dances (hip hop/grinding style) with Female.  Female objects, reports incident.  With that contact, sexual assault case opened/conducted.  P.S. As this was a club, where (at least the) Male drank alcohol, this became an “Alcohol-related sexual assault case.”

Now; one thing that should appall you is the “FBI” equivalent Law Enforcement Agency for each of the military departments (for example, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service [NCIS–yes, like the TV show], the Air Force Office of Special Investigations [AFOSI], and Army Criminal Investigation Command [abbreviated as CID]) are bound by the legal code in the MCM (not to mention being under watch and eye of very high political figures) and are using their federal agent-level training to investigate unattended deaths, murders, fraud, drug investigations, actual rapes, a whole slew of other actual felony-level crimes and yes… don’t forget dirty dancing.

What are your thoughts on this article?

Note: The Fiscal Year is defined as 1 October – 30 September.  So, FY13 began on 1 October 2012 and ended 30 September, 2013.  And as a reminder, this new MCM was in effect as of 28 June 2012.

Read the article here.  “Hagel orders DOD-wide alcohol review after sex assault report” (Stars & Stripes)

Draconian Rant #1: The #DeathPenalty

Here’s a story for you:

A month after you had graduated from high school, you are dropping a friend off at her house when you enter the house to find the owner being assaulted and being robbed.  The burglar and his two accomplices then kidnap you, your 18 year-old female friend, a guy who lived in the residence and his nine-month old baby.  You’re then beaten with a shotgun, bound with duct tape (as is your friend); your friend is then raped by all three men.  After that, everyone is taken to a rural part of the city, you’re shot twice and buried alive.

…but this is not a story, this was news on 8 June 1999.  “You” was actually Stephanie Michelle Neiman, and the head criminal was “Clayton Darrell Lockett”… I wish I had his prisoner number, as he doesn’t deserve to have a name.  I will herein refer to him as Criminal.

Relative background to this Rant:
Religion: Atheist
Primary Occupation: Military/Law Enforcement

I’m sure you’ve heard about the successful execution of Criminal, but what I find interesting is that people say it was “botched”.

Was Criminal supposed to be executed? – Yes
Does that mean, Criminal is supposed to die? – Yes
Does anyone affected by Criminal care if the Criminal suffered?  Yes, but I would argue those that care would agree with ‘the more the merrier’.
Did the Criminal die? Yes.  Massive heart failure, supposedly in agony.

People say the Death Penalty doesn’t work.
Will Criminal ever commit another crime? – No.
Will some other paroled criminals have a chance to commit another crime? – Yes
I’d say a 100% guarantee a criminal will no longer commit another atrocity upon someone is proof the Death Penalty does work.

Others will argue the Death Penalty doesn’t deter crime in others.  I would argue it is effective, if the response is immediate.  For example, around the 1920s there were rampant mail robberies (specifically for registered mail, as that’s how money was moved before electronic transfer funds).  Marines were called in on two separate occasions, with the basic set instructions of like this one:
Q) Is there a general plan for meeting a robbery?
A) Yes; start shooting and meet developments as they arise thereafter.

With the knowledge that Marines were ordered to “shoot to kill” suspected robbers, there were zero incidents (technically 1 on the second round of US Marines defending the train).  By delaying the execution of bad people like Criminal, I would agree the deterring factor for other criminals is minimal, but at least Criminal will never hurt anyone again—and no longer be a tax-burden on the citizens of the country.

However, I would further argue that if everyone faced a 40-minute painful heart attack as their method of execution, people might take notice and maybe start staying away from (violent) crime.  We’ve gone from public beheadings, drawn & quartering, disembowelment, hangings… to private executions like firing squads, again hangings, electric chairs, and now lethal injections (akin to “putting animals to sleep”).  Some would argue public executions work; others argue it’s a sign of barbarianism.

I would argue I want to put my beloved animal to sleep because of old age, or some sickness, but you put a rabid dog causing destruction down.  This is where China has it right… although times seem to be changing.  The cost of a firing squad (in China) is roughly US$100, whereas lethal injection costｓ a little under US$50.  And to prove a point, Beijing would charge the family the cost of the bullet(s) used; however an article I read stated families wouldn’t be charged for the cost of the drugs–a shame, as I enjoyed the one-two punch.  There are contending sides within China, where one side believes that China wants to use lethal injection instead of firing squads because it preserves organs for donations, whereas the other side states lethal injections are on the rise because prisoners are caused less pain and they believe there is no correlation between lethal injections and organ donations.  Although, “the China Daily reports that 65% of transplants that originated in China came from executed prisoners, who reportedly were voluntarily donors.” What are your thoughts? 😉

Are you for or against the Death Penalty? Please comment and let me know why.

