To view articles in English only, click HERE. 日本語投稿のみを表示するにはここをクリック。点击此处观看中文稿件한국어 투고 Follow Twitter ツイッターは@PeacePhilosophy and Facebook ★投稿内に断り書きがない限り、当サイトの記事の転載は許可が必要です。このブログの右サイドバーにある Contact Us フォームで連絡ください。Re-posting from this blog requires permission unless otherwise specified. Please use the Contact Us form in the right side-bar to contact us.

Monday, March 15, 2010

NHK Debate Program "Nippon no Korekara" on Japan-US Alliance NHK番組「日本の、これから」日米同盟特集

NHK broadcast a special debate program "Let Us Think Now About the US-Japan Alliance," from 10:00 - 11:30 PM on Friday, March 12, as the latest of the series "Nippon no Korekara"(Future of Japan). Six "yu-shikisha," or "experts" and about thirty citizens from all walks of life are loosely divided into the "left" and "right" sides - those who would generally agree on reducing military emphasis on the Japan-US relationship and those who would support status quo or more military alliance. Kimberley Hughes, author and translator, and one of our fellow Okinawa supporters, was among the citizen representatives on the "left" side (photo: Kim, second left of the upper panel). The experienced NHK anchor Tamio Miyake looks like he is conducting an orchestra in the photo, and indeed that was what he was doing - to navigate through the bursting opinions and emotions from the both sides.

I wanted to share the exchange of emails when Kim shared her reflection with me and a number of other Okinawa supporters:



  • Kim: Hello all,
    I just wanted to send many warm thanks to each one of you for your support prior to my participation in NHK's Nihon no korekara program on Friday night.

    It was a very challenging experience because of the nature of the program (so many discussants and the ambiguous nature of the questions thrown at us, plus the cameras
    deliberately focused the majority of the time on the six "experts"). But I am still glad I did it!

    As some of you have seen, I managed to make one comment about my disappointment in the Japan-U.S. alliance being based upon militarism, due to the ways that this destroys the
    humanity of everyone involved, whether aggressor or victim.

    I would have also *loved* to point out Michael Green's hypocrisy in continually touting the U.S. as the grand purveyor of democracy while ignoring the democratic process in Okinawa on the Futenma issue...but by the time I was relaxed enough to speak, the hot debate had begun and we were all literally screaming over each other to get a word in. Rather exciting, but still frustrating!

    And I don't have adequate words to express my thoughts re. Yoshiko Sakurai. First of all: what decade is she living in, I wonder?! Given both her professed nostalgia for Ronald Reagan era politics and her quaffed hairdo, I felt like I was time traveling back to the mid-1980s! Very weird. I also was not impressed by the way she shushed the Okinawans who were trying to express their anger over treatment by the U.S. and Japanese government. Some of my friends pointed out that this was likely a deliberate strategy of NHK to try and make the U.S. position appear the most rational, by deliberately choosing screamers who would discredit their cause in the eyes of the Japanese viewing public. (One of them actually said something to the effect of "I wish I could chop Bush into pieces")!

    At any rate, if I were an actual public speaker instead of a writer, I could have been much more effective...but it was still an interesting experience nonetheless.

    Many thanks to you all again! (And an extra thanks to Martin for filming the clip of my comment!)

    Warm wishes,
    Kim

  • My response: Dear Kim,

    I just watched it on TV Japan.

    Thank you so much for being the only one in the whole program who questioned the assumed nature of the military alliance itself. Former Defense University prof Magosaki said something meaningful in that regard, but you made that point very clear, thank you!

    Sakurai Yoshiko and Kang Sun Joong represented the most powerful speakers from the right and left side, respectively, of today's Japan. They must be tired of seeing each other in such occasions but I felt there was some kind of strange rhythm and trust between them. Thank Heavens Kang was there ... the only person perhaps Sakurai respected in the left team and was ready to give in to from time to time. Sakurai can be a lot more wicked and aggressive.

