It was a bit exhausting reading all the posts so far and the opinions that follow. I think however that Matt has a good point when he says:

I think there is a strong connection between neo-conservatism in America and Abe’s nationalism.

I don’t think there is any doubt about that although I would add to that by saying that this is the current situation and it has not always been that way.

But more the point that I think is getting missed here is the main question of does America have the right to pass a bill demanding another nation to apologise. The answer is yes, they do have the right to do so. But Japan also has the right to disagree with that and run their country as they see fit. And suddenly with that stance passions are enflamed and here we go creating division.

My point, and what I think this all boils down too is that there is so much sentiment and emotion in this issue it’s impossible for those close to this issue to see it from a fair and balanced point. To see it as this article has been written by TPR. And that’s the problem here – simply put. Everything else that is to be debating is just icing. That’s why we can’t have an appropriate conclusion to this issue.

To make a few broad statements that might clarify some of my positions, I’d say that, in this resolution, accomplishing political goals and making a clear moral point are pretty much the same thing. As you pointed out at Liberal Japan, it’s unlikely that the Congressmen voting on HR 121 got more than abit of history in a nutshell before they voted.
If I had to choose between taking HR 121 seriously and asking what the point was, I’d go with the latter.

As for meddling, I stand by my defining of it as an action. Japan is surely very interested in what happens to the dollar, but that doesn’t mean they meddle. (I’m not saying they don’t, I’m just saying that their interest, even expressed, does not equal meddling.)

Overall, I interpreted the tone of the Resolution as being kind of, “This is what we, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, think the Government of Japan can do to put an end to this.”

As for sovereignty, Japan’s treaties and agreements are concerned primarily with resitution, which is not called for. I would not advocate the US or anyone else trying to force Japan to apologize, but think it would be very wise for Japan to do so in order to take a step toward stepping out from under the cloud of war-related issues.

In terms of education, saying the “comfort women” should be mentioned in school is not all that different from espressing disappointment that the aftermath of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were glossed over in a Smithsonian exhibition, is it?

If there were a call for something more specific, I might be more worried. As it stands, this is more like an opinion expressed than a demand or pressure being put on Japan.

Regarding your sixth point, I was not referring to what should be in textbooks, if that’s what shocked you. I was talking about history in a broad sense. In other words, the Government of Japan can say what it wants about WWII, but it does not have a monopoly on the truth (or “truth”) of what happened - the views of anyone from anywhere are just as valid. The same is true for the US or any other country.

Japan should, of course, be free to run Japan as it sees fit, including education, but it has no right to expect anyone to accept its version of events.

The main point related to sovereignty with this issue, though, is that it is not at all an internal Japanese issue - it is an issue between the Government of Japan and people outside of Japan.

Re: your Seventh point.
No, it was not at all directed at you. I had Abe and his cronies in mind. Let’s face it, what’s basically going on is that some members of the Government of Japan are calling these women liars. Some academics, pseudo-academics, and commentators have said so in as many words, but the Government is handling this in the way it handles all issues related to WWII - as though each thing occurred in a vacuum; as though it could refute the claims of these women without calling their veracity into question.

As for who should deal with the problem, I think it’s hard to say who’s directly involved. If Korean or Chinese victims can call on their governments for help, why can’t victims who naturalized in the US? Are their claims no longer legitimate?

Third parties are involved in virtually every dispute around the world, why should this issue be any different?

To drive the main point home, though, HR 121 is not something anyone needs to worry about.

The problem here isn’t the resolution or the legalities. The problem is “history”. For Japanese, I wonder if they are simply saying “How many times do you want us to apologise?”. (Again these are just general thoughts). And did Kono, Koizumi, and Abe already apologise? The Chinese have pushed rhetoric and attempted to interfere with a sovereign government and nation. Since when did Japan become a Republic of China? Or they may simply say “Since when did Japan become the 51st state of the United States?”

