Comment by DeOrio

December 18, 2006 @ 2:17 am

You’ve got to hand it the KFR - they’re good at throwing a wrench in the gears. It’s only a matter of time before other Six-Party members obliquely point out the distracting nature of the abduction issue, or at least that it has little to do with the purpose of the talks.

I’m all for trying to get any abductee who’s alive back home, but it is more than a little hard to grasp the kantei’s apparent willingness to blow yet another opportunity to at least get to the issues with North Korea over what is basically a rescue option for a couple of people who may not even be alive and may not have been abducted to North Korea.

Comment by Ken

December 18, 2006 @ 3:11 am

Yeah, at some point they’re going to have to say, “Let’s stay focused.” The funny things is the the DPRK might have unintentionally brought that day sooner.

I meant to tell you I had a bone to pick over a comment in Seijigiri 13 regarding the abduction issue and its immediacy versus the sex slave issue.

Pingback by Japan Probe -Japan News & Culture Blog » Blog Archive » Japan News for December 18, 2006

December 18, 2006 @ 6:56 am

[…] -Predictions on the eve of the Six Party Talks: More talk about abductions and Japan’s ‘right wing agenda’ from Trans-Pacific Radio. […]

Comment by DeOrio

December 18, 2006 @ 10:57 am

Pick away. As I recall, I said the abduction issue is more immediate because the Japanese government is concerned about an ongoing situation.
I still think that the Japanese government has grounds to and should keep working on the issue, I don’t really think the SIx-Party talks are the place for it, though, which is why I think it behooves Japan to try to talk to the North Koreans a lot more.

Comment by Darin

December 18, 2006 @ 11:20 am

Why is Japan so fixated on using the Six Party Talks as a vehicle for discussing the abduction issue? That’s where the right wing comes into play:

It’s a sad state of affairs if solving the abduction matters is now a ‘right wing issue’. However as Kenichiro Sasae puts it, “pretty much the only countries that care about human rights issues [in the world(?)] such as kidnapping are America and Japan.” If believing kidnapping thousands of people around the world and using them to train spies is a wrong thing means you’re ‘right wing’, then I guess I’m right wing all the way.

Comment by DeOrio

December 18, 2006 @ 12:11 pm

Darin, I’ll let Ken answer for himself, but I don’t think worrying about kidnapping is what makes those pushing the abduction issue right wing, it’s pushing the issue of the potential abduction of a couple of people who might be alive to the exclusion of other issues. It’s showing up to a meeting with North Korea, which was difficult to get set up, to talk about nuclear disarmament and derailing those talks to harp on the abduction issue.

Thousands of people? Could be, but it’s 17 for Japan and, with very few momentary exceptions, the government of Japan talks about abducted Japanese, particularly the couple they believe to be there and alive.
While abductions are a clear human rights violation that need to be addressed and are among things for which the DPRK needs to be called on the carpet, they’re going to have to be added to a lengthy list. The main goal now should be averting future human rights violations or war (it’s own kind of human rights violation), not scoring points with right wingers at home. Pushing the abduction issue is a right wing thing because it is rather clearly done to keep that segment of domestic opinion happy.
I think there really ought to be more mention in the Japanese press that what Japan is doing is showing up to nuclear talks and trying to change the subject, which is why North Korea has turned its venom on them.

In short, there’s a time and a place for everything and, considering all of the problems Japan and the DPRK have, the Six-Party talks are neither the time nor the place for dogged persistence on the abduction front.

Comment by Ken

December 18, 2006 @ 12:46 pm

Garrett: The last thing I want to do is get into one of those ‘numbers’ fights, but of the 17, 5 are already resolved. There are 12 people currently unaccounted for.

Darin (and Garrett): Yes, solving the abduction matters is a ‘right wing issue.’ However, it’s not by any means only a right wing issue. I’m sure there are communists as well who would like to see the problem worked out.

It’s the right wing, however, who is keeping these issues on the table at the six party talks. As Onishi points out in his article: “The highly emotional issue has contributed to silencing more moderate voices who expose themselves to physical harm or verbal threats from the right wing.”

