Comment by Mary Sayre

October 20, 2006 @ 12:27 pm

You are better every week and I look forward to each broadcast.

Comment by John Sheridan

October 20, 2006 @ 2:28 pm

Thanks for the show guys.

What is interesting is that here in the US, the US/Japan alliance has been played up, with Rice\’s visit to Japan as a sign of our mutual defense committment to the region. But there is nothing concerning this visit to Yasukuni and how some of the Japanese politicians might be undermining that alliance. Do you think the US might have more leverage with Japan now? Might they be able to say something like, if you do not stop antagonizing your neighbors, it makes it a lot harder for us to get your back?

Comment by Ken Worsley

October 20, 2006 @ 7:45 pm

Hey John…that’s a great question. It seems to get into that gaiatsu, or external pressure that’s placed upon Japan.

I’m not sure how many politicians thought of it in those terms, given that Shiozaki said that they ‘followed their feelings’ by making the visit. Note that he didn’t say, ‘followed logic,’ or ‘followed along the lines of what’s best for foreign policy and/or regional politics at the moment.’

Many of those politicians would probably rather see Japan be without the US backing them up anyway. That said, I don’t know if it constitutes a motivation to go to Yasukuni.

I don’t know how savvy US lawmakers are on the issue, aside from the few who have spoken out on it. It kept Koizumi from making a joint address to Congress, but that was glossed over. But, it certainly would not make the US happy to be dragged into a regional conflict that was inflamed even in part by Japan’s antagonizing its neighbors by visits to a shrine that venerates war criminals.

Comment by Steve Schapiro

October 20, 2006 @ 10:24 pm

Sounds like those lawmakers might be following their feelings right into isolationism if they’re not careful. Might be time they should follow them out from under the US nuclear umbrella, too. They’re lucky the US doesn’t put more external pressure on them. If we’re responsible for their defense, we have a big say in their foreign policy. It’s simple. If they don’t like it, they can take care of themselves.

Comment by Ken Worsley

October 21, 2006 @ 12:46 am

Steve,

Thanks for your comment. I think you’ve come to TPR with your feelings much in the way that the lawmakers visited Yasukuni with theirs.

The thing is, Japan could take care of themselves. They have a well-funded military with leading-edge technology. They can easily purchase the defense mechanisms they need to supplement that from the United States, who is eager to sell defense solutions to allies.

The thing is, Steve, Japan is a strategic place for the US to be. The domino theory may no longer hold true, but the US feels the need to check Chinese military power and ensure that no war devastates the Northeast Asia region. Japan is also an essentail intelligence, refueling and training point for the US Military. The Marines in Gotemba, Shizuoka have the perfect spot for howitzer target practice. And in Okinawa then can practice beach landings. The Navy, forward deployed at Yokosuka, is able to keep watch on China, North Korea and parts of Russia without expending the massive fuel costs it would incur from doing do from Deigo Garcia or Australia.

But ultimately, whether or not the Japanese are grateful for being defended by the US is not relevant. Their politicians are free to do as they please - that’s called democracy, and as an American I’m sure you know a thing or two about how that works.

But the Japanese hold an ace up their sleeve - about $800 billion in foreign reserves. What would happen if they sold it off? They can’t do it all at once, but even a gradual selloff would devastate the dollar, cause interest rates in America (with all the home loans used as equity) to soar, and eventually, quite possibly, bring down the US government.

Given that, doth the US Government dare protest too much over Yasukuni visits? Surely, America does not want to go to war on Japan’s behalf if the cause is Japanese politicans visiting a shrine that venerates war criminals; yet, Japan is the main ally in the region, a huge trade partner and a massive customer of defense solutions. Few congresspeople will make an issue of Yasukuni, because, as we all know:

It’s the economy, stupid.

Comment by John Sheridan

October 21, 2006 @ 1:17 am

Steve, I see where you’re coming from. I wonder if these lawmakers appreciate what Condolezza Rice is talking about. Then again, I don’t really get the reasons why they visit Yasukuni - it’s a mystery to me - I guess it’s like an Arlington Cemetary. In that case, I can see the emotional pull, and maybe how it helps them interms of seeming ‘real’ to voters. They’d not be patriotic not to go.

