The White Peril 白禍

This is an interesting weekend to have returned to Taiwan from Japan. On Thursday, Nobushige Takamizawa, the head of the Ministry of Defense's Defense Policy Bureau, spoke more candidly than he was supposed to:

In a highly unusual remark for a Japanese official, Nobushige Takamizawa, director general of the Defense Ministry's defense policy bureau, said a contingency over Taiwan would be "a security matter for Japan."

"Because it would be a seriously significant matter for our country, the Self-Defense Forces would obviously step up their alert and surveillance activities before judging whether the contingency is happening in our so-called surrounding area," he told a gathering of ruling party lawmakers.

Of course, if you live in Asia, you get used to hearing over and over from Beijing that Taiwan is an internal matter internalmatterinternalmatterINTERNALmatter. That was the major reason that Minister of Defense Shigeru Ishiwa came before a press conference the next day to spray squid ink:

He apologized that, "If his words were taken at face value, there are parts that would not preclude the possibility of misunderstanding," he said by way of apology.

Taiwan is being watched especially because of the elections to take place this Saturday. I haven't followed politics here very closely--they're covered pretty well by the Japanese press, since Taiwan lies within the geographical area surrounding Japan (not that that makes them significant to Japan, according to Defense Minister Ishiwa, of course). The two countries also have close ties economically. Japan notices when big things happen here. (Besides, politics can be amusingly rambunctious in Taiwan. The most interesting thing Japanese politicians do is yell and pull each other's hair sometimes in the Diet.)

They're predicting a very high turnout for the election:

Hundreds of thousands of people have taken part in rival political rallies across Taiwan.

It was the last chance for big weekend rallies before the island votes for a new president on 22 March.

The events - organised by the two main political parties - were also aimed at expressing public opposition to China's anti-secession law.

...

In its carefully-choreographed event, the governing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) asked people to gather at designated points and to walk anti-clockwise, highlighting the party's campaign slogan to "Reverse the Tide" - to turn back their political fortunes and that of their candidate, who has been trailing in opinion polls.

The party's presidential candidate, Frank Hsieh, attacked his rival's plan to establish a cross-strait common market with China, saying it could lead to job losses and other social problems.

He said he and his party stood for the protection of Taiwan's core values - which was important if the island was to avoid the fate of Tibet, which had seen peaceful protests violently put down by the Chinese military in recent days.

I do my best not to take the word of my cab drivers as the voice of the representative citizen. But the consensus among both resident expats and Taiwanese friends I have is that, while Taiwanese voters are wary of handing the presidency to the DPP again, they're also wary of handing it to the KMT, given the broad majority of its coalition in the legislature. The DPP, which pushes officially declared independence from the PRC vocally, was supposedly handing out "I love my country" T-shirts. (The reference was pointedly to Taiwan, not to the whole of China including the mainland.) And the DPP has pushed on worries about a flood of workers from the PRC into Taiwan if strictures on economic exchanges are loosened. Less than a week to go now before voting.

A few years ago, Claire Berlinski wrote the following about the intelligence failures that led up to 9/11:

Baer reports that high-ranking CIA officials privately tell reporters that "when the dust finally clears, Americans will see that September 11 was a triumph for the intelligence community, not a failure."

It is a challenge to imagine what the words "intelligence failure" might mean, if not an unexpected attack on American soil that leaves more than three thousand civilians dead. Perhaps these officials are keeping the term in reserve for an invasion by extraterrestrials.

Perhaps it was my lit. major's overactive imagination, but I took that as exaggeration for effect. I was wrong, though, it seems. One of the big stories in Japan yesterday--I still can't quite believe I'm actually typing this--was an exchange over whether Japan's security measures against illegal aliens includes the type that menaces Sigourney Weaver:

With Cabinet ministers debating all manner of security measures for unwanted visitors, be they terrorists or ballistic missiles, there was something that no one had apparently taken into consideration: Unidentified flying objects.

On Tuesday, the Cabinet made clear what it knows.

In an official written inquiry, Ryuji Yamane, an Upper House member from opposition Minshuto (Democratic Party of Japan), had requested an explanation of the government's stand on UFOs.

In response, the Cabinet endorsed a statement saying there had been no confirmed existence of UFOs from outer space.

...

Yamane noted that there have been numerous reports of UFO sightings and asked how the government goes about collecting information and studying UFOs, how it plans to deal with one landing in Japan, and whether Tokyo exchanges information on this issue with other nations.

The government's reply was that since it had not confirmed the existence of UFOs, it has not collected information on them, nor studied them.

Yamane's blogs, listed on his profile page, don't yet contain any mention of his important efforts to plug the chinks in national security. Chief Cabinet Minister Nobutaka Machimura was moved to announce at a press conference, "個人的には絶対いると思う。 (kojintekini ha zettai iru to omou: 'personally, I think [extraterrestrials] absolutely exist')" Glad to see members of the cabinet have a functioning sense of wonder.

However, if it's real-life threats we're worried about, the more gladdening news is probably that of the success of a test of one element of Japan's anti-missile defense system in Hawaii:

The Maritime Self-Defense Force's Aegis destroyer Kongo succeeded in intercepting a mock ballistic missile warhead with an SM-3 missile as part of missile defense system test carried out at sea near Hawaii, the MSDF announced Monday.

The success of the test--the first conducted by the MSDF--means Japan will be able to counter the threat of North Korea's ballistic missiles, such as the Rodong and Taepodong-1, analysts said.

...

Compared to a mock target based on a Scud-type missile, whose warhead and rocket engine do not separate, the target used in Monday's experiment flies much faster at about Mach 10 and is therefore more difficult to intercept.

The DPRK likes to test missiles every now and then, just to be neighborly. The import of this test will not be lost on Pyongyang.

Since we all know that polls are the last word in reliability, Yasuo Fukuda supporters can take comfort in last week's Asahi poll. 53% of voters polled preferred Fukuda as the new Prime Minister, while 21% supported Taro Aso.

Of course, that poll was taken on 15 and 16 September, and a lot can change in the run-up to an election. Fukuda and Aso appeared at Shibuya Station on Sunday to lay out their policy positions for the public, now that they're the only two remaining contenders for Prime Minister this coming weekend. The Asahi probably has the best overall summary. Both took care to play to the LDP's rural voting base by promising to address economic inequalities between urban and non-urban areas. (Aso assured voters that he did not support unbridled market liberalization and competition--as if we needed to be told that.)

