The White Peril 白禍

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.