I have received many comments at Sweetness and Light.
I would like to reply to some of these.
Dear DW,
> In your nation’s constitution, you have renounced war. That is a good thing. No one here on this site (most of us have served in the military and/or have loved-ones who are currently serving) will ever dispute that. But what if your country was attacked ?
Well, Japan has the right of self-defense and we have the Japanese SDF (Self-Defense Forces) and also the Japan-US Security Treaty.
So, if Japan was attacked, there must be a war.
> More to the point, what if a small nation in your part of the world was attacked and Japan was in a position to help ? Would you not ?
In this case, probably, US troops will help a small nation and Japan will provide military bases for US troops and support.
I think after the war, Japan will contribute much more.
> Like you, I deeply respect the USA (I am a Canadian) and agree that there is much room for improvement, but what nation does not have room for improvement. Certainly not mine. Yours ?
Yes, there are many hot disputes about the Japanese constitution of article 9. Your point is one of the major issues.
Please see the following report.
Japan’s Constitution and Defense Policy: Entering a New Era?
Dear rakkasan,
Hello.
I agree with you on that Japan is changing.
I put the following article just in case.
Japan military may get higher status
P.S.
Do you know “rakkasan” is a parachute in Japanese?
Dear retire05,
Hello.
Yes, your comment is correct.
It seems you know Japan very well.
Sorry for my short reply.
Dear inkependent_voter,
Hi, inkependent_voter-san.
> A reduction in the world’s armaments is indeed a worthy goal…there is only one problem:
Who is going to destroy their arms first? How do we guarantee that everyone destroys their armaments instead of hiding them? Who is going to police the destruction of those arms?
Yes, indeed.
I know it is very difficult to do that.
But I think we should think and try something to make a good world for future generations.
How about like this idea.
A non-religious establishment of mourning for all the victims world over of wars should be constructed and that the leader of every country should go there to swear to make no war.
If you agree with this idea, please write it somewhere to spread.
I know most American people (like you) are thinking that Saddam was a very bad dictator and there was no other way.
But many innocent Iraqi people including like this girl were killed.
Was that OK?
I cannot say that US did not bad thing to Iraqi people.
Dear UTundergrad,
Hello.
I am glad to hear that you want to discuss with me.
Luckily, I found the Sweetness and Light using Technorati Japan which is a blog search web site.
Yes, most Japanese have a very bad image to North Korea, too.
But I think most South Korean would like to help them as fellow countrymen.
And China wants to keep their dependency.
So, it is not easy to have North Korea abandon the idea of nuclear power.
Sincerely,
I would like to reply to some of these.
Dear DW,
> In your nation’s constitution, you have renounced war. That is a good thing. No one here on this site (most of us have served in the military and/or have loved-ones who are currently serving) will ever dispute that. But what if your country was attacked ?
Well, Japan has the right of self-defense and we have the Japanese SDF (Self-Defense Forces) and also the Japan-US Security Treaty.
So, if Japan was attacked, there must be a war.
> More to the point, what if a small nation in your part of the world was attacked and Japan was in a position to help ? Would you not ?
In this case, probably, US troops will help a small nation and Japan will provide military bases for US troops and support.
I think after the war, Japan will contribute much more.
> Like you, I deeply respect the USA (I am a Canadian) and agree that there is much room for improvement, but what nation does not have room for improvement. Certainly not mine. Yours ?
Yes, there are many hot disputes about the Japanese constitution of article 9. Your point is one of the major issues.
Please see the following report.
Japan’s Constitution and Defense Policy: Entering a New Era?
Dear rakkasan,
Hello.
I agree with you on that Japan is changing.
I put the following article just in case.
Japan military may get higher status
P.S.
Do you know “rakkasan” is a parachute in Japanese?
Dear retire05,
Hello.
Yes, your comment is correct.
It seems you know Japan very well.
Sorry for my short reply.
Dear inkependent_voter,
Hi, inkependent_voter-san.
> A reduction in the world’s armaments is indeed a worthy goal…there is only one problem:
Who is going to destroy their arms first? How do we guarantee that everyone destroys their armaments instead of hiding them? Who is going to police the destruction of those arms?
Yes, indeed.
I know it is very difficult to do that.
But I think we should think and try something to make a good world for future generations.
How about like this idea.
A non-religious establishment of mourning for all the victims world over of wars should be constructed and that the leader of every country should go there to swear to make no war.
If you agree with this idea, please write it somewhere to spread.
I know most American people (like you) are thinking that Saddam was a very bad dictator and there was no other way.
But many innocent Iraqi people including like this girl were killed.
Was that OK?
I cannot say that US did not bad thing to Iraqi people.
Dear UTundergrad,
Hello.
I am glad to hear that you want to discuss with me.
Luckily, I found the Sweetness and Light using Technorati Japan which is a blog search web site.
Yes, most Japanese have a very bad image to North Korea, too.
But I think most South Korean would like to help them as fellow countrymen.
And China wants to keep their dependency.
So, it is not easy to have North Korea abandon the idea of nuclear power.
Sincerely,
Yesterday, I went to USA.
Oh, yes, "I" means not including my body.
I found an interesting blog.
So, I became a member of that blog.
I have saved some comments here, because I enjoyed the conversation.
The original body text is good, too.