Or, I would add, ostracism in general. It just doesn’t look good to come out and say, “Let’s re-prioritize.”

Solving the abduction issue must be done. Japan should and must put its full energy and resources into doing so. It owes it to the victims and their families, who were let down by the fact that Japan cannot defend her own shores. The Japanese government then kept quiet on the issue for many years, not wanting to anger North Korea. For these reasons, the government owes the families some form of redress.

However, the Six Party Talks are not the appropriate forum for this discussion. It is a distraction from the issue at hand: nuclear proliferation.

I think it’s significant that Mr and Mr Yokota went to see George Bush. They know, but are unable to say out loud, that their own government, for all it likes to play the issue up for political gain, is unable to help them.

Then again, maybe when Bush finds Bin Laden, the abductees will turn up.

Comment by Darin

December 18, 2006 @ 8:12 pm

I think it’s significant that Mr and Mr Yokota went to see George Bush. They know, but are unable to say out loud, that their own government, for all it likes to play the issue up for political gain, is unable to help them.

Yes, because North Korea knows that since Japan has a limited military that it truly can get away with anything and there is nothing Japan can do about it. Which is exactly why the 6-party talks are the best and only place to bring the issue up. Without the support of the US and the other nations involved, KJI and the North Korean government can be like Black Bush to the UN: “… you should sanction me with your army. Oh, wait a minute. You don’t have an army! Well I guess that means you need to shut the *&^% up.” Now I’m not saying that we should invade, I’m saying that without the threat of invasion, KJI will not work in a productive matter. Japan is not threatening.

But frankly, that is for the best. No one country should be able to dictate another, and all issues should be resolved in talks that involve many parties. Not allowing Japan to use the talks to resolve the issue is giving Japan two options, shut up and deal, or attack yourself. Neither option is legitimate. 2-way talks are negotiation with terrorists, essentially blackmail, and North Korea doesn’t want to talk directly to Japan anyway (because she knows Japan can’t do anything about it). The decision to attack should never be made so easily either.

It owes it to the victims and their families, who were let down by the fact that Japan cannot defend her own shores.

You don’t mean to say that Japan is at fault here? Let’s not forget that the one that did the kidnapping was North Korea, North Korea is the criminal here. Furthermore, Japan is not legally allowed to defend her own shores. Today Japan wants the ability to defend herself because she’s learnt that the international community doesn’t give a crap about Japan (ie other members of the 6-party talks and you yourself saying that Japan can’t talk about the abduction issue at the 6-party talks), however notice the people that don’t want Japan to be able to defend herself are the same ones that pose the biggest threat.

As for the number of those abducted, the number is estimated at around 1,000+ depending on how you count. While Japan estimates between 10-20, South Korea believes about 500 of it’s citizens have been kidnapped plus about the same number from other nations around the world. If you count the estimated 40,000 plus South Korean citizens taken to the North during the Korean war, the number gets much larger. Again, this is why “Japan and America are the only countries [in the world (?)] that care about human rights issues such as kidnapping.” South Korea should be more upset than anyone about what North Korea is doing, yet instead they’re holding hands with the North and telling Japan not to talk about the issue.

Also keep in mind that Onishi is hardly a respectable journalist, even though a respectable news agency hired him.

Comment by Darin

December 18, 2006 @ 8:27 pm

I just wrote a really long response hit submit, and then it disappeared..

Basically, yes, the Japanese government \”for all it likes to play the issue up for political gain, is unable to help [the families of the abducties]\” because North Korea knows that Japan doesn\’t pose a threat. Without the support of the US and other members involved, North Korea can just continue to tell Japan to buzz off and there isn\’t anything Japan can do about it. That is why the 6-party talks not only the best but the only way to deal with the kidnapping issue. Although North Korea doesn\’t want to talk 2-way with Japan now, even if it did that would be nothing more then blackmail anyways.

Solving the abduction issue must be done. Japan should and must put its full energy and resources into doing so. It owes it to the victims and their families, who were let down by the fact that Japan cannot defend her own shores. The Japanese government then kept quiet on the issue for many years, not wanting to anger North Korea. For these reasons, the government owes the families some form of redress.