They also addressed foreign policy:

Disturbed by the serious souring of Japan's relationships with China and South Korea during the Koizumi era, Fukuda was trying to mend the ties. Abe's visits to the two countries soon after he came to power have changed the atmosphere between Japan and these countries. But Fukuda appears to be hoping to bring fundamental changes to these important relations.

Aso vowed to promote the "arc of freedom and prosperity" initiative he proposed as Abe's foreign minister. This initiative is based on the idea of supporting countries that share such basic values as freedom and democracy. But his vision of the "arc" doesn't include China and is therefore criticized as an attempt to create a network of countries around China to contain the expansion of its regional influence.

Aso seems to be advocating a dual approach to dealing with China that combines dialogue with diplomatic maneuvering to put a brake on its influence.

There's a transcript of a lecture Aso gave about his "arc" vision here. It might be noted that he doesn't mention post-Soviet Russia as part of the "arc of freedom and prosperity" either, and in a way it comes off as a more pointed omission than China, because he discusses the democratization and EU membership of the Baltic States and the need for greater stability in Georgia and Ukraine.

The objective is for us to help democracy take root in a region that we envision as an 'arc of freedom and prosperity,' extending from the Baltic Sea to the Black and Caspian Seas.

Hmmm...any ideas what we might be arcing around? (He does mention the importance of improved relations with both the PRC and Russia at the beginning.)

North Korea, of course, is one of the biggest issues. The issue of the Japanese abductees is always in play here, and voters liked Aso’s firm line. Fukuda promises to take a more flexible approach:

In Osaka, both candidates addressed the North Korea abductee issue. Fukuda stated, “I want to be the one to solve this problem,” and his indicated that he had resolved to effect normalization of Japan-DPRK relations through dialogue. Aso stated emphatically, “Without pressure, no dialogue will get off the ground.”

Abe’s approach was to patch things up with economic heavy-hitters China and South Korea while taking a hard line toward economic empty set North Korea. It was popular. The abductee issue tends to be back-burnered in favor of nukes at the six-party talks, so Japan has essentially resigned itself to trying to resolve the problem with catch-as-catch-can support from its allies. But I’m not sure there is a resolution. The DPRK has been jerking around the families of abductees (notably poor Megumi Yokota’s parents) for years now. Maybe there is no approach that’s going to get Japan the information it wants.

It wasn’t just Fukuda’s position on the DPRK that came off as dithery; his delivery was shaky, too. Aso was more confident; on the other hand, he hides his lust for power about as well as Hillary Clinton does, and his glee at being in the running for the top spot was possibly a bit too naked. But there are plenty of points that could be scored and lost this week. And as the Asahi notes, neither of them really explained how he planned to work with the newly strengthened opposition parties. For now, Fukuda still has the support of all the major factions.

The Nikkei noted on yesterday's evening edition editorial page, as the headline put it, "War of words revolving around diplomacy boils over." (Actually, the word used is 舌戦 [zessen: lit., "tongue battle"], though I'm not sure I care to picture Hillary and Barack in a tongue battle with each other. Or anyone else, for that matter.) The subject, of course, was the sparring over head-of-state visits with dictators and military intervention. The content of the article doesn't give a Japanese viewpoint, really, but it's significant that it was featured so prominently, with pictures of Clinton and Obama and translations of their biggest soundbites. (I don't remember what the exact words were in English, but in the Nikkei, Hillary says, "Irresponsible and immature," at Obama, who responds, "You're just like Bush.") Japan knows that it needs to pay attention to these things, especially when the DPRK is mentioned. I liked Steve Chapman's take in Reason, BTW:

On the morning after the South Carolina debate, the Clinton campaign trotted out former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to gush about the senator's declaration that she would not meet with various dictators "until we know better what the way forward would be." Said Albright, "She gave a very sophisticated answer that showed her understanding of the diplomatic process."

Being praised for your diplomatic sophistication by Madeleine Albright is like being complimented on your sense of humor by John Kerry. Albright is the renowned diplomat who helped the Clinton administration blunder its way into an 11-week aerial war in Kosovo. Albright was confident that Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic would cave at the first whiff of gunpowder, and was shocked when he didn't.

...

There you have it. A Hillary Clinton presidency promises to unite Madeleine Albright's zeal for using bombs in pursuit of liberal ideals with Dick Cheney's vision of the president as emperor. Won't that be fun?

I know Hillary sympathizers who've argued that Clinton has had to emphasize her willingness to use the military because there are too many voters who doubt a woman would be competent as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. But I agree with Chapman that her pose actually fits in with what seems like her sincere sense of mission. Camille Paglia noted that years ago, too, in her review of Clinton's memoir:

But perhaps it is more troublesome for democracy (where religion should be kept distinct from government) if Hillary's religiosity is genuine. It would certainly explain her air of smug moral superiority and her close to messianic view of her destiny as a reformer. The egotism of career humanitarians was dissected by William Blake and Charles Dickens and later satirised by Oscar Wilde, all of whom saw the nascent tyranny in fervent idealists with a masterplan for humanity.

On the evidence of this book, Hillary appears to believe that good intentions excuse all. Impediments to her lofty goals may have arisen partly through minor miscalculations on her part, she concedes, but most of the problems, in her view, have come from pigheaded reactionaries "who want to turn the clock back on many of the advances our country has made", thanks to the Democratic Party, a congregation of the elect whose mission is the salvation of mankind.

...and Minister of Defense Fumio Kyuma has had to step down. Not surprising. His remarks the other day about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were not the first that made people wonder whether he remembered which ministry he was leading, and there's an election coming up in which the LDP cannot afford to have the Abe administration look more vulnerable than it does.

A friend who read the post below about licensing fortunetellers reminded me that the classic protectionist-licensing story remains that of African braiders. For those who haven't seen it discussed on a news program or in Virginia Postrel's The Future and Its Enemies, the Institute for Justice website has a rundown.