So, if this one shrine is such an issue, can’t the war criminals be taken out? They can’t make the nation proud. Can’t another shrine be built for those who served the country?

Comment by DeOrio

October 21, 2006 @ 3:34 am

John, I don’t think they’d get much guff from the public for not visiting Yasukuni. It’s not really like Arlington - Japan is nowhere near as militaristic as the US and politics is less based on public personalities than on positions within the power structure. I see where you’re going with that, though, and there is an important group who’d take that view - militant ultranationalists. The right wingers with black vans and anti-Chinese comic books.
While widely viewed as the wack-jobs that they are, those guys apparently have some pull within the government.
As for the Shrine itself, no, the war criminals cannot be taken out per se. Only the High Priest can make that decision and he, predictably, says no way.
Once a kami is in a shrine, it is a part of the shrine. Some priests take the view that there is really no such thing as de-enshrinement.
There is, though, precedent, albeit in a different era and a very different political, religious, and social climate, for the removal of kami from a shrine and some Diet members have called for the construction of a secular memorial.
Listen to Seijigiri #3 and #4 for much more in-depth info on the Yasukuni controversy.

Comment by ken

October 21, 2006 @ 10:40 am

Garrett, I think there would be some guff, from those guys you mentioned. Domestic pressure on Abe to visit Yasukuni will be strong. I think folks like Ozawa are just rubbing their hands in anticipation.

Comment by DeOrio

October 21, 2006 @ 11:22 pm

Absolutely. It’s a tough road for our man Abe. The right wingers will definitely be throwing guff at him like guff grows on trees if he doesn’t go. To be frank, I think his choices are either keep his nice suits guff-free by going or actually do something to repair the country’s international relations by being willing to take a guff-shot right on the kisser. Not an appealing choice, but such is the job.
Ozawa will be stockpiling guff and tuning up his guff-slinger either way. Again, such is the job.

Comment by DeOrio

October 21, 2006 @ 11:24 pm

And, by the way, thank you very much and very sincerely, Mary, for being one of our biggest fans, earliest supporters, and most consistent commenters. Your encouragement really does mean a lot to us. We’re planning some new things for the relatively near future, we hope you enjoy them.

Comment by John Sheridan

October 22, 2006 @ 12:13 am

Wouldn’t it make sense then, from Abe’s point of view, to avoid catching any ‘guff’ from home? I mean, it seems like this patriotic education is a big part of his plan, so letting someone call him ‘unpatriotic’ because he didn’t go to Yasukuni might get him out of office sooner than if he went and caught ‘guff’ from the neighbors.

Comment by Ken

October 22, 2006 @ 10:14 pm

I don’t know John - it’s starting to feel like we worry about this more than Abe does, though that’s probably not true.

You’re right though, he’s put a lot on the line with his calls for more ‘patriotic’ education, and he’s going to have to live up to that. This gives the DPJ two possible lines of attack:

1. Abe doesn’t go to Yasukuni. The DPJ plays this by saying, “Look at this guy who wants our kids to be more patriotic, but can’t do it himself.”

2. Abe goes to Yasukuni. The Chinese and South Koreans say, “We can’t work with this guy, he’s another nationalistic right-winger. We’ll go our own way on regional politics.” Then the DPJ can say, “This guy’s just isolating the neighbors further. See? He did what Koizumi did and couldn’t repair the damage Koizumi caused.”

I’d opt for the second - it would be harder for the DPJ to play the first anyway.

Comment by Mary Sayre

November 1, 2006 @ 2:46 pm

I am really interested in the comments and this should be encouraging to you that you have such listeners. Can’t wait for your next broadcast!

Comment by DeOrio

November 1, 2006 @ 2:56 pm

Thanks, Mary. We are encouraged by loyal listeners and commenters such as yourself more than anything.