Mother Sheehan Has World On Her Shoulders
DW
December 9th, 2005 at 7:40 am
Fuji, After reading that speech a few times (admittedly at an ungodly hour), basically I don’t see where he’s saying anything new. Universities are supposed to come up with new ideas, and here is a guy droning on and on with the same tired old thread -UN: good, US: bad. Bear in mind that a guy named Mohamed saying the US is bad is not exactly a shocking revelation to anyone on this site. And since you’re interested enough to start a political blog and reach across an ocean for opinions, then you’re probably well aware of the UN’s track record when it comes to doing anything about human rights and atrocities.
This Mohamed character says the killing is all about riches. Then he says it’s to force our ideology on others. Which is it ? The two -if you think about it- are not mutually inclusive. The US left 25000 dead in Korea and 58000 in Vietnam -neither country to my knowledge has much in the way of natural resources worth plundering.
Is South Korea worse off for the US presence ? Is South Vietnam better off without the US ? Oh -wait…there is no South Vietnam anymore. See my point ?
I’d take this Mohamed guy with a very large grain of salt. Good luck with your blog.
inkependent_voter
December 9th, 2005 at 11:34 am
Fuji-san, I appreciate your posting this so we can read it.
Having worked for a Japanese company in the US (Yazaki) and having studied some of the traditions and culture of Japan, I have a lot of respect for the Japanese people. It’s true they picked themselves up after WWII and made their country the success it is today. But it makes me uneasy to see that this speech by Mohamed totally glosses over the contribution the US made in making sure that Japan was rebuilt after the war. Without the Marshall plan, it would have been much more difficult for Japan to become the great economic power it is today. Our countries are allies now for a good reason and our countries work well together to achieve mutual goals to benefit both our economies. We have learned a lot from each other.
In addition, I noticed that while Mohamed cited Cambodia as an example of oppressive regimes that deserved to get “outside help”, he can’t seem to get that Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was equally repressive. And since the UN didn’t want to do the job it was supposed to do to enforce international law, the US stepped in and did their dirty work for them. The UN has become a joke…they don’t have the guts to enforce their own resolutions.
So, I guess what Mohamed thinks is that if a regime is nominally Muslim, no one has a right to interfere, but if a regime is non-Muslim, it can be classified as repressive if it is inflicting horrors on it’s populace and then someone can intervene, but preferably the UN, which has shown by it’s more recent actions that it is corrupt and ineffective.
Fuji
December 9th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
Dear DW,
Thank you for your response.
I agree with you on that UN must reform.
I know democracy and capitalism is good.
Although I deeply respect USA, I think there is much room for improvement.
Do you know how many the war dead are in Japanese troops since 1945?
It is zero!
This is the constitution of Japan (Article 9).
Chapter II. Renunciation of War
Article 9.
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
(2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c01.html
Japanese troops (SDF; Self-Defense Forces) have not shot any a bullet overseas since 1945.
Of cause, SDF have not killed anyone for 60 years!
Sincerely,
P.S. Thank you, inkependent_voter. I will reply to you next time.
sheehanjihad
December 9th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
Wherein it is laudable that Japan hasnt fired a shot in anger, or sustained any war dead since 1945, it is still good to remember that the United States of America was and still is the de facto protector of Japan, and all who knew it then and know it now will not make the mistake of attacking Japan. North Korea has missles aimed at Honshu, and Russia still maintains rights to the Kurile islands, but both know better than to press the issue because of US protection.
This in no way is suggesting that Japan is a lesser country, as a matter of fact, it has my admiration and respect. This is to show that even though Japan has a constitutional mandate against agression, there are factors in place that make it possible.
DB
December 9th, 2005 at 3:37 pm
As you are undoubtedly aware, Fuji, a contingent of the Japanese SDF are deployed alongside US troops in Iraq.
Fuji
December 9th, 2005 at 7:51 pm
Dear inkependent_voter,
I am glad to hear that you have a good image for Japan.
I think that most Japanese have appreciated that American helped to revive Japan after the end of World War 2.
When Japan was defeted in war, most Japanese did not have a grudge against American.
In place of that, they thought ill of a war.
That is what I heard when I was kid.
I know Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was very bad.
But how about North Korea?
Will US attack to North Korea, if current diplomatic efforts fail?
Because North Korea is stronger than Iraq, probably, US will not attack to North Korea.
That means, we seem to be living in a Darwinian Jungle.
How much expansion of armaments do human being need to realize that it is necessary to the reduction in armaments of all nations?
Sincerely,
P.S.
Thank you, sheehanjihad!
Yes, the Japan-US Security Treaty protects Japan.
But somehow, the Japanese SDF is very strong troops as well as English (UK) troops. (Laughing)
Thank you, DB!
Yes, the Japanese SDF are working for both Iraqi people and American troops.
Japan is assisting both US and Iraq financially, too.
We are very careful to make good relation with Iraqi people and American people.
DW
December 9th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
Fuji,
In your nation’s constitution, you have renounced war. That is a good thing. No one here on this site (most of us have served in the military and/or have loved-ones who are currently serving) will ever dispute that. But what if your country was attacked ? More to the point, what if a small nation in your part of the world was attacked and Japan was in a position to help ? Would you not ?
Like you, I deeply respect the USA (I am a Canadian) and agree that there is much room for improvement, but what nation does not have room for improvement. Certainly not mine. Yours ?
It is a fine and noble thing to eschew war, but until every nation in the world does so, then sadly, tragically, there will be wars of aggression and there must be nations -like the US- that are willing to fight, and die if necessary to stop that aggression.
As DB pointed out, Japanese SDF troops are in Iraq alongside US troops. During ‘Operation Apollo’ -which was a navy operation in the Persian Gulf- Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces assisted Canadian warships. I mention that because they/(you) did it in violation of your constitution. Your ships were not combatants, but they kept our ships (which were) in action. It was the right thing to do -and were were grateful.