Let\’s not forget that the one doing the kidnapping is North Korea, not Japan. Would you tell a women walking down the street who got mugged and rapped it\’s her fault? No of course not. Now, the reality of the matter is, Japan is surrounded by idiots, and there is a need to defend herself and she is not doing so. But guess what is preventing her from doing so, the rapist himself is screaming bloody murder demanding the prohibition of pepper spray so he can continue to rape women and children freely as he pleases. That\’s why it seems more then ironic when North Korea and China complain about Japanese nationalism and militarism, when they are the biggest potential threats to the security of Japan, the region, and possibly the world.

Japan also did not keep quiet about the kidnapping issue until late. Since the time it was suspected the people were kidnapped by North Korea, the government has been working to confirm the suspicions, but it\’s hard to make progress when North Korea is the person at the other end of the table. Up until Abe and Koizumi got Kim to admit to the kidnappings, it was only a suspicion. However the issue has been a topic for the Japanese government for a long long time. Abe\’s father was one of the original issue blowers, and he is the reason the current Abe is so concerned about the issue today.

Garrett: The last thing I want to do is get into one of those ‘numbers’ fights, but of the 17, 5 are already resolved. There are 12 people currently unaccounted for.

I\’m going to have to turn it into a numbers fight of source. Japan is not the only country to have it\’s citizens kidnapped. An estimated 500 or so South Koreans are believed to have been kidnapped (some people count the 40,000+ South Koreans taken to North Korea during the Korean War as well). Plus there are estimates of about another 500 kidnaped from the rest of the world, including 200 or so from China. Interestingly enough, the countries that should be most upset about the kidnappings, China and South Korea, are holding hands with North Korea telling Japan to shut up and just give us money. The Japanese delegate to the talks is right when he says Japan and America are the only countries (in the world?) that care about human rights.

Comment by Ken Worsley

December 18, 2006 @ 8:30 pm

Hey Darin, it was there. It got marked as spam for some reason.

I’ve spent a serious amount of time reading your site today. I’ll have to sign myself up for an account to comment (I’m lazy about that). Anyway, great work. It kept me from getting a lot done today…haha!

Comment by DeOrio

December 18, 2006 @ 10:55 pm

Darin, I can’t speak for Ken, but the number of people abducted from countries is irrelevant to the topic of Japan’s using the Six-Party talks to push the abduction issue as Japan is clearly concerned only with the Japanese abductees, mentioning others only to bolster their point. It seems clear to me that the kantei is pushing the issue now for domestic political advantage. While there was mention of the issue prior to the last couple of years, the Japanese government was perfectly willing to quash it when going easier on North Korea suited their aims.

That said, I completely agree with you that China and, especially, South Korea ought to be showing more anger over this issue. South Korea, though, as you weel know, stands to lose the most from any turn for the worse in relations with the North, so I can see why they’d be timid (I don’t necessarily agree with the decision, I can just see why they’d keep pushing policies along the lines of the apparently failed Sunshine Policy.)

I don’t think Japan’s options are limited to using the Six-Party talks to push the abduction issue or threatening an attack on North Korea. I also don’t think any heretofore espoused interpretation of Article 9 prevents Japan from defending its own shores. North Korea is clearly at fault, of course, but whether or not Japan bears any blame comes down to when the government has reasonably strong suspicions that abductions were occurring. If that was prior to the last abduction, it is kind of hard to explain why one of the world’s largest and most advanced Coast Guards ann Navies, who face no restrictions in patrolling their own waters, missed at least one boat that pulled right up to the beach and kidnapped someone. Such a failing wouldn’t necessarily imply fault or even negligence, but it would certainly require explanation as Japan has long seen the DPRK as a threat. The rape analogy is way off - in that analogy, the Japanese government would be not the victim, but the police and the police can be blamed if they know of a credible threat and take insufficient action to avert it.