    Kang Sun Joong and Waseda's Ueki Chikako rightly stressed on the importance of departing from the Cold War thinking and diversifying the alliance to other forms than just military to deal with today's global challenges, many of which cannot be solved by forces, and Magosaki appropriately pointed out that the changed nature of the alliance from one for the security of Japan/Far East to one for the US's global hegemony makes the advantage of the alliance seriously questionable. Unfortunately these rational and current voices did not reach the minds of the three Cold-War team - Sakurai, Green and Tanaka. Tanaka Hitoshi, former top Foreign Ministry official shamelessly stated that Japan's cooperation with the Iraq War was inevitable because Japan could not afford to damage its relationship with the US in light of the threat of North Korea.

    What was most shocking was the complete lack of discussion of any sort on Okinawa - nothing on the Futenma issue. Kang did talk about the unfair burden of Okinawans, and a few Okinawans did talk about their experiences and feelings. Sakurai and Tanaka did talk about the usual "futan keigen," or easing of burdens, but went on to other topics as if mentioning that term was a ritual that the status quo supporters just had to go through once to purify themselves of the guilt. In the end, there was no discussion of how that "easing" could be achieved. It was all about the culture of "atamagoshi" (discussion and decisions over the heads of Okinawans) again. There should have been at least one expert from Okinawa on the left side, like Yoshida Kensei, Doug Lummis, Miyagi Yasuhiro, Gabe Masaaki or Sato Manabu. There would have been so many choices and it is unfair that NHK didn't invite one.

    To the simultaneous survey of the viewers on the question whether we should "deepen" the alliance or not, 65% answered yes, and 35% no. This question was ambiguous. Without defining the nature of alliance and without discussing what it meant by "deepening," the question is like one that asks whether we should change the Constitution or not. It was meaningless without discussion of specifics. To the question of whether the alliances was advantageous or disadvantageous, 75% of the viewer respondents answered "advantageous" and 25% "disadvantageous." Kang appropriately pointed out the answer would depend on where you live; if one lives in Okianwa, it would certainly be disadvantageous. Any advantage would lie on the sacrifice of Okinawans. But again, it was not discussed any further.

    To complement the lack of Okinawan voices in the program, I will quote from the feedback by Yoshida Kensei, former Obirin U. professor and author Medoruma Shun.

  • Yoshida Kensei (abbreviated translation)
    (in his email to me and his email to NHK)
    "The program started with a statement "the Japan-US Alliance, which have facilitated Japan's security and prosperity for the last fifty years." This program was supposed to reexamine the Japan-US alliance, but the NHK started with a bald affirmation of the military alliance. What was most outrageous was Sakurai Yoshiko's view of China's threat. She stressed on the military build-up of China but totally disregarded the US threat against China, including its nuclear build-up and the presence of US military bases surrounding China. She did not mention the US sale of weapons to Taiwan either. There was no discussion on how reduction of the burdens of Okinawans could be achieved."

  • Medoruma Shun (abbreviated translation)
    http://blog.goo.ne.jp/awamori777/e/08425113c4bae4bd08c5dd29601b4eaf
    "Someone in the program was suggesting a national referendum on Japan-US Security Treaty should be held. That suggestion made me wonder whether he was ready to accept a US military base in his own backyard. Even if we have such a referendum, it is obvious that most people will vote with the assumption that they will "benefiit" from the alliance by imposing the base burden on Okinawa, and other places like Sasebo, Yokosuka, Iwakuni, Atsugi, Yokota, and Misawa. Some people mentioned "easing of Okinawa's burden," but that phrase itself assumes that the burden had to be born by Okinawa. The program did not discuss at all what can be done to reduce the burden of Okinawa or to deal with the current Futenma problem. I suspect there was a prior agreement with NHK and the participants not to go deep into these issues. How can we talk about the Japan-US alliance without talking at all about the biggest problem we are facing right now? Yamato Japanese first need to face squarely their own discrimination and violence against Okinawans, and the political delusions that led to the concentration of base burdens in Okinawa."