You mention North Korea. I don’t think the US wishes war with NK any more than they want war with anyone. But don’t make the mistake of thinking that the US would back down from a confrontation with them. If the US were the cowards and bullies that the world seems to think they are, they would be attacking countries like Canada (unwise..smiling) and Luxembourg (who ???..laughing). I firmly believe that the US usually acts in good faith. There is nothing in it for me to say that. I do not seek US citizenship. I am simply a friend and admirer who- like you- is interested in what is going on in the world.
rakkasan
December 9th, 2005 at 8:45 pm
Fugi, I think nations of the world should reduce their arms. The other side needs to start first.
The U.S. will not attack North Korea. The place is rotting from within, and that government cannot survive for (historically) that much longer. Plus, with cell phones, internet, and media smuggled in from China they know know that they don’t live in a pradise. They know that their lives suck really hard and the Great Leader has done nothing for them.
We also won’t *start* a war because Seoul would be destroyed in half an hour. It is not worth the cost. Iraq? Quite frankly, we did it because we could.
And yes, the Japanese “Self-Defense Forces” are very powerful. S+L folks, if you don’t already know, don’t let the name fool you. Thier military can kick some ass. The Japanese are coming out of the shell that Douglas MacArthur put on them. Geopolitical balance dictates Japan come out and be more aggressive with their talk. They already have the capability.
retire05
December 9th, 2005 at 9:55 pm
Fuji,
Perhaps you don’t learn this little piece of history in your schools, but after Japan surrendered in 1945, it had no army.
From the terms of surrender:
(9) The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.
Part of the terms of surrender was the total dismantlment of the Japanese Army. It was to prevent Japan from ever starting a war against anyone again.
inkependent_voter
December 9th, 2005 at 10:25 pm
Hi Fuji-san,
A reduction in the world’s armaments is indeed a worthy goal…there is only one problem:
Who is going to destroy their arms first? How do we guarantee that everyone destroys their armaments instead of hiding them? Who is going to police the destruction of those arms?
You see, this is what has gotten us into Iraq today. Saddam was supposed to disarm after the first Gulf War. He did not. The UN declared sanctions against Iraq. Saddam did not disarm. The UN sent in inspectors. Saddam was not open about letting them freely inspect and often led them a merry dance at these facilities. Often the arms were moved out the back door while the UN inspectors were waiting to come in at the front. He also lied about how many he had, so he looked tougher. Then when war seemed imminent, he shipped almost everything he had out of the country, so that when the US got there, they found some WMD’s, but not nearly all. There are satellite photos of trucks headed to Syria just before the war started. That’s probably where the WMD’s went.
This is a prime example of just how difficult disarmament would be. The UN has proved that they are incapable of overseeing one country’s disarmament…how would they manage to oversee the entire panoply of nations who have nuclear weapsons? Impossible for even an organization that is competent and trustworthy, but the UN has proven to be corrupt and incompetent.
As far as North Korea goes, they are walking the thin edge of the wedge right now. No one knows exactly what may happen there. But if the US were the gun-toting shoot-from-the-hip cowboys the world seems to think we are, we would have nuked North Korea long ago.
UTundergrad
December 10th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
I’d like to hear more from Fuji, you see I’ve got a fair chance to attend a Japanese university as an exchange student. I think it would be nice to hear from someone who is tied into the society, and not just a low ranking journalist shipped out as a foreign corespondent by the major networks. So please share your oppinion on some of the other stories. (just as an aside: I was wondering just where you found S&L)
As far as N.K. is conserned I have to agree with rakkasan, that they are already defeated by their own failures. When a nation has to lower the acceptable height of its soliders in order to meet recruitment figures, it just show how far gone N.K. really is. Their continued stubborn positioning in the multination summits, is just the posturing of an emasculated dictator. He knows his governmnet has failed miserably, that’s why we’ve even been able to have the summits with N.K. If his regime was successful he wouldn’t deal with the UN (and especially not the US), he would most likely assume an isolationist (if not expansionist) policy. In so many words he would probably tell the rest of the world just where they could put their treaties and human rights.
Oh, yes, "I" means not including my body.
I found an interesting blog.
So, I became a member of that blog.
I have saved some comments here, because I enjoyed the conversation.
The original body text is good, too.
Mother Sheehan Has World On Her Shoulders
DW
December 9th, 2005 at 7:40 am
Fuji, After reading that speech a few times (admittedly at an ungodly hour), basically I don’t see where he’s saying anything new. Universities are supposed to come up with new ideas, and here is a guy droning on and on with the same tired old thread -UN: good, US: bad. Bear in mind that a guy named Mohamed saying the US is bad is not exactly a shocking revelation to anyone on this site. And since you’re interested enough to start a political blog and reach across an ocean for opinions, then you’re probably well aware of the UN’s track record when it comes to doing anything about human rights and atrocities.
This Mohamed character says the killing is all about riches. Then he says it’s to force our ideology on others. Which is it ? The two -if you think about it- are not mutually inclusive. The US left 25000 dead in Korea and 58000 in Vietnam -neither country to my knowledge has much in the way of natural resources worth plundering.
Is South Korea worse off for the US presence ? Is South Vietnam better off without the US ? Oh -wait…there is no South Vietnam anymore. See my point ?
I’d take this Mohamed guy with a very large grain of salt. Good luck with your blog.
inkependent_voter
December 9th, 2005 at 11:34 am
Fuji-san, I appreciate your posting this so we can read it.