The problem with Japan using the Six-Party talks to push the abduction issue is that it diverts attention from and could prevent progress in more serious issues, such as halting or greatly reducing the North’s nuclear program. Why doesn’t Japan get together with the ROK, PRC, and Thailand to make a fuss over the issue? Continuing to (for lack of a better term) attempt to hijack the Six-Party talks is counterproductive.

I, too, spent a good deal of time perusing “Occidentalism” today and must say that I found it stimulating enough to hang around for a good long while and that, if nothing else, it and “Metropolitician” made me feel a hell of lot better about Japan.

Comment by Darin

December 19, 2006 @ 11:32 am

I have to disagree that the number of people abducted from countries is not relevant. Such a large number shows that it’s that big of a problem, and from so many countries makes it an international issue, therefore, the talks must be held with international members, the big three members being Japan, South Korea and China, who are already conveniently all gathered now. This is not just an issue for Japan, but a large scale international issue, there is no better place then the 6-party talks.

I like though,that you unlike most people who say Japan can’t talk about the issue at the 6-party talks present an alternative instead of just saying “no”. However while it would be great if “Japan [got] together with the ROK, PRC, and Thailand to make a fuss over the issue,” there is no guarantee that North Korea will actually meet again. We’re all meeting now, North Korea is pulling out it’s Laundry List of demands, pulling out no stops, so why should we only get one thing in return for North Korea getting everything it wants? North Korea is clearly determined to get everything it wants out of these 6-party talks and never talk again as it will need nothing else, and we’ll be left sucking our thumbs with mounds of unsolved issues.

We cannot trust anything North Korea says. Even if they promise to work on solving the issue, they’ve also promised to throw away their nukes on multiple occasions. Consider how the old mob mosses were taken down in the 20’s in America; tax fraud. Just get them in court and then have at ‘em. We (the international community) have North Korea ‘in court’ and we need to clear up all matters we can now because who knows if we’ll ever be able to again.

As for Japan’s ability to defend itself and it’s own responsibility for the kidnappings. While Japan has a very capable navy now, these abductions aren’t taking place now. They took place in the 70’s when Japan did not have such a capable navy. Perhaps it couldn’t happen today, but the topic of discussion is not today. It costs a lot of money to patrol Japan’s waters as you describe. With 3,000 sq km of water area, and almost 30,000 km of costine, it’s not practical to patrol the whole area when there was no sense of danger. Once suspicions arose, and today too now that we know more about North Korea and others in the area, Japan is indeed spending oodles of cash on patrolling it’s waters, but before it wouldn’t have been logical to defend against the enemy that wasn’t there. “The rape analogy is way off - in that analogy, the Japanese government would be not the victim, but the police and the police can be blamed if they know of a credible threat and take insufficient action to avert it.” Actually I think it is a very good analogy. The government had no knowledge of a credible threat of abduction from North Korea until it had already taken place. Although papa-Abe eventually put the pieces together, initially there was no reason to suspect North Korea was abducting Japanese citizens when a girl and her mother suddenly disappears from a small island.

After reading this again myself I can see how one crucial point wouldn’t make sense. “So did they or didn’t they know about North Korea; you said Abe was all over it and now you say they didn’t know?” At the time the kidnappings took place, no one new. It was not until later that the pieces started to get put together and people started to suspect North Korea. But suspicions alone are not enough to act, and there was very little the Japanese government could do with an uncooperative North Korean government. The Japanese government was not “perfectly willing to quash it when going easier on North Korea suited their aims”, the Japanese government was following due process of law by not making accusations until it can be sure. No one could be certain North Korea was kidnapping people around the world until North Korea admitted to it. The biggest movements have been made on the issue did indeed take place after North Korea admitted to the abductions, however the government was not completely idle up until then. Young Abe has known of the issue since 1988 when some families came to his father to talk to about the issue, but his father has been working on it from before then. (This is from Young Abe’s book 美しい国へ article わたしが拉致問題を知ったとき p44 hence nothing to link to.)

I’m afraid that we have to agree to disagree. For the above reasons I believe the 6-party talks are the best and only place to discuss the issue. As I understand your position, the 6-party talks are about the nuclear issue, a different 6-party talk like situation needs to be created for the abduction issue.