*******

I'm still making my way through Brink Lindsey's most recent book, but he's revived his blog and has a bunch of terrific posts about advertisements. For me the standouts are the pre-PC Jello commercial, apparently narrated by Charlie Chan, and the compilation of TV cigarette commercials. I was born in '72; I don't remember cigarette advertising on television. But I do remember being a child when lots of people smoked--there were ashtrays everywhere to accommodate them, and it wasn't regarded as a big deal. Lindsey says, "Also, isn’t there a powerful illicit thrill--in our current age when smoking is the new leprosy--in watching these folks happily taking in big lungfuls of carcinogens?" Yes, there is. From our perspective now, the ads practically feel pornographic.

*******

Not surprisingly, Minister of Defense Fumio Kyuma has been brought sharply back into line by Prime Minister Abe:

During a meeting of about ten minutes, the prime minister told Kyuma, "Japan is the only country to suffer a nuclear strike, and we must think of the feelings of the bombing victims in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, who suffered horribly. We mustn't hurt their feelings."

Especially with an election coming up.

You don't see this very frequently: Minister of Defense Fumio Kyuma gave a talk yesterday:

Opposition parties unanimously criticized Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma for remarks he made in a lecture on 30 June. Kyuma had stated that the dropping of the atom bomb by the United States during World War II was "unavoidable."

Kyuma is the only sitting cabinet member from Nagasaki Prefecture. Reaction to his dissent from orthodoxy has been swift and furious:

Kyuma said later that his comments had been misinterpreted, telling reporters he meant to say the bombing "could not be helped from the American point of view."

"It's too bad that my comments were interpreted as approving the U.S. bombing," he said.

...

Bombing survivors have developed various illnesses from radiation exposure, including cancer and liver diseases.

"The U.S. justifies the bombings saying they saved American lives," said Nobuo Miyake, 78, director-general of a group of victims living in Tokyo. "It's outrageous for a Japanese politician to voice such thinking. Japan is a victim."

Nagasaki Mayor Tomihisa Taue was quoted as saying by Kyodo, "The use of nuclear weapons constitutes the indiscriminate massacre of ordinary citizens, and it cannot be justified for any reason."

...

In America, the bombings are widely seen as a weapon of last resort against an enemy that was determined to fight to the death but instead surrendered unconditionally, six days after Nagasaki was attacked.

There are many things to admire, even love, about Japan; but surely one of its more unpalatable cultural traits is its tendency to look for reasons to feel put-upon and victimized. The way people talk about the A-bomb, one would never know that Japan had tried to take over all of East Asia. (Its invading forces were not known for their scrupulously upright treatment of ordinary citizens.) One would also never know that the Allies had spent the last year enduring the battles on Saipan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa.

I don't mean to make a coarse tu quoque argument here. I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that America had geopolitical reasons for using the atom bomb that went beyond the saintly desire to prevent more blood from being spilled in the immediate future. Japan had inserted itself into World War II as our enemy, and we needed to defeat it, and we needed to win. It would be nice if war didn't work that way, but it does. It's easy for me to say this as an American, I guess, but I don't think Kyuma's acknowledgment that it wasn't our job to play nice with Japan in 1945 can be construed as "approval." It's certainly going to be interesting to see where this goes politically, though.

This weekend, the delivery guy brought an envelope bearing those three little words every gay man loves to hear: "Unframed art enclosed." A present for my birthday (today--exactly ten years younger than Taylor Dayne) from my old roommate in New York. Of course, since I haven't found a new apartment yet--in the middle of looking--it's going to stay enclosed and unframed for a bit.

In less aesthetically pleasing news, Empress Michiko is suffering from stress-induced intestinal bleeding. (Irreverent question: if they're the intestines of the sitting empress, do we call them 御腸--miwata, maybe? Seems like a word that might do nicely in a waka written by her exalted husband to celebrate her recovery.) I'm being flippant about the level of detail, but of course the condition is serious enough. For those who might have thought that Princess Masako's adjustment problems were the kind of thing that might iron itself out in a decade or three, the example of the empress, who's been beset by stress-related ailments pretty regularly, sadly offers little hope. Empress Michiko was also a commoner before marrying Akihito. She wasn't an up-and-coming diplomat like Masako, but she was the active daughter of a rich industrialist and lived a varied life.

Japan and the DPRK will be discussing the abductee issue and possible normalization of relations between the two countries. You will not be surprised to hear that it's Japan that wants to know what happened to the remainder of its abducted citizens and the DPRK that wants money:

Japanese and North Korean delegations agreed Tuesday to discuss the abduction issue on Wednesday and diplomatic normalization Thursday during a two-day bilateral working group meeting within the framework of the six-party talks.

The two sides agreed during informal talks Tuesday that the two sides would separately discuss "pending issues including the abduction issue" on Wednesday and "normalization" on Thursday.

The government welcomed the fact that the North Korean side agreed to first discuss the issue of the abduction of Japanese nationals by North Korea, as Pyongyang has claimed the issue has already been settled. The government hopes to see some progress during the Wednesday talks.

I guess we'll know by the end of the day.

The new movie about Japanese abductee Megumi Yokota looks to be an interesting treatment of her case. Next to Hitomi Soga, who gained fame as the wife of US Army deserter Charles Jenkins, Yokota is the abductee who's received the most publicity. Her family has been very vocal in its demands that the Japanese government use all diplomatic means possible to find out what happened to her and the other abductees who are still unaccounted for. There's been little development on the issue lately, but those who are interested in the push and pull over the last few years can click the category button below to see some of the news items that have appeared.

Still busy. There's been a lot going on that I haven't posted about--the JDA will soon be a full-fledged ministry, the 6-party talks are back on, and everyone's talking about Abe's low approval ratings.

Oh, yeah, and the LDP public policy committee chair reminds us what a real war crime looks like:

LDP public policy committee chair Shoichi Nakagawa made a statement, during a 17 December evening lecture in Nagasaki, about the United States's decision to drop the atom bomb on Nagasaki during World War II: "America's decision to deploy that thing is unforgivable--truly inhumane. Dropping the A-bomb was a crime."

Nakagawa stressed that "we must work to our fullest capacity to ensure that no one uses weapons of mass destruction again. Obviously, we will maintain the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)." He also indicated that "Japan's surroundings are full of nukes. People say they're there for purposes of deterrence, but a country has recently emerged that appears ready to use them if things don't go its way," referring to North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons.

No word on Nakagawa's view of the relative morality of, say, performing vivisections on prisoners.