Having worked for a Japanese company in the US (Yazaki) and having studied some of the traditions and culture of Japan, I have a lot of respect for the Japanese people. It’s true they picked themselves up after WWII and made their country the success it is today. But it makes me uneasy to see that this speech by Mohamed totally glosses over the contribution the US made in making sure that Japan was rebuilt after the war. Without the Marshall plan, it would have been much more difficult for Japan to become the great economic power it is today. Our countries are allies now for a good reason and our countries work well together to achieve mutual goals to benefit both our economies. We have learned a lot from each other.
In addition, I noticed that while Mohamed cited Cambodia as an example of oppressive regimes that deserved to get “outside help”, he can’t seem to get that Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was equally repressive. And since the UN didn’t want to do the job it was supposed to do to enforce international law, the US stepped in and did their dirty work for them. The UN has become a joke…they don’t have the guts to enforce their own resolutions.
So, I guess what Mohamed thinks is that if a regime is nominally Muslim, no one has a right to interfere, but if a regime is non-Muslim, it can be classified as repressive if it is inflicting horrors on it’s populace and then someone can intervene, but preferably the UN, which has shown by it’s more recent actions that it is corrupt and ineffective.
Fuji
December 9th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
Dear DW,
Thank you for your response.
I agree with you on that UN must reform.
I know democracy and capitalism is good.
Although I deeply respect USA, I think there is much room for improvement.
Do you know how many the war dead are in Japanese troops since 1945?
It is zero!
This is the constitution of Japan (Article 9).
Chapter II. Renunciation of War
Article 9.
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
(2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c01.html
Japanese troops (SDF; Self-Defense Forces) have not shot any a bullet overseas since 1945.
Of cause, SDF have not killed anyone for 60 years!
Sincerely,
P.S. Thank you, inkependent_voter. I will reply to you next time.
sheehanjihad
December 9th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
Wherein it is laudable that Japan hasnt fired a shot in anger, or sustained any war dead since 1945, it is still good to remember that the United States of America was and still is the de facto protector of Japan, and all who knew it then and know it now will not make the mistake of attacking Japan. North Korea has missles aimed at Honshu, and Russia still maintains rights to the Kurile islands, but both know better than to press the issue because of US protection.
This in no way is suggesting that Japan is a lesser country, as a matter of fact, it has my admiration and respect. This is to show that even though Japan has a constitutional mandate against agression, there are factors in place that make it possible.
DB
December 9th, 2005 at 3:37 pm
As you are undoubtedly aware, Fuji, a contingent of the Japanese SDF are deployed alongside US troops in Iraq.
Fuji
December 9th, 2005 at 7:51 pm
Dear inkependent_voter,
I am glad to hear that you have a good image for Japan.
I think that most Japanese have appreciated that American helped to revive Japan after the end of World War 2.
When Japan was defeted in war, most Japanese did not have a grudge against American.
In place of that, they thought ill of a war.
That is what I heard when I was kid.
I know Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was very bad.
But how about North Korea?
Will US attack to North Korea, if current diplomatic efforts fail?
Because North Korea is stronger than Iraq, probably, US will not attack to North Korea.
That means, we seem to be living in a Darwinian Jungle.
How much expansion of armaments do human being need to realize that it is necessary to the reduction in armaments of all nations?
Sincerely,
P.S.
Thank you, sheehanjihad!
Yes, the Japan-US Security Treaty protects Japan.
But somehow, the Japanese SDF is very strong troops as well as English (UK) troops. (Laughing)
Thank you, DB!
Yes, the Japanese SDF are working for both Iraqi people and American troops.
Japan is assisting both US and Iraq financially, too.
We are very careful to make good relation with Iraqi people and American people.
DW
December 9th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
Fuji,
In your nation’s constitution, you have renounced war. That is a good thing. No one here on this site (most of us have served in the military and/or have loved-ones who are currently serving) will ever dispute that. But what if your country was attacked ? More to the point, what if a small nation in your part of the world was attacked and Japan was in a position to help ? Would you not ?
Like you, I deeply respect the USA (I am a Canadian) and agree that there is much room for improvement, but what nation does not have room for improvement. Certainly not mine. Yours ?
It is a fine and noble thing to eschew war, but until every nation in the world does so, then sadly, tragically, there will be wars of aggression and there must be nations -like the US- that are willing to fight, and die if necessary to stop that aggression.
As DB pointed out, Japanese SDF troops are in Iraq alongside US troops. During ‘Operation Apollo’ -which was a navy operation in the Persian Gulf- Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces assisted Canadian warships. I mention that because they/(you) did it in violation of your constitution. Your ships were not combatants, but they kept our ships (which were) in action. It was the right thing to do -and were were grateful.
You mention North Korea. I don’t think the US wishes war with NK any more than they want war with anyone. But don’t make the mistake of thinking that the US would back down from a confrontation with them. If the US were the cowards and bullies that the world seems to think they are, they would be attacking countries like Canada (unwise..smiling) and Luxembourg (who ???..laughing). I firmly believe that the US usually acts in good faith. There is nothing in it for me to say that. I do not seek US citizenship. I am simply a friend and admirer who- like you- is interested in what is going on in the world.
rakkasan
December 9th, 2005 at 8:45 pm
Fugi, I think nations of the world should reduce their arms. The other side needs to start first.