  • Kim's additional comment on my response:
    I think that the glossing over the Okinawa issue may have been deliberate...perhaps because the perspective represented by Green, Sakurai et. al does not really have a solid leg to stand on--which would have been made all too clear had an Okinawa expert been included on the panel. Again, it really felt like the whole thing was deliberately constructed by NHK in order to make the position of the U.S. government appear to be the only viable and trustworthy one. Disturbing indeed.

Many thanks to Kim Hughes, who made a precious contribution to the debate.

I would welcome feedback and comments.

PeacePhilosopher

2 comments:

  1. I watched the last half of the program. My first question was what they mean by “deepening” of US-Japan relationships. It is vague, but it is more distressing to me that the majority of Japanese agree to it. In view of the US involvement in many, many wars and their covert actions against many foreign (democratically elected) governments, the US is the most problematic country in the whole world as far as bringing peace on earth is concerned. The US is also the source of many other problems including the current economic crisis. It is good for Japan and other countries to critically evaluate the US rolls in the current world affairs, rather than to “deepen” blindly their relationships with the US.
    (Eiichiro Ochiai, VSA9)

    ReplyDelete
  2. 日米同盟の「同盟」という言葉をまず見直す必要があります。「同盟」とは敵国
    なり仮想敵国なりを前提としてつながる排他的な言葉です。それもあってほとん
    どは軍事同盟の意味を持って使われます。まず日米軍事同盟を前提とする議論を
    やめ、それこそ「ゼロベース」で日米関係を考え直すべきです。「同盟」という
    言葉は「協力」「強調」という言葉に変えていくべきです。

    今世界を取り巻く問題ー気候変動、代替エネルギー、エイズ、マラリア、貧困、
    国同士の貧富の差、国の中での格差、等、軍事力で解決できない問題ばかりです。
    「テロとの戦い」はどうかと聞かれますが世界一の軍事大国が軍事力でもって1
    0年試みて達成できなかった目的を日本がこれ以上軍事協力でどうしようと言う
    のですか。イラク撤退、アフガンもいずれは撤退という目標を掲げている米国を
    助けるのなら、日本は非軍事の形でアフガンやイラクの復興を援助しより米国が
    撤退しやすくなるように助けてあげるのが筋ではないですか。

    普天間の問題が日米同盟に悪影響を及ぼすとか騒いでいる人たちがいますが、健
    全な日米関係を築くためには、沖縄の民主主義を無視して基地を押し付けている
    状態を維持したり、ましてやこれ以上の基地を作っていくことなどは二国の関係
    に致命的な悪影響をもたらします。民主主義を標榜する二国がどうして圧倒的に
    基地反対の声が多い沖縄の民主主義を無視して基地を押し付けるのでしょうか?

    北朝鮮や中国、台湾の危機への「抑止力」を唱える人がいますが、日本に海兵隊
    がいることで何の抑止力になるのでしょうか。海兵隊はミサイルや核攻撃に対抗
    する勢力ではありませんし、特定の地域を「守る」ための部隊ではありません。
    海兵隊基地は敵国に攻め入るための前線基地であり、普段も前線や訓練に出てい
    て大半は基地にいないことも多いようです。百歩譲って横須賀の海軍や嘉手納の
    空軍に存在意義があるということにしても、海兵隊に存在意義はありません。そ
    れを新基地を作りたいがために「抑止力が落ちる」とか「日米同盟が危うい」
    「北朝鮮は」とかいってよく知らない市民の恐怖を煽りだましている勢力は許せ
    ません。沖縄人はよく知っています。知っているから反対するのです。日本人全
    体が沖縄人たちのように賢くなれば米軍基地を減らしていく方向に必ず行くはず
    です。減らすどころか現状維持や増やしていくという選択肢はあり得ません。

    ReplyDelete