I wonder if that is what the true sentiments of Nippon feel. We may never know, because Japan is a country of silence. To speak out is considered in-tolerable for ordinary citizens.

As for myself, although Deorio-san, I joke too much. But the truth is Japan is a country of different people and ethnicities. Japan itself has difference stances. Some in Hiroshima will argue that the United States should apologise for crimes against humanity with the A-Bomb. Some in Satsuma (Kagoshima) will say to white-wash history is like wiping away the sacrifices of the Kamikaze pilots who’s only job was die to protect Japan.

For myself? I will simply say that Japan is diverse, you and I know this. The DPJ is now moving into power with momentum. The social Democrats are with HR 121. Mike Honda shall be the one who decides if he is Japanese or not. I wonder if anybody has asked him directly if he considers himself “Japanese”. Daniel Inouye should be asked the same question. Although they bare no part in the Japanese government system, they are simply involved with a position because they are Japanese. The issues of apology are a matter for the Japanese people.

America, Korea, and China have their stance on the matter. But Japan must debate this. The people have Japanese are just much divided on the issue, hence my own example of Daniel Inouye and Mike Honda who are subsequently of the same party. I’m sure the Diet would have the same effect. Upper and Lower house. So *shrug. Does it really matter? Well it does in the sense that the world now understands Japan. It truly is a bit more than what Chinese/Korean history books might make it.

Second, that I wonder if the conservatives dont are going to try another gesture of defiance and end provocating more the US, for old history that dont really matter after so many years.

I appreciate the amount of thought that went into this Op/ed piece. I also appreciate that you paid enough attention to my opinion such that it inspired a response from you. I mean this sincerely and am not just writing this as a formality.

I have attempted to clarify my opinion a bit on my blog, and I wanted to try and comment on what you’ve written here.

First, you address the word “sense” and the non-binding nature of the resolution. There is certainly a time for nuance and subtlety. But I don’t see that here. I see politicians whose intention are not to make a clear and moral statement, but to accomplish opposing political goals.

I look at it this way. Either they are serious with this proposal or they are not. If they are, then they are wrong. If they were not, then what was the point? Were they making a moral statement or were they just pandering to some special interests?

Second, you note about all the “whereas” clauses that this was so that the resolution could be as constructive as possible. I don’t know. I would have guessed it was the result of a tug of war between lobbyist over the years. Each has been making claims, and so they wanted to get as much of those claims in their as they could to show could at least try as best they might to make both sides happy.

You discuss the word meddling and argue that there is no meddling. Sorry, but I disagree. How could commenting on these things in an official manner *not* be construed as meddling. Again, it’s the serious or not serious thing again. Either we take it serious, or we have to ask ourselves what was the point.

You state meddling requires some hint of action. I’m sorry. Meddling is to interest oneself in what is not one’s concern. That is the case here.

Third, you state,

The closest thing to this would be the resolution that states that Japan “should educate current and future generations about this horrible crime while following the recommendations of the international community with respect to the ‘comfort women’.” This, though, is not telling Japan how to educate its children or plan its school curricula.

The textbook issue is specifically mentioned in a whereas clause. Either it is mentioned with purpose or it is not. If it is not with purpose, then why was it mentioned at all? Either there is a point or no point at all.

You take the Nationalists to task for meddling. Or do you? I can’t even tell because it seems all part of your argument about how we should define meddling. I would not take the nationalists to task for meddling. In fact, on that alone I would think they were in the right to meddle. (Obviously though, they were wrong in the manner they chose for their meddling.)

Fourth, you mention the sovereignty issue. Two things stand out in my mind, one is the 1965 treaty which settled things between S. Korea and Japan. Should Japan step out of this framework? What would be the consequences of this for all Japanese? Presumably the severity of the consequences for most Japanese would be greater than that for Americans. Two, and more important to me, is the educational issue. Again, the textbook issue specifically is mentioned in a “whereas” clause. This is disconcerting to say the least. Americans know more about educating Japanese than … Japanese?