The U.S. will not attack North Korea. The place is rotting from within, and that government cannot survive for (historically) that much longer. Plus, with cell phones, internet, and media smuggled in from China they know know that they don’t live in a pradise. They know that their lives suck really hard and the Great Leader has done nothing for them.
We also won’t *start* a war because Seoul would be destroyed in half an hour. It is not worth the cost. Iraq? Quite frankly, we did it because we could.
And yes, the Japanese “Self-Defense Forces” are very powerful. S+L folks, if you don’t already know, don’t let the name fool you. Thier military can kick some ass. The Japanese are coming out of the shell that Douglas MacArthur put on them. Geopolitical balance dictates Japan come out and be more aggressive with their talk. They already have the capability.
retire05
December 9th, 2005 at 9:55 pm
Fuji,
Perhaps you don’t learn this little piece of history in your schools, but after Japan surrendered in 1945, it had no army.
From the terms of surrender:
(9) The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.
Part of the terms of surrender was the total dismantlment of the Japanese Army. It was to prevent Japan from ever starting a war against anyone again.
inkependent_voter
December 9th, 2005 at 10:25 pm
Hi Fuji-san,
A reduction in the world’s armaments is indeed a worthy goal…there is only one problem:
Who is going to destroy their arms first? How do we guarantee that everyone destroys their armaments instead of hiding them? Who is going to police the destruction of those arms?
You see, this is what has gotten us into Iraq today. Saddam was supposed to disarm after the first Gulf War. He did not. The UN declared sanctions against Iraq. Saddam did not disarm. The UN sent in inspectors. Saddam was not open about letting them freely inspect and often led them a merry dance at these facilities. Often the arms were moved out the back door while the UN inspectors were waiting to come in at the front. He also lied about how many he had, so he looked tougher. Then when war seemed imminent, he shipped almost everything he had out of the country, so that when the US got there, they found some WMD’s, but not nearly all. There are satellite photos of trucks headed to Syria just before the war started. That’s probably where the WMD’s went.
This is a prime example of just how difficult disarmament would be. The UN has proved that they are incapable of overseeing one country’s disarmament…how would they manage to oversee the entire panoply of nations who have nuclear weapsons? Impossible for even an organization that is competent and trustworthy, but the UN has proven to be corrupt and incompetent.
As far as North Korea goes, they are walking the thin edge of the wedge right now. No one knows exactly what may happen there. But if the US were the gun-toting shoot-from-the-hip cowboys the world seems to think we are, we would have nuked North Korea long ago.
UTundergrad
December 10th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
I’d like to hear more from Fuji, you see I’ve got a fair chance to attend a Japanese university as an exchange student. I think it would be nice to hear from someone who is tied into the society, and not just a low ranking journalist shipped out as a foreign corespondent by the major networks. So please share your oppinion on some of the other stories. (just as an aside: I was wondering just where you found S&L)
As far as N.K. is conserned I have to agree with rakkasan, that they are already defeated by their own failures. When a nation has to lower the acceptable height of its soliders in order to meet recruitment figures, it just show how far gone N.K. really is. Their continued stubborn positioning in the multination summits, is just the posturing of an emasculated dictator. He knows his governmnet has failed miserably, that’s why we’ve even been able to have the summits with N.K. If his regime was successful he wouldn’t deal with the UN (and especially not the US), he would most likely assume an isolationist (if not expansionist) policy. In so many words he would probably tell the rest of the world just where they could put their treaties and human rights.
I found the following Indian blog yesterday.
Bombs over Bongs
It is not a happy article for me
but I posted my comment.
And I received some responses.
So, I have saved these interchange here.
5 · Fuji on December 7, 2005
Hello!
I am Japanese.
Each country has sad history.
I would like to know what you think of Mahathir’s speech.
Can I request to post that in your blog or my blog comment’s column?
Mahathir Mohamad's Speech
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
11 · Guru Gulab Khatri on December 8, 2005
Fuji
I read throught the Mahathir Mohammeds speech and its interesting.
He asks Japan China East asia to create an Asian alliance that can be used to standup to US and EU in political,military and economical spheres.
Do you think it was directed at Japan specificaly b/c of the role japanese military played in Iraq ?
18 · RC on December 8, 2005
Wow !! Great material and great comments!!
Even the Malaysian leaders speech was a good read.
19 · Fuji on December 8, 2005
Dear Guru,
Thank you for your response.
Yes, Japanese government has sent the Japanese Self-Defense Forces to Iraq, although there were many controversies.
If you want to know our government’s explanation, may be the following e-mail service would help forward.
Koizumi Cabinet E-mail Magazine
Of course, my opinion and our government’s policy are not always same.
I think Japan obey US too much.
By the way, what is the meaning of “b/c”?
And one more, if I mistake English, please tell me.
Sincerely,
P.S. Thank you, RC!
Bombs over Bongs
It is not a happy article for me
but I posted my comment.And I received some responses.
So, I have saved these interchange here.
5 · Fuji on December 7, 2005
Hello!
I am Japanese.
Each country has sad history.
I would like to know what you think of Mahathir’s speech.
Can I request to post that in your blog or my blog comment’s column?
Mahathir Mohamad's Speech
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
11 · Guru Gulab Khatri on December 8, 2005
Fuji
I read throught the Mahathir Mohammeds speech and its interesting.
He asks Japan China East asia to create an Asian alliance that can be used to standup to US and EU in political,military and economical spheres.
Do you think it was directed at Japan specificaly b/c of the role japanese military played in Iraq ?
18 · RC on December 8, 2005
Wow !! Great material and great comments!!
Even the Malaysian leaders speech was a good read.