Nakagawa actually said not long ago that Japan should consider developing its own nuclear weapons, so that part about definitely upholding the non-proliferation treaty is, to my knowledge, new coming from him. I'm not sure I worry about a Japan with nukes, but I do think that it's a poor idea to adopt North Korea's characteristic put-upon tone when discussing them. The idea that Japan was a victim in World War II plays well to some segments of the Japanese population; it plays less well in the United States and British Commonwealth and way less well in Japan's co-prosp...er, "surroundings." The charitable view is that the Abe administration is still finding its footing and establishing its voice; but, of course, to right yourself by building on your policy strengths, you have to have some, and the Abe government hasn't been covering itself in glory on domestic issues, either.

The Nikkei editorial about the Rumsfeld resignation was published this morning. American readers may be interested to hear that it pushes the Robert McNamara comparison--the meme has arrived in Japan:

There has been no two-term president who has had the same Secretary of Defense for all eight years in office. Rumsfeld assumed the post after the Bush administration began in 2001; combined with his year as defense secretary under Ford in the 1970s, that gives him a total of seven years in the position. His only rival [in that regard] is McNamara, who was Secretary of Defense for seven years under Kennedy and Johnson.

Both men have had experience running private enterprises, and both applied their private-sector administrative methods to policy in the Department of Defense. As a result, both ran into snags--McNamara in Vietnam, and Rumsfeld in Iraq. Rumsfeld, especially, in beginning the war in Iraq, attempted to get results with the lowest possible amount of military force. This move invited opposition from the armed forces and is connected to the current state of confusion.

Predictably, the lead editorial in this morning's Nikkei is headlined "US Midterm Elections Reflect Iraq Dilemma." The unwritten subhead is "Does This Mean Japan Is Screwed?"

In the mid-term elections for United States congress and state governorships and such, held in the off-years between presidential races, it's usual for the president's party to lose seats.

In that sense, the results this time around are not a surprise. However, it seems that they bear witness to a rise in dissatisfaction with the Bush administration revolving around the ongoing circumstances in Iraq--the Democrats have recaptured the majority in the House after twelve years and gained seats in the Senate. The Bush administration has not discovered a way to extricate itself from its dilemma in Iraq.

...

Everyone reasons that if the [Iraqi] economy improves public order will also be restored; but the current reality is that because public order hasn't been restored, the economy has not improved. No method has been found to stop this vicious cycle and reverse the trend.

The option of restoring stability through a large-scale increase in the deployment of US military personnel has not gained political support within the US; nor has it gained the support of the Iraqi government.

The argument for complete withdrawal that had been advanced by part of the Democratic Party could result in the abandonment of Iraq, leaving it to become a breeding ground for international terrorists. This is the mistake that has already been made in Afghanistan.

The argument for phased withdrawal, after strengthening Iraqi infrastructure [to maintain] stability, appears to be rational. But the deepening opposition of Sunni and Shia elements makes prospects difficult to assess.

...

A government in which the Republicans hold the White House and the Democrats have taken the leadership of the congress also existed during the Reagan and Bush [I] administrations in the 1980s. It was called "gridlock," and it prevented efficient decision-making. Will history repeat itself?

Now, of course, one of the reasons the Nikkei is paying attention to elections in the United States is that they're important to geopolitics in general. But there's plenty at stake for Japan specifically, too. The role of the military here is a hot topic, made ever hotter by movements in the PRC and the DPRK. Russia isn't making many noises at the moment, but it's never far from the Japanese mind. Japanese politicians have generally perceived the GOP as invested in maintaining close US-Japan security ties. Even those who are not eager to do so are, like most of the global media, interpreting the results of Tuesday's election as a direct rebuke to the Bush administration on national security and Iraq; it's not clear how that will affect strategic policy in East Asia, but plenty of people are worried.

Unsurprisingly, the news that Rummy is going to resign has been posted on the Nikkei site approximately four nanoseconds after it hit the US-based wires. There's no Japan perspective in the preliminary report, but I'm sure the news will be folded into one of the main editorials tomorrow.

The US is giving control of some airspace controlled by Yokota Air Force Base back to Japan:

The airspace controlled by the United States will be reduced from the current six areas, which range in altitude from 7,000 meters to 3,700 meters, to five areas with altitudes ranging from 5,500 meters to 2,400 meters, a reduction of more than 20 percent of the current airspace, the sources said.

...

U.S. permission is needed for aircraft to fly through Yokota's airspace. Because of this, flights to and from Haneda and Narita airports usually fly high over the space or detour around it.

In January, the Construction and Transport Ministry said that a 40 percent reduction of Yokota's airspace will benefit the economy to the tune of 19 billion yen annually, due to savings in airline fuel costs.

The partial return, to be accomplished by September 2008, is the first step in the process of giving full airspace control back to Japan. I have no way of knowing how the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport came up with that figure, but airspace around Tokyo is notoriously overcrowded, and from various observation decks around the bay, you can clearly see planes stacked up for landing at Haneda. And though the Yomiuri doesn't mention it, the move would fit into possible plans to make Japan increasingly responsible for its own military defense.

For obvious reasons, everyone is talking about how the PRC has reacted to the DPRK's nuclear test, but it's worth paying attention to the ROK, too:

South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun confirmed Friday morning that South Korea will faithfully implement the U.N. Security Council resolution on North Korea, which was passed following Pyongyang's nuclear test last week.

Roh made the remark during a meeting with Foreign Minister Taro Aso at the presidential Blue House in Seoul.

However, Roh implied that South Korea would proceed cautiously with the sanction measures. "Each country has final authority over how to interpret the resolution," he said.

...

Roh, with an apparent reference to Japan's possible nuclear armament, said to Aso, "There are various debates [in Japan] on how best to respond to North Korea's nuclear test."

Aso countered by saying, "Prime Minister [Shinzo] Abe has promised that Japan will uphold the three nonnuclear principles [in which Japan pledges not to produce, possess or allow nuclear weapons into the country]."

Japan has been considering a full-scale cessation of not only imports from North Korea (which have already been implemented) but also exports to it. South Korea's participation in executing UNSC-based sanctions matter, of course, because part of the package is maritime inspections:

In South Korea, criticism of the "sunshine policy" of the administration of President Roh Moo-hyun increased after the nuclear test.