Postal & Marines Info here
China & Executions here

#Japan: Caught between a rock and a hard place

The United States and Russia.

Which one is the rock, which one is the hard place? – I’ll let you decide.

On 24 February, I discussed how Russia was looking for the United States to help guide Japan toward an agreement over the Southern Kuril Islands (Northern Territories) as Japan and Russia have progressively strengthened ties with each other over the past few years.

Up until the United States’ recent visit to Japan, Tokyo has attempted to stay away from Russia’s Crimean Annexation as much as possible; however, after President Obama came to Japan, Tokyo decided to deny the visas of 23 people (including “government officials”).  This will now start a tit-for-tat exchange, as Russia has vowed to respond in kind.  Hopefully only denied visias in the interim and not going as far as canceling state-visits (like the Prime Minister Putin’s Tokyo visit).

Russia has also called Japan out on this move, stating that Japan is following the marching orders of the United States; however, it should be noted that while the United States has frozen the assets of Russians and imposed sanctions, Japan has not.

Needless to say, again under (requests? pressures?) by the U.S., Russo-Japanese tensions are on the rise again just as an agreement with the Kuril Islands could be in the works. Granted, the southern two islands (which Russia and the prior Soviet Union have attempted to ‘give back’ to make way for a peace treaty) only account for 7% of the land mass of all 4 islands; after almost 60 years would it be better to have all four islands or better relations with your neighbor?

Prime Minister Abe has recently left to talk with European Leaders discussing what courses of action are available to deal with the U.S.’s hard stance on Moscow and their own economic interests… especially since there was an article I just read announcing Japan had dropped to 4th place, overtaken by India—and the United States will probably fall to second place, under China, by year-end.

Makes me glad I am not the leader of a country… I don’t have to chose what’s more important.　　If you were… what would you chose?

Article One: “Russia vows to hit back at Japan for denying visas to 23 people”
Article Two: “Ukrainian Crisis Further Jeopardizes Abe’s Russia Ambitions”

The Rape of #Tiananmen

On 4 June 1989, the pro-democracy movement that was rising within China… Was squished. There weren’t debates to show why communism was better or why democracy was bad… The protesters were executed by the military with the invocation of martial law.

Numbers of killed citizens range from hundreds to thousands; with the main iconic image of Chinese tanks running over an unarmed protester that refused to move.

To speak of this incident within China is Forbidden. Almost ironic, as this square is is right across from the entrance to the Forbidden city; where everyone is now allowed to enter.

So, since it’s forbidden to speak of in mainland China, a group (the Alliance) in Hong Kong is now spreading the message. They’ve opened a “deadly protest museum” featuring the Tiananmen Square incident (read as Chinese Communists executing unarmed, democratic protestors). This will hopefully allow a sharing of information between the two entities (HK and mainland China), since China restricts the information both to it’s citizens and the outside world.

A very detailed article and a recommend read; read more here:

(Picture also from Al Jazeera site above)

Dismounting China from the South China Sea

Michael Daniels, my former colleague and still very good friend, and I came together to write a piece explaining the truth behind China’s claims over the South China Sea.

China undoubtedly has a vicious bark, but when you look behind the curtain… Michael and I saw only what amounted to a tape recorder and a hand puppet. Needless to say, the ‘evidence’ Beijing has produced doesn’t amount to much in our eyes.

Please take a moment to read and as always, look forward to your comments.

Published Article found here.

Article was published on Rappler.com; the Philippines’ #1 online news source.

#China revamps International Relations Policy with #Japan: #Extortion

According to one of my most used websites, dictionary.com, Extortion is defined as “Law. the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one’s office or authority.”

As you are probably aware, on 19 April, China seized the Baosteel Emotion (Japanese cargo vessel) to pay for “economical damages” sustained by a Chinese businessman back during the Pacific War.

The Japanese military confiscated the two ships from the Japanese Company (who leased them from a Chinese Company), that were eventually sank (probably at the hands of the Americans.

So…. A relative of the Chinese businessman sues the successor Japanese company (of the company that no longer exists that leased the ships), instead of the Japanese Military that confiscated the vessels…?  Or the (probable American) Military that sank the vessels…?

On top of this, the Chinese government supported the ruling, even though this was clearly a military seizure which the Japanese company probably couldn’t have refused.