19 · Fuji on December 8, 2005
Dear Guru,
Thank you for your response.
Yes, Japanese government has sent the Japanese Self-Defense Forces to Iraq, although there were many controversies.
If you want to know our government’s explanation, may be the following e-mail service would help forward.
Koizumi Cabinet E-mail Magazine
Of course, my opinion and our government’s policy are not always same.
I think Japan obey US too much.
By the way, what is the meaning of “b/c”?
And one more, if I mistake English, please tell me.
Sincerely,
P.S. Thank you, RC!
Because this article is useful to think about the direction of our future, I saved it here.
SPEECH BY TUN DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD AT WASEDA UNIVERSITY,
JAPAN ON 3 DECEMBER 2005
“JAPAN: THE KEY TO EAST ASIAN UNITY”
Distinguished Guests;
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Firstly I would like to thank Waseda University for the honour conferred on me by this award of an Honorary Doctorate. I had heard of Waseda University when I was a schoolboy. Those were the days when universities were not very many, and Malaysia had none at all.
The best known universities in those days were Cambridge and Oxford in England and Harvard and Yale in America. Then we got to now of Keio and Waseda in Japan. Somehow famous universities seemed to come in pairs.
I never dreamt as a schoolboy that I would make it to the university, certainly not the famous universities. And of course I did not. The university I went to is not famous. I graduated from the University of Malaya which today is considered one of the 200 best universities in the world but not famous like Waseda University.
But today I am here to receive this Honorary Degree from Waseda University. It is not of course a degree I earn through academic accomplishment. I would probably never pass the examinations here even if I master the Japanese language. But I feel as if I have earned it as much as graduates of the university. Perhaps I had done something to deserve it. So, thank you once again for this singular honour.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I must admit having an abiding fascination for Japan and the Japanese. I grew up at the time when Malaysia, or rather Malaya was a British colony. We had been virtually colonised ever since Alfonso D’Albuquerque conquered Malacca in 1511. Made up of small, weak and divided Malay states, Malaya had never been able to ward off European occupation or hegemony. Even before that we were always vassals to some overlord.
Unlike Japan, Italy, Germany, China and other countries which were once divided into small fiefs, the Malay states did not come together to become a nation until in 1957 when, upon independence, we became a federation and had a central Government.
The Europeans succeeded in also colonising our minds. We believed that the Europeans were invincible, that they were superior beings who knew what we did not know. We believed that Asians, all Asians were inferior.
And this belief was amplified by what we learnt in the English Medium Schools that we went to during the colonial period. We learnt not the history of our own country but the history of Britain and of the glorious British Empire. I actually felt proud that my country was a part of the British Empire on which the sun never sets. I could not imagine an end to this great empire.
There were a few Japanese in British Malaya, before the Pacific War, mostly selling toys or running photograph shops. Once my father brought a Japanese geologist to the house. He was investigating some peculiar rocks found in our small fruit farm. He was not a very impressive man, short, wearing ill-fitting plus fours and thick round glasses - in fact the typical Japanese of the British cartoonists.
Overall my impression of the Japanese was that they were copycats, producing inferior goods, poor imitations of the goods produced by the British. The chrome on the handle of my Japanese bicycle peeled off and the exposed handle-bar rusted.
I did not realise that some of the good products I bought were actually Japanese. I thought Pilot and Eversharp pens were British made. They were very good but they did not have Japanese names. And the “Made in Japan” inscribed were tiny and hidden.
Still inferior though the Japanese products may be I felt proud that an Asian people could manage to manufacture products which I had associated with Europeans. I had of course not heard that the Japanese had actually defeated a European nation, Russia, in a sea battle involving modern warships.
By 1940 there were rumblings of war approaching Malaya. We read of Japan’s invasion of China. Not much was reported in the Malayan papers. But we did know that the Chinese were bitter enemies of the Japanese. And in Malaya there had always been a big Chinese community. They collected funds to help the Chinese war effort and they boycotted Japanese goods. But as a Malay I was not too interested in this Chinese sentiments. The British had successfully divided us so that the Malays and the Chinese lived in different compartments, barely aware of each other and certainly not too interested in each others affairs.
In December 1941 the rumours about a Japanese invasion of Malaya became a reality when Japanese troops appeared in my hometown of Alor Star. It was a traumatic experience for me. A platoon of British troops was seen retreating in the rain near my house. My faith in British invincibility was shattered. And that faith never returned even though in the end the British and their allies won the war. The Japanese invasion decolonised our minds. That is the greatest contributions that Japan made to us Malays, and to many people in Southeast Asia.
I pictured Japan after the war as being totally shattered, destroyed by American bombings. I thought of the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the massive bombing of Tokyo. And I believed Japan would not recover, at least not for a long time. If it did, it would be the same cheap inferior goods producing Japan, always copying and always second-class.
In 1961, 16 years after the war ended I came to Japan for the first time. And I was amazed. Japan had practically recovered fully. Tokyo was being rebuilt at a furious pace. The elevated highway to Haneda was being built in preparation for the Tokyo Olympics. In Osaka, Matsushita had factories even in the rice fields. And Japanese products were no longer cheap imitations. They were of high quality and original. Still they were relatively cheap.
The whole impression was not of a defeated Japan, sulking and licking its wounds. It was of a dynamic Japan rising from the ashes like a phoenix. It was of a Japan shaking off its recent disastrous experience, determined to rebuild and to recapture its greatness.