Tokyo and Washington intend to make more efforts to coax the South Korean government over to their side, a senior Japanese Foreign Ministry official said.

Though the U.N. resolution includes inspection of cargo carried to and from North Korea, the measure cannot be effective unless checks around the Korean Peninsula are intensified.

The key is whether South Korea will participate in and cooperate with the inspection on ships entering and leaving North Korea.

...

Also, while Japan and South Korea regard North Korean nuclear weapons as a direct threat, what the United States fears most is proliferation of the weapons to other parties, such as terrorists.

Joel also posted on more fundamental (and well-recognized) differences in perceptions between the US and the ROK.

It's still not clear what the UNSC statement on the DPRK's nuclear test will say, but here in Japan, the Abe government has voted to suspend imports and port entrances from DPRK vessels:

At a 13 October cabinet meeting, the goverment came to a decision to institute an embargo on imports of all goods from North Korea and prohibit vessels with North Korean registration from entering Japanese ports, as independent sanctions [that is, not in cooperation with the UN or another country--SRK] against the DPRK, which announced that it has conducted a nuclear test. The measures will go into effect at midnight on 14 October and are set to expire in six months.

...

Imports from the DPRK consist mostly of agricultural and marine products such as matsutake mushrooms and clams; their total value in 2005 was ¥137 trillion.

DPRK passport holders have been banned from entering Japan since the middle of this week; permanent residents of Japan who happen to be of North Korean extraction aren't affected.

And BTW, for those following the possible evolution of the SDF into a recognized full, standing armed force, Japan may assist the US in freighter inspections:

The government has entered into discussions over providing support and port access to U.S. forces in an effort to assist in the inspection of North Korean freighters, if the U.N. Security Council adopts a resolution to impose sanctions on North Korea, government sources said Thursday.

Although the government remains cautious over the Self-Defense Forces participating in the inspection of ships, a role supporting U.S. forces' inspection of North Korean ships would be covered by the law concerning Self-Defense Forces operations to assist U.S. forces during emergencies.

The related ministries, agencies and local authorities are expected to begin making arrangements in parallel with the discussions between the central government and the U.S. military, which have already begun.

This would mark the first application of the law since it was enacted in 1999.

The DPRK has reacted to the threat of across-the-board sanctions by stating that it will regard them as (what else?) a declaration of war.

WTF? The US Embassy here in Tokyo sent out a notice to those of us on the mailing list to say that the DPRK's reported nuclear test does not mean that American citizens are at risk in Japan at the moment. Also, the embassy is operating normally.

Can someone give these people a shot of brandy? We're talking about a single test. An important test. A scary test. A test with a lot of implications for regional and global politics. But a test. There's no indication that North Korea has even one deployable nuclear missile, let alone that it's aimed at Japan. I understand the need for caution, but assuring us that the embassy is still open for business seems so...flighty. It makes me wonder whether hysterical expats have been calling and asking whether they need to fly back home. Surely not?

Added later: Okay, I'm a little bit less edgy myself after having dealt with my e-mail backlog. When I went back and reread the message more carefully, I realized it was referring to "health risks"--presumably from the radioactive material that might have been released by the nuclear detonation. That makes a certain amount of sense: yellow dust that drifts over from Chinese industrial cities is a big problem in South Korea and parts of Japan.

Ready to spaz? Okay, good.

The DPRK's central news agency is reporting that its nuclear experiments have been resumed and that it's successfully conducted an implosion test on weapons-grade plutonium:

On 9 October, North Korea announced through the KCNA, that it had conducted a nuclear experiment. It appears that the goal was to push through the test on the day before North Korea's Korean Workers Party's Founding Day [whatever that is in English--SRK] and make a display of the power of the Kim Jong-il regime. "Our scientific research division has conducted underground nuclear experimentation safely and successfully," the report states. It also says, "In these experiments, which were conducted using scientific and meticulous calculations, it was confirmed that there was no danger at all from radiation leakage."

Pyongyang apparently sent word to Beijing less than a half-hour before the test was conducted. There's no substantive reaction from the government here yet.

The timing, especially, throws a wrench into the works because Prime Minister Abe met with PRC President Hu Jintao over the weekend:

During the meeting, Abe urged the Chinese leaders to cooperate with Japan to stop Pyongyang from carrying out the nuclear test. The Chinese side responded that Beijing would pressure Pyongyang to refrain from the test.

As to Pyongyang's nuclear test plan, Abe told Hu, "It is a serious threat to peace and security in the international community and Japan will never tolerate it."

This was Abe's first visit abroad as head of state; that he went to China and not the US is significant. That Japan-PRC relations may thaw, because Hu is willing to give Abe the benefit of the doubt about the Yasukuni Shrine, doubtless worries the DPRK because it needs to maintain its position by playing other parties off each other. It will be interesting to see Beijing's reaction to the announcement, which I haven't heard reported yet.

Prime Minister Abe is headed to China and Korea for state visits:

Just before taking off, Prime Minister Abe spoke to the press corps at Haneda Airport about the issue of Japan's acknowledgement of its history, stating emphatically, "We will act based on humble reflection on the past. I would like to make that the basis of my discussions [with the PRC and ROK] and look toward the future." On the Yasukuni Shrine issue, he stated, "I want to explain that most successive Prime Ministers paid their respects to those who died for their country and that we have made our pilgrimages in a spirit of seeking peace."

Well, since that's the way the issue's been "explained" to the rest of East Asia for years now, I'm not sure what's supposed to make it more persuasive this time--especially since it's now going to be coming a from a known nationalist and apologist for Japan's wartime conduct.

Of course, in that vein, Abe is already maneuvering himself into a public position of greater neutrality:

Abe was asked by Naoto Kan of opposition Minshuto (Democratic Party of Japan) his views on a statement issued by Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama on Aug. 15, 1995, marking the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, in which the government expressed remorse for its military actions during the conflict.

"I have no plans of creating a new statement that would rewrite what the 1995 statement said," Abe said. "That statement was approved by the then Cabinet so it still lives on with my Cabinet." Abe also said that he, as prime minister, and the Cabinet had inherited a 1993 statement issued by then Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono on the "comfort women" issue.