Some articles suggest it would be unlikely to see more cases similar to this; however, since China got away with it once… I feel they will do it again.

What are your thoughts on this issue?  Is China acting responsibly?  Or are they setting themselves up for disaster by creating an aura of distrust with their trading partners?

Read the article here

To those that compare the Empire of Japan with Nazi Germany….

…This is in response to a comment I received on my Yasukuni blog / article (My blog explains my article).  The comment I received was:

Instead of burying my response in the comment section of an older post…and I figured my response would make a decent blog (as I’ve had to justify my position numerous times and feel this is a good way to let everyone read it without having to retype my response every time)… I decided to post it.  So please read:

Dear Esther:

First of all, I want to thank you for your response.  While I don’t’ agree with what you wrote, I am grateful for the opportunity to try and understand where you’re coming from and provide you with a response—defending why I wrote the piece the way I did.

I never said “it” (I’m assuming you mean praying at the shrine?) doesn’t cause pain to other countries.  My argument was that other countries don’t acknowledge why the Japanese pray at Yasukuni.  From articles I’ve read, many seem to say “they feel” it supports Japanese militarism and their imperial past… which I show is not the case.

Japan, among other countries, committed atrocities (that were military tribunals held against all offenders, more probably would have been labeled war criminals as well).  You are incorrect; however.  The Japanese history books used in schools continually state “Japan was bad” during the Pacific War.  Furthermore, with regards to the “comfort women”, Japan has admitted and apologized many times.  Please let me know the reference you’re using to show Japan hasn’t admitted or apologized, I would be curious to check it out.

As I state in my article, the Shrine is not to Hirohito and Tojo and the Kenpei-tai (憲兵隊); The Shokonsha (what is now known as the Yasukuni Shrine) was founded in 1869; not at the end of World War II/the Pacific War.  Had it been created at the end of WWII and the war criminals been the sole spirits interred there, I would fully agree with you that the shrine would not be an acceptable place for Politicians (or anyone really, except maybe family) to pray for the well-being of the departed.  So I don’t understand your comparison to a shrine that was founded ~60 years before the start of the Pacific War (if using 1931 as the start date) to a hypothetical Nazi shrine created sometime after Hitler would have come to power.

Imperial Japan did invade other Asian countries—but not all.  Thailand was not invaded.  Technically you could argue that the “asian countries” didn’t even exist; as they had already been invaded by Western powers.  French Indochina (Vietnam, etc), Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), British India (Pakistan, etc), even China had lost territory through conflicts with Western nations.

I’m not a western history buff, but I believe Hitler’s conquest was similar to Napoleon’s—which was to create a “unified Europe.”  However, Hitler also decided that the extermination of Jews was a necessity.  On the contrary, Japan did not want to exterminate the Chinese.  I fully admit they terrorized the Chinese, conducted experiments on them and other heinous acts… but an interesting fact is many Japanese refused to hand over Jewish people to the Nazi army—even though they (Japan/Korea and Germany/Austria) were allies.

I do know what “gaijin” (外人) means… “foreigner”, or “outside person.”  However, I am confused by your reference.  You use past tense to describe your boyfriend’s opinions about Japan (being similar to mine).  Did they change, are they the same?

I must correct you again… I have studied Asian history: from Chinese Emperors, to Japanese Emperors, to the movement of the Greater and Lesser Vehicles of Buddhism…  I have also read about China’s expansion, the fate of the Korean Kingdoms, the plight of the Philippines.

Let me ask you a question in response.  Had Japan not attacked and taken the colonies from the Western powers… would the Asian countries that exist today, actually exist?  Or remain as colonies?  Do I believe Japan wanted to “liberate” the countries?  No.  Instead, I believe they wanted to liberate the countries FROM the Western powers, so that they would fall in line with Japan (similar to the Americans “freeing” the Philippines from the Spanish, only to conquer it for themselves).

And I was using Thanksgiving to show that there are many views regarding what people consider “history”.  And for this reason, people need to read different sources of material to better understand and get a clearer picture of what “history” is.  It shouldn’t be Victor’s History; it should be the closest representation of fact of what occurred.

Did China Break Up with Justin Bieber…?

Is China…. One of Bieber’s “babies”?