Fifth, you discuss the politics of how the bill got passed. I still haven’t worked out in my mind exactly what happened. Nationalism has generally been overlooked by American foreign policy because it was good for America. It’s isolates Japan from the rest of Asia and that keeps Japan dependent on America. Gavan McCormack details this in his new book _Client State_. He makes a very strong case for American foreign policy actually encouraging nationalism in Japan. Note, I’ve had this opinion since before I read his book. I think there is a strong connection between neo-conservatism in America and Abe’s nationalism.

Sixth, you say:

No nation, even Japan, has the exclusive right to write its own history, much less an exclusive knowledge of that history.

This rather takes my breath away, so I suppose I probably misunderstand you. No country should have the right to dictate history to another nation. This follows from the claim that no state should have the right to dictate history to any individual. What you write above troubles me.

Seventh, you say:

The idea that somehow only politicians in the Government of Japan know what happened during WWII is downright nutty, especially when we now so often have people who were young children or who were not yet born at the time of the War telling others, particularly victims of abuse at the hands of the Japanese Imperial Army, that those victims don’t know what happened.

I hope this wasn’t in response to me. My claim was that those directly involved should be left alone to deal with the problem. Chinese (and Koreans) want to dictate what must be in Japanese textbooks. (Japanese also want to dictate what goes in Japanese textbooks.) These debates are really nuanced, including how and in what way the comfort women should be referred to. It’s silly mind numbing stuff. It’s as if children were machines to be imprinted by whatever phrase exists in the textbook. Or maybe it’s just the idea. Who knows what it is? I don’t understand it. But let me tell you something, those involved on both sides of the debate in China and Japan (and in Korea), they understand it. They eat, drink, and sleep with it. Let them work it out. They’ll have to sooner or later.

You’ve got America on one end fueling nationalism in Japan and on another end scolding Japan for it.

With friends like that who needs …

All my best,
Matt Dioguardi

Of course Mike Honda’s going to say it had an impact, for him to say that doesn’t mean that it does.

Daniel Inouye being against it doesn’t mean that it has an impact. He’s a Senator, HR 121 was a House Resolution - it doesn’t matter what Inouye thinks.

It seems to me that you’re assuming a pattern of thinking or a stance not only on my part, but on the part of any US Congressman with a Japanese surname.

Who cares if Honda or Mineta are close to the Japanese community? I got mail for years from the Sons of Italy. They’re groups, pols belong to as many groups as they think can help them. What about Bob Michel and Denny Hastert? Both have ties to the Japan lobby that are as close as Honda’s or Mineta’s to any group.

It doesn’t matter, though. It’s absolutely irrelevant.

Yes, there has been debate over HR 121, much it was much to do about nothing, and a lot of it was by people who clearly had not read the Resolution or the speeches surrounding it. It seems that the Japanese Government may have finally caught on, hence the lack of reaction afterwards.

http://www.nichibeitimes.com/articles/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1184873194&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&

I just simply cut and pasted one truth. That Japan is doing a horrible job relaying their apologies to the rest of Asia. What Mike Honda is doing is using the U.S. platform to give Japan it’s stage to repeat the apology in a manner that cannot be denied.

“NBT: What happens if, as Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki suggested, there is no further apology from the Japanese government even if this passes? What would this resolution have accomplished?”

“MH: We wouldn’t be talking about this, if it were not for that. Prime Minister Abe would not have had his drawers caught in the wringer if this resolution wasn’t out there. International concern and attention to this issue would not have occurred if we didn’t do this. Debate in Japan among the center, left and right would not have been going on if it were not for this. Me being on Japanese TV right, left and center would have never occurred if we didn’t do this. I wouldn’t have been on six or eight major editorials…if we didn’t do this. So I’d say it had some impact.”

And also note that there truly is two side the debate. Senator Daniel Inouye is against HR 121. And the articles I read are back and forth from both sides.