As for the site Occidentalism, I don’t run it, I just do guests posts once in a while. Actually right now I’m very busy with the school year coming to the close and extra work loads that are being piled on to me so I haven’t been posting much and probably shouldn’t be commenting here either

I’d also like to make a correction/update on a previous post. About the number of Japanese citizens abducted:

Although only sixteen (8 men and 8 women) are officially recognized by the Japanese government, there may have been as many as 70 to 80 Japanese abducted. The North Korean government has officially admitted kidnapping thirteen citizens

from wikipedia I didn’t know the numbers of suspected victims was so high.

Comment by Darin

December 19, 2006 @ 11:37 am

Hmm. How did those links get messed up. They should be:

- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121800076.html
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-party_talks#4th_round.2C_2nd_phase_.2813_Sep.E2.80.9419_Sep_2005.29
- http://www.photius.com/countries/japan/national_security/japan_national_security_defense_spending.html
- https://cia.gov/cia//publications/factbook/geos/ja.html#Geo
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_abductions_of_Japanese

Comment by Ken Worsley

December 19, 2006 @ 12:01 pm

Actually right now I’m very busy with the school year coming to the close and extra work loads that are being piled on to me so I haven’t been posting much and probably shouldn’t be commenting here either

Myself as well…I’m doing 18 hour days trying to close the year out…have to get on a plane in two days and I’m not nearly done…which means I get around on reading blogs…

Actually, that Wikipedia article is a bit behind the time - the 17th ‘abductee’ was officially designated two weeks ago. The 70-80 figure is based on family groups who have a loved one gone missing in the Niigata region at that time.

it’s not practical to patrol the whole area when there was no sense of danger

Given SATCOM abilities at the time, it not only was practical, but not at all difficult to do. Why did no DPRK agents slip in when the area was under US Navy patrol? Why did it all happen after Marine SDF patrol took over?

I think what you’re saying is a bit backwards - one reason why Japan’s navy is capable of patrolling itself now is because of this. It certainly could have been capable before.

Although papa-Abe eventually put the pieces together, initially there was no reason to suspect North Korea was abducting Japanese citizens when a girl and her mother suddenly disappears from a small island.

I don’t agree here. It will eventually come out that the Japanese government knew as early as the late 70s, when they were told by the US State Department.

Comment by Darin

December 19, 2006 @ 12:37 pm

I don’t like to answer a question with a question, but I’m going to have to. We also have to look at the North Korean side as well. During the time when the US was patrolling the waters, was North Korea capable of pulling something like this off? I don’t know the answer to that one, but I want to doubt North Korea’s ability at the time to do this.

As far as using satellite tracking and all that fancy James Bond stuff, that only works if the other side is using James Bond stuff too. At least in the case of Hitomi Soga, she was jumped, put on a small peddle boat and carried far away to a larger ship that then brought her to North Korea. Now my memory is a bit fuzzy on this so without finding it in Jenkins’ book again I could be wrong as to how far away the second boat was, but is it possible that the bigger ship could have been picked up by radar etc, so it was stationed far enough away that it wouldn’t be suspicious, and a smaller boat not detectable by radar was used in the actual kidnappings so as not to be detected?

It will eventually come out that the Japanese government knew as early as the late 70s, when they were told by the US State Department.

That’s a pretty big speculation. How long is it until documents are unclassified in the US? 30 years right? If we assume all the abductions took place in the 70’s, it’s been 26 years since 1980 so it shouldn’t be too much longer before such documents would surface if they do exist. However that’s a pretty big statement to throw out there that can neither be proven nor disproven, so it’s probably best to ignore entirely. It would be like saying ‘you can’t disprove God, so therefore there is a God’ if we were to assume that statement was factual.

Comment by ken

December 19, 2006 @ 5:06 pm

Darin, what I mean is that I wouldn’t be surprised in the least to learn that it had been suspected much earlier, nor if Japan had been tipped off. At this point, nothing seems shocking, nor any speculation too outlandish.