As an Asian I was proud. As I said the defeat of the British forces in 1941 – 42 had shattered my belief in the White Men. What I saw in Japan in 1961 completely erased my sense of inferiority as an Asian. I told myself if Japan could do it, other Asian countries could also do it.
When I became Prime Minister of Malaysia in 1981 the first thing that leaped into my mind was the picture of Japan reconstructing which I witnessed in 1961. Could Malaysia emulate Japan? Could Malaysia learn from Japan how to develop the country, to industrialise, to give its people a good life? And to regain our honour, after 450 years of foreign rule and domination.
And so the Look East policy was formulated and adopted and it became a major part of Malaysia’s strategy for development and industrialisation. I am glad to say that Japan responded to Malaysia’s policy and provided scholarships and places in the universities and in the industrial establishments. My one regret is that I had almost deliberately forgotten the Japanese language which I learnt during the Japanese occupation. I thought it was of no use to me. How wrong I was. So I had three of my children studying and working in Japan and learning the Japanese language. I believe in leading by example. I cannot ask other people to get a Japanese education if I do not begin with my own children. When I introduced the Look East policy, Malaysians were still oriented toward the West, in particular Britain. I had to change this mindset. The Look East Policy was designed to do this.
I have a belief that if we help others we will reap rich benefits for ourselves. It came from the observation that after Japanese companies invested and set up industries in Malaysia, they helped to solve our unemployment problem and in many other ways they enriched our country. And when we became rich we became a good market for their Japanese goods. Clearly by prospering us you prosper yourself twice, once from investment profits and then from selling your products to us. A poor Malaysia would not make a good market for you.
On the other hand when a country is poor and is full of problems, its neighbours and other countries will suffer from the fallout of its misfortunes. Thus when Vietnam was impoverished by the war, its victory against the US resulted in a huge number of refugees landing on Malaysia’s shores. We had our hands full trying to deal with this fallout from a neighbouring country. When many other countries in the region are troubled with all sorts of problem; including unemployment, Malaysia feels the impact of their misfortunes. Conversely when they are stable and prosperous, Malaysia is not only free from undesirable fall-out problems, but we are able to trade with them, to benefit from their markets.
Out of this experience we developed a philosophy which has served us well. We now believe in and we promote the policy to prosper our neighbours. The common English saying is “Beggar Thy Neighbour” i.e. to benefit from making your neighbour poor or beggars. You win if the other loses. It was a zero sum game. Our slogan, our national creed is “Prosper Thy Neighbour”. We do this through training facilities for personnel from neighbouring and other third world countries and by investing there. We cannot afford to give financial aid. By adopting this as a policy we find our own country prospering and we get less fallouts from the problems of our neighbours. Additionally these countries are always supportive of us when we need their support - as in the United Nations for example. Prosper Thy Neighbour is not altruistic. It is enlightened self-interest. I commend this to Japan.
But unfortunately, the world today is led and dominated largely by rich and powerful countries who do not subscribe to the “Prosper Thy Neighbour” philosophy. They are still bent on beggaring other countries, on impoverishing them, and undermining their stability in order to prosper and secure themselves.
These powers claim that their intention is to help these poor countries by getting them to adopt the systems and the philosophy which they themselves use with success. They want all countries to be democratic overnight. They want these countries to open up to their capital and their powerful conglomerates and banks.
Because they believe that democracy is so good these powers are prepared to kill people in order to make them democratic and free. Somehow this does not seem logical - to kill people so they can be free. But that exactly is what we are seeing today. Hundreds of thousands of people are being starved, deprived of medical help through sanctions, bombed and rocketed so as to free them. Even if they become democratic, the cost in human lives and physical destruction is far too high. There are other means to democratise Japan for example than to drop atom bombs on its cities.
Democracy advocates free choice. But there is going to be no free choice for people and countries of today as far as the ideology is concerned. Democratise or the democrats will come in and force a Regime Change. They will finance the opposition and train them. They will demonise the existing Government which they condemn as undemocratic, so that a friendly “democratic” Government is empowered. If the people object to this then they should be eliminated, liquidated, killed. This is democracy from the barrel of a gun. We are seeing this happening before our very eyes today. Yet if the country has no wealth to be exploited, no regime change would be required. Millions die in poor African countries without anything being done.
In the early years after the last world war there was much talk of freedom and independence. And many former colonies of the Western powers gained independence. Malaysia is one of them. One of the elements that give meaning to independence is non-interference in the internal affairs of nations. The United Nations itself pledged to uphold this principle.
For a time the Western powers respected this principle. But not for long. Very quickly they invented ways of interfering in the internal affairs of independent countries.
First this was done through unofficial agencies. The Non-Government Organisation is a new phenomenon. Claiming that they had a responsibility to prevent human rights abuses, to guard against environmental degradation, to promote democracy etc. they gave themselves the right to ignore borders, ignore the independence of nations, to interfere in the domestic affairs of countries. Financed by unknown people, they used locals to harass independent Governments. They support the local NGOs with funds.
Impatient at not getting quick results they resorted to violence, accusing Governments of a whole list of misdemeanours. Their prime targets are those countries which appear to be developing well after achieving independence. These countries are accused of being undemocratic, of not respecting human rights and of polluting the environment. They are particularly supportive of labour rights and strikes which can paralyse industries which compete with their industries.
There may be some truth in what they say but their disrespect for the independence of nations has breached international norms of behaviour. Still their controlled press and their people make out that their breaches are justified. Soon the principle that the management of domestic affairs of independent states are the sovereign rights of nations is subjected to sustained attacks. The principle should be ignored and powerful countries should have the right to interfere. Effectively a new form of colonisation is being practiced by the former colonial powers. Neo-colonisation has now become a reality.