From his 2010 hit song, “Baby”, Bieber had amassed (by 2013) a 12x platinum rating with an amazing four million downloads/views (within the United States).  While I couldn’t find any numbers for China, I can only assume that a portion of the population would also have been caught up in the “Bieber-craze” which is why the following excerpted lyrics from his song are appropriate…

“You know you love me, I know you care
Just shout whenever, and I’ll be there
You are my love, you are my heart
And we will never ever ever be apart”…

Until his alleged “accidental” worshiping at the Yasukuni Shrine, where he posed with a Shinto Priest, had a picture taken of him praying and paying respects to Japan’s fallen soldiers… and posted two of these pictures on instagram.

Bieber was immediately flooded with comments from China and Korea condemning his actions and demanding he apologize… in which case, Bieber “was like”…

“Baby, baby, baby oooh
Like baby, baby, baby nooo
Like baby, baby, baby oooh
I thought you’d always be mine”

…at least to China (his apology post forgot to mention Korea).  He claimed he thought Shinto Shrines were only used for praying.

…and they are.  This one just happens to be surrounded by controversy since 1985; six years after the enshrinement of 14 convicted Class A war criminals, and about a thousand or so Class B and C convicted war criminals that had been interred after Japan’s surrender.

While I disbelieve the story about Bieber’s “accidental” choice of Shrine, it did help get him back in the news… and any news (good or bad) is good for business… I hadn’t heard about him since his DUI arrest (I guess there was a faux pas with his recent visit to the Anne Frank house I missed… but as I watch Northeast Asia Affairs, it didn’t really make my selection of reading material).  If you’ve ever gone to Yasukuni (and if you haven’t, I suggest you go to get a look for yourself at what the Shrine stands for…. Again, the Yushukan is a different story), you will notice the grand size of the place and the gates… plus on Sunday’s they have a huge flea market where you can find all sorts of antique goodies.  And if he was even the slightest bit interested in the shrine (since he took time to pose with a priest—generally not available to the public), trip advisor or any other website would have given him the basic history of the locality…not to mention his translator or the rest of his entourage that was probably there.

Aside from this, the other interesting point is that on Monday (at the start of the Spring Festival at Yasukuni), around 150 law makers went to pray at the shrine and Prime Minister Abe also gave an offering to the Shrine.  While these events made the news, there was nothing comparable to flood of media gushing forth from Bieber’s “accidental” visit.  So, for me – it seems as just a way to get free publicity…and it worked well.  Even I’m talking about him 😉

Undoubtedly, this will make President Obama’s Asia—visit a little rockier than he had hoped—as he’s doing his official State Visit, the first done by an American president in two decades.  We’ll see what sort of effect this has on China and Korea in the coming days.What are your thoughts on his pilgrimage?

I highly recommend my opinion piece I wrote on Yasukuni, viewable here

Follow me on Facebook

Read the original article here: http://dailym.ai/QzuSa5
(Photo also from above article)

#China (again) violates Sino-Japanese #Treaty of 1978

Since 1972 and culminating in 1978, Japan and China sought to normalize relations and start working together; however, China’s words of “friendliness” and “respect” appear to only be sewage frothing from the drainpipe.

In the most recent events, China has seized a Japanese company’s cargo ship over what it claims are “wartime debts” specifically talking about the leasing of two steam ships from 1936 that were later “lost”.  Japan claims, and rightfully so, that all wartime debts were absolved in 1972 (1978) when diplomatic relations were re-established and the treaty was signed.

So, out of my own curiosity, I decided to take a look at the treaty… and what I found was that China has violated Article I, Article II, and Article III.  Article IV discussed third-party relations and Article V discusses terminating the treaty.

Article I, paragraph two, states, “[T]hey will use peaceful means to settle all disputes and will refrain from the use of force or the threats of the use thereof”

• China’s display of force in the Japan-owned Senkaku islands seems to suggest China forgot about Article I.

Article II states, “[N]either [Japan or China] will seek hegemony within the Asian and Pacific region or in any other region and that both shall oppose any attempt by any other country or group of countries to establish such hegemony”

• China claiming all of the South China Sea and blocking the Philippines from supplying its troops seems to suggest China also forgot about Article II.

Article III states, “[M]otivated by the spirit of good neighborliness and friendship and in accordance with the principles of mutual benefit and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, shall foster contacts and endeavors involving the peoples of the two countries with a view to furthering economic and cultural relations between the two countries”

• China’s constant involvement with the Yasukuni Shrine and support of the recent seizure of the 226k-ton Baosteel Emotion cargo vessel seems to suggest China forgot about Article III as well.

If China is willing to break a treaty with one of its closest neighbors, causing huge ripples in international relations between the two countries, what might they do next?