Comment by Curzon

December 19, 2006 @ 9:40 pm

As soon as I hear people talking about the “right-wing” and their influence in Japan, it’s a big red flag that they have no idea what they’re talking about.

To all you guys using the term here: who exactly do you mean? Koizumi? Abe? Ishihara? The LDP? A branch of the LDP? A secret cabal who runs the country? Most people consider the “Right Wing” to be a bunch of Yakuza-esque extremists who burn down houses, ride black trucks, and intimidate communists.

Next, Onishi’s writings on Japan are generally a big joke, and the above-linked article is no exception. A more complex, and interesting analysis of the abductee issue in English was written last month by Gerald Curtis, and has a more sophisticated critique of Japan’s stance — all without using the term “right wing.”

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/member/member.html?appURL=nn20061124a2.html

Comment by Ken

December 19, 2006 @ 10:10 pm

Curz, I reference Gerald Curtis much more often than Onishi, which I’m sure you noticed after you finished reading the article. In fact, I referenced the very article you put a link to. How did you not notice a link to the very same article? That really makes me wonder that you didn’t catch the conclusion of this article. I mean, you did read the article before making such an inflammatory comment, right? That just looks bad, man. Did you happen to notice that ‘right wing agenda’ is in mocking quotes in the title? I have derided Onishi well enough in other areas of this website. The point of using Onishi is to highlight the absurdities involved in the commentary on the issue, without coming straight out and saying it explicitly - in other words, to provoke reaction. In some, it comes out as fair and balanced analysis, in others, childish emotional outbursts, even to the point of accusing people that, “they have no idea what they’re talking about” - a hell of an accusation from someone who hasn’t even read the article in question.

Most people consider the “Right Wing” to be a bunch of Yakuza-esque extremists who burn down houses, ride black trucks, and intimidate communists.

Do you have any quantitative data demonstrating that what you claim is actually the opinion that ‘most people’ hold? ‘Most people’ where? Seriously…huh?

Right wing is conservative pressure. It exists; everyone knows that. Defining it is not a simple task, as you point out. Nowhere have I claimed to accurately define the term - that’s up to the reader.

Seriously, at least read the article before posting irrelevant personal attacks as comments.

Comment by DeOrio

December 19, 2006 @ 10:25 pm

Curzon, in this context “right-wing” would not exclude any of the people you mentioned, including “Yakuza-esque extremists,” although they are not the main concern. More specifically, “right wing” refers to those who share traits, positive and negative, common to the “right wing” of most countries - a preference for action, a tendency to view one’s own country as right, even in the face of apparent evidence to contrary, a touch of chauvinism, and a pinch of xenophobia. Mix these together and you have a push to make abductions and North Korea in general the country’s biggest issue. To expand this, “right wingers” being conservative by definition, you tend to get (but don’t always get) a preference for the status quo in most of the developed world (especially Japan and the English-speaking world.)

I don’t think anyone here is ready to nominate Onishi for a Pulitzer, but I do agree with the gist of that article as Ken summarized it: “[abductions are] an emotional issue, it’s easy for the public to get behind, and until he took up the issue as a personal vendetta, Shinzo Abe toiled in relative obscurity.”

Comment by Darin

December 19, 2006 @ 10:26 pm

It will eventually come out that the Japanese government knew as early as the late 70s, when they were told by the US State Department.

and

…I wouldn’t be surprised in the least to learn that it had been suspected much earlier, nor if Japan had been tipped off.

Are very different statements. One is a discussion of a ‘fact’, the other a discussion of ‘possibility’.

Right wing is conservative pressure. It exists; everyone knows that. Defining it is not a simple task, as you point out. Nowhere have I claimed to accurately define the term.

Where does this conservative pressure come from though? It would be best if you at least have a definition of it inside yourself when you attribute things to it. That way you can better explain your beliefs rather then just saying ‘the right wing’ and leave it wide open to interpretation. I would personally like to see some of that “quantitative data” defining your view of the ‘right wing’. As I said in my very first comment, “[i]f believing kidnapping thousands of people around the world and using them to train spies is a wrong thing means you’re ‘right wing’, then I guess I’m right wing all the way.”