Not all his equivocations are politically advantageous:

In a typical Diet exchange Wednesday, Japanese Communist Party lawmaker Tadayoshi Ichida asked Abe about his thoughts on the view of history portrayed at Yasukuni Shrine. "Are you of the opinion that World War II was a war of justice seeking liberation of Asia, as has been argued by Yasukuni Shrine?" Ichida asked.

Abe responded, "While I do not know if Yasukuni Shrine holds to the position that you have just stated, politicians should be humble when talking about the pros and cons of specific views of history."

A stunned JCP leader Kazuo Shii said Abe's understanding of history issues was even more unfathomable than the views expressed by his predecessor, Junichiro Koizumi.

"(Abe) did not even say that the stance of his government was different from that of Yasukuni," Shii noted.

Of course, Abe doesn't have to worry much about making the Japan Communist Party happy; it's the PRC that's going to be difficult to mollify. Not that (back to the Nikkei piece) Japan is the only neighbor it's irritated with:

In connection with the DPRK's declaration that it will conduct nuclear experiments, [Abe] indicated that he "want[s] to speak frankly with the Chinese and Korean leaders about the situation. We have to send a message that if North Korea does not stop its nuclear experiments it will be isolated from the international community."

The Abe cabinet has its work cut out for it on military matters. As predicted, it's looking into thinking about Article 9 and how Japan needs to adapt to new realities, including the possibility of collective liberation self-defense missions:

The government's interpretation is that Japan has the right of collective self-defense, but cannot exercise it.

Shiozaki's remark indicated that the government intends to change the conventional interpretation of the right, though it will limit the number of cases in which the right of collective self-defense could be applied.

Shiozaki said: "The security situation in the world is changing, and Japan is urged to make efforts to make the Japan-U.S. alliance work properly. The prime minister's policy on the right of collective self-defense is to again discuss whether the conventional interpretation of the right by the Cabinet Legislation Bureau is appropriate in all cases.

New Komeito, the junior coalition partner of the Liberal Democratic Party, has agreed to studies concerning the right of collective self-defense, but has strongly opposed changing the interpretation to allow the government to exercise the collective self-defense right.

What's mildly alarming about this article is that it mentions interpretation rather than amendment of the constitution. I certainly hope that's not the direction the Abe government plans to pursue. (It wasn't before he was elected.) Interpreting the constitution to mean whatever the current government wants it to mean strikes me as an unwise precedent. I'd much rather see a straightforward amendment.

Japan and the US are presenting a united front in threatening economic sanctions if the DPRK resumes nuclear development:

Deputy Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs Shotaro Taniuchi, now visiting the United States, met with Undersecretary (for Political Affairs) of State Burns at the State Department on 4 October. The two agreed on an approach, in the case of stepped-up nuclear experiments by North Korea, that would involve responding with a proposal for the adoption of restraints through the United Nations Security Council based on Article 7 of the United Nations charter.

What they appear to be seeking is not full-on sanctions (as 制裁 is normally used to mean) but a warning--the usual approach of shoring up the North's ego by making it feel important enough to alarm the great powers in the hopes that it will be mollified into backing off.

BTW, the Asahi English site had this very interesting report about a tentative joint manufacturing project between the DPRK and ROK:

But one recent incident suggests that the fledgling capitalist project may have much more far-reaching repercussions for the totalitarian society than either side envisions.

It started when one of the South Korean firms that runs a factory at Kaesong asked its North Korean employees to work weekends. The workers' leader expressed his opposition, arguing that the employees needed weekends to rest.

But then the employees themselves spoke up and demanded to work weekends.

"Who on Earth will enable us to make money to live?" said one. "We want to work more."

Their leader continued to be reluctant to get the go-ahead from Pyongyang. But the workers wouldn't give up. If their leaders would not speak on their behalf, they would get permission from the government themselves.

The flare-up speaks volumes about the poverty in which North Koreans live. But it also shows the powerful lure of capitalism in a country whose ruling Workers' Party declares itself committed to fighting it tooth and nail.

Kaesong may be funneling money straight to the North Korean government, but there are hints that North Koreans will not want to relinquish what little capitalism they have been given now that they have been given a taste of purchasing power.

The US doesn't like the joint venture, which it alleges (not implausibly) is providing money for the DPRK's nuclear weapons program. It does seem to me, though, that the best chance of effecting change in the North Korean state is for enough of its citizens to see how much more prosperity even a modicum of economic liberalization can bring. Of course, it's necessarily providing money for the current regime; but you have to start somewhere.

I also liked this part:

A unique "incentive system" has also sprung up in Kaesong. The Pyongyang administration forbids wage hikes, arguing that low pay is the complex's competitive strength. So instead, employers use things like instant cup noodles, desserts, meat, fabric and small home appliances to keep their workers motivated.

That's unique? It sounds exactly like the methods American employers developed to get around high taxes by providing perquisites instead of pay. And in any case, isn't the money for the cup noodles and appliances coming from somewhere--and being reflected in the selling prices of the goods?

The ROK reports (via the Nikkei) that the DPRK may be preparing for another missile test in December:

South Korea's Yonhap News Service reported on 3 September that there is a possibility that North Korea will launch more missiles in continuation of its 5 July tests. The report is from informed sources in the ROK government, which say that US-Korean information agencies captured [images] of several large transport vehicles moving in the area of the missile base at Gitdaeryeong, Gangwon Province.

...

According to the same report, a different information agency official stated, "Since we cannot dismiss the possibility that North Korea will time a missile launch to coincide with talks between the US and the ROK, we are paying close attention to movements in regions of suspected missile bases and nuclear experiments.

Reuters also reports that the PRC has managed to dig deep and find a little more neighborly feeling than is its wont lately:

Yonhap also reported China is likely to invite North Korean leader Kim Jong-il to visit this week in an effort to restore their relationship strained after North Korea's missile tests in July.

China is the North's main benefactor. Beijing voted in support of a U.N. Security Council resolution chastising Pyongyang for the missile tests.

Beijing was expected to convey its formal invitation to Kim early this week when its new ambassador to Pyongyang takes office, Yonhap reported, citing unnamed diplomatic sources in Seoul and Beijing.

The US is still refusing to meet with the DPRK one-on-one, and the DPRK is still refusing to resume the 6-party talks until economic sanctions are lifted.

Also re. the DPRK missile tests, the Asahi offers this item:

At least 112 cases of assault, verbal abuse and harassing phone calls have targeted students at Korean schools nationwide in the week since North Korea test-fired seven missiles, officials said Friday.