Read the article here

Read the Treaty here

Picture from here

As expected, PM Abe re-affirms Japan’s 1993 apology on #ComfortWomen

This article seems to suggest the United States was behind Abe upholding the apology; however, I disagree.  In Japanese, the word for crisis is “危機” (kiki), which means “danger/fear” and “opportunity/mechanism”.  I think Japan created this kiki and used it to their advantage.

Some people consider Prime Minster Abe a hawkish, right-winger; however, I feel he’s successfully treading the line between what his Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) coalition members and constituents want… as well as doing what is right for his country.

When I first heard he was (again–first time was 2007) looking at revising the apology, I spoke with another professor on this issue to get his concerns.  He agreed with the Korean response that Japan would face isolation and was asking me for my opinions of why Japan would do this… Here were my three responses as to ‘why’:

1) Korea has constantly stated Japan has not apologized (enough) nor have they faced historical facts (related to ianfu–again, I try not to say “Comfort” and “Women” as I disagree with the English translation…see my blog about it here).

2) Korea has been progressively provoking Japan, with both ianfu statue/memorials throughout the United States and the publishing of a manga (comic) describing the Korean view of ianfu (who, by Japanese law, were Japanese citizens during this time)

3) Korea’s new foreign policy strategy of targeting Textbooks in the United States to change the internationally-known body of water “Sea of Japan” to the local Korean translation, or what they call the “East Sea” (I wrote an op-ed/blogged about it here as well)

I then responded that I believed Japan was merely poking Korea in the eye.  This immediately launched Abe into the news in both Korea, China and worldwide (bad news is still good publicity).  I stated that I believed (and hoped) Japan would come back and use this rare opportunity to again (key word) officiate the apology in 1993/1995.  By doing so, hopefully more Koreans would become aware that the Japanese have made an apology, and again has been reaffirmed.  Responding to some of my earlier blogs, I actually had some US military members living in Korea tell me they were unaware Japan had ever apologized for the ianfu… A sign of Korean propaganda at its best? (worst?)

Abe also used this “opportunity” to take another shot at Korea (and China) by saying, “We must be humble regarding history…Issues regarding history should not be politicized or made diplomatic issues. I think that research on history should be left in the hands of intellectuals and experts.”  Will Korea and China heed Abe’s words?  Unfortunately, I feel his words will fall on deaf ears.

What are your thoughts on my hypothesis?  Or do you think it more believable the Japanese would bow down to American pressures?  …Even though Abe clearly did not listen with regards to American pressures regarding his planned Yasukuni visit?  Let me know.

Read the article here: http://reut.rs/1m5zl1e

The Dueling Banjos: Philippines strums against China

In the latest “tit for tat” exchange, the Philippines responded in kind after China had stated it would defend it’s territory without compromise–and this was including those areas currently contested in or out of court between China and other nations.

What did Manila say exactly?  That “the Philippines was basing its position on the principles of international law” and also “[had] the right to defend every inch of its territory.”

So, now we have two countries that will defend their country (without compromise) … while increasing military units in the area.  China has recently sprayed fisherman with water cannons and has warned off other vessels carrying construction materials in the disputed territory.  As the Philippines have purchased more frigates and are now moving their western defense naval assets closer to the area… how soon until something tragic occurs?  And who will cause it?  Thoughts?

Read more @ http://bit.ly/1h8BDXq

(picture from globalbalita.com)

China to all nations: “Our land is ours–and that’s final”

Yi WANG, the Chinese Foreign Minister, kept emphasizing “history and territory” as the main reasons why China would not budget with Japan or the Southeast Asian countries with which it has territorial disputes with.

An interesting note was that in the article, WANG is quoted as saying they will “properly handle by peaceful means on this basis of respecting historical facts and international law.”  Which clearly goes against his early quote of “no room for compromise”.

So, what I take WANG’s quote to mean is that based on ‘Chinese interpretation of their historical facts’ they will continue to ‘peacefully negotiate’ (with water cannons and clear violations of a nation’s waters by having frigates and other vessels pass through the area) until the matter is resolved.

The article then speaks about China’s view on the the situation in North Korea and the Six Party talks; but it seems pure rhetoric:  “Denuclearize North Korea and re-start the six-party talks” … and when that doesn’t work, like it hasn’t in the past.  What will China do?  Or is China doing what it can internationally to make the world think they are helping to “fix” North Korea, but secretly enjoying their existence — by keeping the focus (human rights and otherwise) off of China?

Original article @ http://nyti.ms/MX6Of1