Comment by Ken

December 19, 2006 @ 10:37 pm

Darin,

I think you misread my reply to Curzon…you’re attacking one of his statements and atributing it to me. But anyway,

Where does this conservative pressure come from though? You already know the answer to that question, as does anyone who follows news events in a political economy.

Anyway I think someone missing something - I’m not trying to explain my own beliefs at all. I’m presenting different sides of an argument in order to spur debate.

“[i]f believing kidnapping thousands of people around the world and using them to train spies is a wrong thing means you’re ‘right wing’, then I guess I’m right wing all the way.”

I thought we were already in agreement on this.

I agree with you 100% - hell, I’m right wing for all I know. It doesn’t really matter. What matters is that the six party talks are not the place or time for the issue to be discussed. It absolutely needs to be worked out, it must be discussed and resolved. But the six party talks are about something very different. They need to focus on the core: the DPRK’s nuclear program.

Japan’s abduction issue is a bilateral issue for Japan to work out with the DPRK - on it’s own terms. It’s time for Japan to be independent and step up to the plate as an independent nation.

Comment by Ken

December 19, 2006 @ 11:01 pm

It will eventually come out that the Japanese government knew as early as the late 70s, when they were told by the US State Department.

and

…I wouldn’t be surprised in the least to learn that it had been suspected much earlier, nor if Japan had been tipped off.

Are very different statements. One is a discussion of a ‘fact’, the other a discussion of ‘possibility’.

The first one was made with a heaping spoonful of irony, which tends not to come through in these here internets.

Comment by andy v

December 20, 2006 @ 2:32 am

Ha ha! The flag is great! Don’t you think you’ve given enough attention to an anonymous troll already?

Comment by Curzon

December 20, 2006 @ 9:03 am

Ken: Forgive me for relinking to Curtis, it was a reaction to the preceding comments, not your post. (Comments reacting to comments is something you’ll have to get used to.)

The western press is full of mentions of the “right wing” in Japan, but it’s nonexistent in the local press save for the occasional editorial in the Asahi Shukan. Calling the abductee issue “right wing” is Exhibit A. As for “quantitative data” on popular opinion regarding the right wing, there is none of which I am aware. Would you deny that my clarification is accurate?

The red flag is cute. If you’re taking comments so seriously that you have to alter the graphics of your site to respond to every critical comment, you’re going to be a busy blogger. (Believe me, I would know.)

Comment by Ken Worsley

December 20, 2006 @ 9:09 am

I’m already a busy blogger.

Comment by Darin

December 20, 2006 @ 10:05 am

Anyway I think someone missing something - I’m not trying to explain my own beliefs at all. I’m presenting different sides of an argument in order to spur debate.

o.O I’m not really sure how to respond to that. If your goal was to spur debate, you succeeded, however you have gone ‘above and beyond the call of duty’ to continue to keep it alive when it would have long burnt out because frankly, it’s not a good assessment of the situation. To be honest, it sounds more like admitting defeat. “Um yea, those arguments I made, they aren’t um, mine… Yea…” I don’t really think that’s the way you want to end this.

I understand you’re point that in an ideal world, Japan would not have to use the current 6-way talks as a route to solve the abduction issue, but this isn’t an ideal world, and the reality of the matter is Japan’s only option other then military action to solve the issue is to use the six way talks because North Korea will never talk to Japan about the issue as by not doing so, it ‘wins.’ Heck, if this were an ideal world, we wouldn’t even be here at these talks because North Korea wouldn’t be making nukes, threatening to turn Seoul and Tokyo into a “sea of fire” or counterfeiting money. But here we are. For Japan, and the rest of the world, these talks are the last non-millitary option we have to dealing with North Korea. (Take note that I’m not setting a time limit to this round of talks, but rather this framework.)

I think it would have been best if we had agreed to disagree as I proposed earlier. Before irony and arguments that aren’t even intended to be taken seriously to begin with got involved. Back when I understood your argument in theory but disagreed when it was applied to the current state with North Korea.