The 112 cases were reported by 20 Korean schools as of Thursday, according to officials of the union of Korean school teachers. Several more incidents were reported Friday, they said.

There's no excuse for such behavior, obviously. Targeting children for their elders' perceived political beliefs is barbaric. Besides, there are many points of view represented among ethic Koreans here.

At the same time, I don't buy this response:

The Korean schools are among 71 run by the pro-Pyongyang General Association of Korean Residents in Japan (Chongryun).

...

"Our students and parents fear for their safety in this abnormal situation. The harassment is aimed at students across Japan, even elementary school students," said Ku Dae Sok, principal of the Tokyo Korean Middle and High School in Kita Ward and chairman of the teachers' union.

"We cannot help feeling angry at the situation, as Japanese people have been falsely directing their warped anti-North Korea feelings against (long-term) Korean residents here, especially students," Ku said.

He said the Japanese government had stirred public anger with its harsh reaction to the missile launches. He urged the public to consider the recent problems between the two countries separately from the presence of Koreans in Japan.

How's that again? By all means, let's expose and punish attacks on children. But Here's a very brief run-down on the Chongryun:

Its organizational structure includes the headquarters in Tokyo, prefectural and regional head offices and branches with eighteen mass propaganda bodies and twenty-three business enterprises. Nearly one-third of the Japanese pachinko [pinball] industry is controlled by Chosen affiliates or supporters. Chosen remittences in hard currencies to Pyongyang have been variously estimated at between $600 million and $1.9 billion each year, with the most likely value in the lower to middle of this range. In recent years the amount has substantially decreased. In 1994, Japanese police testified that some $600 million was being sent to North Korea, though this amount has recently declined to $100 million a year or less.

...

The Chosen Soren supports intelligence operations in Japan, assists in the infiltration of agents into South Korea, collects open source information, and diverts advanced technology for use by North Korea. North Korea uses several methods to acquire technology related to nuclear, biological, or chemical warfare and missiles. The Chosen Soren has among other activities an ongoing effort to acquire and export advanced technology to North Korea.

Note that this does not indicate that these schools are fronts for espionage or anything like that. Who knows? Perhaps some are, but that isn't my point. My point is that the Chongryun isn't just an ethnic organization; it's an ethnic organization that maintains close political and economic ties with the mother country. And the mother country happens to be testing missiles that could reach Japan. For anyone working for a Chongryun institution to call for people to consider Japan-DPRK conflicts "separately from the presence of Koreans in Japan" is ludicrous.

The UN Security Council resolution on the DPRK's missile tests went along predictable lines:

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously on Saturday for a resolution requiring nations to prevent North Korea from getting dangerous weapons and demanding Pyongyang halt its ballistic missile program.

North Korea immediately "totally rejected" the resolution. Its U.N. Ambassador Pak Gil Yon told the council that Pyongyang's missile development served "to keep the balance of force and preserving peace and stability in Northeast Asia."

...

Agreement came after Japan and the United States bowed to a veto threat from China and dropped a reference to a provision in the U.N. Charter, usually used to impose mandatory sanctions. In turn, China and Russia accepted stronger language in the resolution than they had first proposed.

The resolution requires all U.N. member states "in accordance with their national legal authorities" to prevent imports and exports of any material or funds relating to the reclusive Communist nation's missile programs or weapons of mass destruction.

It demands North Korea "suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program," and re-establish a moratorium on the launching of missiles.

The Nikkei report additionally mentions that North Korea has accused Japan of using the missile test issue as a point of departure for "internationalizing" the abductee issue.

Internally here in Japan, the spin is that the resolution was a good thing for Japan:

Early on 16 July, Minister of Foreign Affairs Taro Aso spoke to the Foreign Ministry press corps about the unanimous adoption of a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning the DPRK: "North Korea must see this as a decisive message from the international community. There is no change to the binding power [of the resolution]."

He's referring to the compromise on Chapter 7 of the UN charter, the result of which was to water down commitments to sanctions against the DPRK. "There is more power in a unanimous vote" than in allowing Japan's proposed tougher resolution to fail, said Aso.

On the morning of 16 July, Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe also made a public statement: "This nation sought 'a resolution powerful enough to bind [member nations] to responses including sanctions,' and [the version adopted] reflects that position; we were able to articulate the decisive will of the international community." He also called for action on the abductee issue: "All surviving abductees should be repatriated immediately."

So that's that for now. Fingers have been duly wagged at Pyongyang, but the PRC and Russia haven't committed even nominally to sticking it to the DPRK. And, as usual, for all the blather about the unified front presented by the international community, the real lesson for the five countries in Northeast Asia is quite the opposite. Each has been pointedly reminded yet again why it doesn't trust any of the others--both in terms of motivation and in terms of the ability to assess danger accurately. At least no one appears poised to blow anyone else up in the foreseeable future, so, you know, well played overall.

The UN Security Council resolution on the DPRK's missile tests went along predictable lines:

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously on Saturday for a resolution requiring nations to prevent North Korea from getting dangerous weapons and demanding Pyongyang halt its ballistic missile program.

North Korea immediately "totally rejected" the resolution. Its U.N. Ambassador Pak Gil Yon told the council that Pyongyang's missile development served "to keep the balance of force and preserving peace and stability in Northeast Asia."

...

Agreement came after Japan and the United States bowed to a veto threat from China and dropped a reference to a provision in the U.N. Charter, usually used to impose mandatory sanctions. In turn, China and Russia accepted stronger language in the resolution than they had first proposed.

The resolution requires all U.N. member states "in accordance with their national legal authorities" to prevent imports and exports of any material or funds relating to the reclusive Communist nation's missile programs or weapons of mass destruction.

It demands North Korea "suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program," and re-establish a moratorium on the launching of missiles.

The Nikkei report additionally mentions that North Korea has accused Japan of using the missile test issue as a point of departure for "internationalizing" the abductee issue.

Internally here in Japan, the spin is that the resolution was a good thing for Japan:

Early on 16 July, Minister of Foreign Affairs Taro Aso spoke to the Foreign Ministry press corps about the unanimous adoption of a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning the DPRK: "North Korea must see this as a decisive message from the international community. There is no change to the binding power [of the resolution]."