If by chance Andy V is referring to me as the anonymous troll, I would recommend he click on the link from my name to solve the ‘who is this guy’ issue. Take note Andy V’s name is not a clickable link. You may (however incorrectly) call me a troll if you want because that is a matter of opinion, but anonymous I am not.

Comment by Ken

December 20, 2006 @ 11:32 am

Darin, You’ve made some great points here. Thank you for posting. As you’ve said, we agree that Japan needs to push the abduction issue. We disagree about the 6 party talks being the appropriate framework. No biggie. Sorry about the irony, it’s just my style…but I not by any means ‘admitting defeat.’

It looks like Andy is referring to another post. He’s a personal friend, I’ll let him reply on his own.

Comment by Andy Visvinathan

December 20, 2006 @ 4:14 pm

Darin, not you. I like your blog. Curzon. His name is a clickable link to his blog, but even there he’s anonymous. He is neither the Viceroy of India/ Foreign Secretary nor the diplomat and traveller, the latter being the one to whom I assume his name refers, thus he wishes not to let us know who he is. Fair enough. He can do that, but he’s anonymous nonetheless.

He clearly saw the words “right wing” in the title of Ken’s article, didn’t bother to read it, and flew off the handle. It happens, but he then went all politician and claimed to have been replying to comments despite there being nary a mention of right wingers. THEN went on to lecture Ken, basically telling him what he had to learn about running a blog. Pompous, unnecessary, uninformed, and irrelevant.

Ken, do you consider me a personal friend? I’m honored, considering we’ve only met once.

Comment by Darin

December 20, 2006 @ 8:20 pm

I was going to leave things as they lay, but …

THEN went on to lecture Ken, basically telling him what he had to learn about running a blog.(word count: 18 via MS Word))

I don’t know if lecture is the right word to describe:

If you’re taking comments so seriously that you have to alter the graphics of your site to respond to every critical comment, you’re going to be a busy blogger. (Believe me, I would know.)(word count: 34 via MS Word)

I certainly can not speak on behalf of Curzon, but a 34 word lecture? So then what does that make your 18 word statement; a rant? Now really, who’s being “[p]ompous, unnecessary, uninformed, and irrelevant” here? :/

Anywho Ken, I’m eagerly awaiting the next Seijigiri podcast, and have a happy holidays. I’ll be spending mine either doing school work or sitting at the DMV switching my license, I hope your year end celebration will go much better.

Comment by Andy V

December 20, 2006 @ 8:33 pm

Yes, it’s a rant. Since when does word count determine intent or tone? Lecturing was in the tone, and it was done as a feeble backtracking when he could have just come out and said, “You know what? I didn’t read the article. I flew off the handle a little prematurely.” All would have been cool.
“Pompous” because the red flag graphic is obviously a self-deprecating joke, unnecessary because he immediately went for an attack, saying those who had commented so far didn’t know what they were talking about, uninformed because he was obviously not replying to the comments, but to the headline, which he didn’t understand, and irrelevant because you, Ken, and DeOrio were talking about what should and should not be brought up at the six-party talks, not about right wingers.
(Yes, this is a rant, too, and drifting way off topic, which makes me guilty of getting steamed as well.)

Comment by DeOrio

December 20, 2006 @ 8:40 pm

Whoa! Jesus Christ, take it easy. Just let the irrelevant stuff that pisses you off go. Let’s keep it civil here; this isn’t Japan Today.

Darin, Curzon, Andy, thanks for stopping by. Hope to hear from you all again soon.

Comment by ken

December 20, 2006 @ 11:30 pm

Haha…this is a riot! Thanks to all for engaging in debate, I love to see it. Darin, I love the wordcount stats. Andy, for real, it’s cool man…I meant I know you personally. Any friend of Garrett’s is a friend of mine (except maybe that one guy…ha). I’ll be at the RMV (why it’s called that in Massachusetts is beyond me) in mere days. Back here soon and - Garrett can confirm this - next Seijigiri on Jan 3 or 4?

Comment by DeOrio

December 21, 2006 @ 1:15 am

On the third or fourth if I have anything to say about it.