He's referring to the compromise on Chapter 7 of the UN charter, the result of which was to water down commitments to sanctions against the DPRK. "There is more power in a unanimous vote" than in allowing Japan's proposed tougher resolution to fail, said Aso.

On the morning of 16 July, Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe also made a public statement: "This nation sought 'a resolution powerful enough to bind [member nations] to responses including sanctions,' and [the version adopted] reflects that position; we were able to articulate the decisive will of the international community." He also called for action on the abductee issue: "All surviving abductees should be repatriated immediately."

So that's that for now. Fingers have been duly wagged at Pyongyang, but the PRC and Russia haven't committed even nominally to sticking it to the DPRK. And, as usual, for all the blather about the unified front presented by the international community, the real lesson for the five countries in Northeast Asia is quite the opposite. Each has been pointedly reminded yet again why it doesn't trust any of the others--both in terms of motivation and in terms of the ability to assess danger accurately. At least no one appears poised to blow anyone else up in the foreseeable future, so, you know, well played overall.

So is everyone else on the edge of his seat like us in Japan...you know, waiting to see whether the chair of the UN Security Council will set the DPRK on its ear by deeming its missile tests "not all that neighborly" or "very naughty"? In between errands, I've been watching NHK's reporting. Today we were very pointedly informed the cool and not-so-cool people are (as in this Yomiuri article):

Japan, Britain, France and the United States on Friday jointly submitted to an informal U.N. Security Council meeting a resolution condemning North Korea's missile launches.

Clauses referring to sanctions in an original draft crafted by Japan had been modified.

...

"All options are on the table," he said, suggesting China has not ruled out the possibility of vetoing the resolution.

...

According to sources, Russia, which has called for the issuance of a U.N. Security Council presidential statement, did not speak out during the meeting. Some U.N. diplomats have interpreted this silence as an indication it will abstain from voting.

China and Russia can veto the resolution, abstain from voting, or demand that it be modified.

I didn't catch all the numbers, but NHK also reported the results of its latest poll. Unfortunately, the interesting parts don't seem to be posted: IIRC, 69% of respondents thought Japan should pursue economic sanctions against the DPRK. (Remember that the Japanese are thinking not only about missile testing but also about the still-unresolved issue of the Japanese abductees.) A plurality, if not a majority, believed that Japan's best avenue for pushing its North Korea policy was the UNSC; somewhat fewer thought it was the G7.

The Koizumi administration appears to have other ideas:

Defense Agency chief Fukushiro Nukaga said the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) should have the capability to attack foreign countries' missile bases following North Korea's test-launch last week of seven missiles.

"As an independent state, Japan should have the minimum capability (to attack foreign countries' missile bases) within the framework of the Constitution to protect its people," Nukaga told reporters on Sunday.

"We shouldn't jump to conclusions even though such a situation (the test firing of missiles) occurred. I'd like the ruling coalition partners to thoroughly discuss the issue," Nukaga said.

He made the remarks in response to North Korea's test-firing of seven missiles, including Taepodong 2 long-range ballistic missiles, last week.

His view was shared by Foreign Minister Taro Aso. "It's absolutely right (to attack missile bases within the framework of Japan's right to self-defense) to protect the safety of the people," he told an NHK program on Sunday.

The original Japanese story has Nukaga continuing: "As things are now, we have the Japan-US alliance, and we've been sharing [defense] roles. Strikes against enemy territory would be carried out by the US."

Instapundit's newest podcast, featured Austin Bay and Jim Dunnigan and was mostly about the North Korea situation. It provides a good primer on the diplomatic power plays involved. If you live in East Asia, it's also a good reminder that a lot about your everyday reality is news to people elsewhere (for example, the commonalities between Great Britain and Japan that are based on their both being island countries).

There was one moment that made me say, "WHAT?!" Jim Dunnigan said something on the order of "I've asked South Koreans I know whether being prickly and taking offense easily is a Korean characteristic, and they said, 'Not really,'" which he appeared to take at face value.

Please. The Koreans are in fact notoriously touchy about their position in East Asia...and do you wonder? Like Poland (just to spread the comparisons to Europe around), Korea has spent much of its history being overrun by its larger, hungrier neighbors. And look what's happened in the last half-century: Japan went from the humiliated pariah of the industrialized world to an economic titan that, for a decade or so, had academics and managers from the West looking to it reverently for secrets of success. China and Japan have had a massive tastemaking influence on global popular culture. Korea's coolness factor in Asia has increased noticeably over the last several years, and the ROK's economic growth since democratization has won much admiration from business analysts; still, nternational consciousness about Korea remains relatively low. I doubt many people sit around in Seoul seething about this in any focused way, but the feeling that Korea is misunderstood and put-upon is hard to miss.

Of course, the North has the additional problem of a non-functioning economy. It's hemorrhaging refugees. Have I mentioned the word 脱北 (dappoku: "escape to the north") lately? Oh, yeah--I haven't mentioned anything lately because I haven't posted. Well, it's a compound that, whatever its origins and at least in Japan, is used exclusively to refer to defecting from the DPRK over its border with the PRC. That is, the phenomenon has its own word. Jim Dunnigan, I think, mentioned that word about what a hellhole North Korea is has arrived in the South. It's arrived in Japan, also, largely through Japanese nationals who've returned from the DPRK. All of which is to say, the DPRK knows that, aside from the occasional puff piece by gullible lefty sympathizers from the West, how bad things have gotten there is no longer a secret.

One last stray thing: The NHK report I watched last night struck me as odd for some reason I couldn't put my finger on. Then, while a later segment about the opening of a border checkpoint between India and the PRC--you can bet the Japanese are watching how trade relations are going to develop between those two!--it hit me. The experts interviewed had all talked about how Japan's options for responding to the missile tests would be limited by whether the US was willing to back it up. What was strange was that they seemed to be regarding the tests as a regional problem, as if the US had no reason to get involved except to do right by its primary East Asian ally. Of course, that's part of it. We've known since 1998 that the DPRK can get missiles to Japan. (That was a fun day to watch NHK, too, IIRC.) But North Korea not only likes to get antsy about perceived US threats to its sovereignty and develop ICBMs but also likes to drag big-guns backers such as the PRC and Russia into things. The Koizumi administration appears to understand the import of that; it was strange that the commentators didn't.