To cut a long story short, as a result of the NGOs ignoring borders and the principle of non-interference, today the big powers blatantly arrogate to themselves the right to interfere directly in the internal affairs of independent countries to the point of forcibly changing their Government.
Non-interference in the internal affairs of independent countries is a good principle. It gives meaning to independence. But it must be admitted that sometimes the Governments of some countries are so oppressive, and the people are so powerless to protect themselves that the only way to stop the abuses of power by the Government is to get outside help.
Cambodia is a case of point. When it was ruled by the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot, two million Cambodians were tortured and killed in the most brutal manner. News of this massacre of the people by their own Government leaked out slowly. The world would be justified in interfering. But the world ignored the news and did nothing.
In Bosnia Herzegovina the Serbs carried out ethnic cleansing in full view of the world through TV. Some 200,000 Bosniacs were killed. In Srebrenica Dutch soldiers did nothing as Serbs slaughtered some 7,000 Bosniacs practically in front of them. Perhaps it was due to respect for internal affairs. But what were the Dutch soldiers doing there if not to stop Serb atrocities on behalf of the United Nations.
In Rwanda and Burundi millions were killed due to tribal wars which the Governments were unable to stop. And many more cases of massacres by the Governments or because Governments are not strong enough to maintain law and order occur in many countries in recent times. Should the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of countries be respected in such cases? Obviously not. The world community has a duty to prevent these things from happening. It has a right to do so.
Who represents the world community? Obviously it is the United Nations. The United Nations has been authorised to interfere in the internal affairs of nations if there is no other way to stop Government abuses of power or when Governments are not strong enough to maintain law and order.
But what we are seeing is the unlawful seizure by a super power of the role and rights of the United Nations.
When one country seizes for itself the right to determine who is in breach of universal laws and to act without the approval of the international community then it is going to abuse the rights and the power. As the saying goes, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” We are seeing this in Iraq. To rid the country of one person, more than 500,000 children have died as a result of sanctions and more than a hundred thousand people have been killed during and after the invasion of Iraq. What is worse is that getting rid of the dictator has not brought about the results that were promised. If at all the situation has become worse than when the offending leader was in power. All these point to poor understanding and bad action by the country which had seized power that rightly belongs to the United Nations.
Separation of power is an important way to prevent abuses of power. The objection against authoritarian rule is because separations of power does not exist. There is therefore no checks and balance. The good thing about democracy, apart from the right of the people to choose the Government, is the separation between the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. Each would be in a position to check abuses by the other two.
When we have one super power as lawmaker, enforcer and executioner with no one, not even the international community to check it, there will be abuses. Thus despite evidence to the contrary, that power decided to invade Iraq, killing its people and destroying its towns and cities in order to rid the country of its leader who was alleged to have weapons of mass destruction. Today it is manifestly clear that Iraq had no WMD. Worse still the leader of the super power is proven to have lied about the WMD. But we cannot bring back to life those who have been killed, including the soldiers of the super power. When power is vested in one country, this is what can happen and has happened. It is sad to see this blatant abuse of power being endorsed by some countries. The world will not be a safe place if unilateral seizure of power is supported.
Instead we should strive for a more democratic world where there would be checks and balance. For some time now we have been trying to promote an East Asia Economic Group. We need this even more now since we cannot bring back a bipolar world. The centers of power today are with (i) North America and (ii) the European Union. Both are ethnic Europeans. Only Asia can provide a check against absolute domination of this world by Europeans. And in Asia we look to Japan as one of the leaders.
Asia has the credibility and the economic and political clout to intervene when either North America or Europe try to arrogate power to themselves. In fact only East Asia can play a moderating role. No other region can at this point in time.
Unfortunately East Asia is in disarray. We are still living in the past, still being dragged down by the baggage of history. Japan still refuses to admit the wrongs that it committed in the past.
China too is living in the past. And in China’s and Japan’s past, there are a lot of things which instil anger and enmity, towards each other. It does not help if there are deliberate provocative acts, calculated to revive memorise of past conflicts and enmity.
In Europe, France and Germany had been at war for more than a century. But they decided there was no merit in wars. They decided to bury the past, to forget their enmity and to be partners in the building of a new peaceful Europe. And we have seen the result - 60 years of European Peace among members of the European Union.
Cannot we do the same, we Asians, Japan and China in particular. Must we allow the mistakes of the past to determine our future forever? These baggages of history - must they shackle us to the past and destroy our future.
The key to East Asia unity lies with Japan and China. The key to East Asian stability is also with Japan and China. Alignment with non-Asian countries in the past had cost Japan much. If Japan aligns with non-Asian countries again it may result in other East Asian countries seeking non-Asian alliance. Then instead of cooperation and unity there would be confrontation. That could not be good for Japan, for East Asia or for the world.
Ladies and Gentlemen.
Never has the world been as rich and as advanced technologically as it is today. Yet 1/3 of the world live in poverty while one tenth live a life of overflowing wealth and luxury. And this one tenth is spending trillions of dollars on ways to kill people. The result is a world living in fear of terror. And the terror is getting worse because the rich use military might to suppress all opposition against them.
The sad state of the world today is due to adherence to the strategy of “Beggar thy Neighbour”, of a zero sum game where one gets rich by impoverishing the other, where rich countries apply sanctions to starve people, to kill them; where the powerful consider war, that is the killing of people, as a way to settle disputes, to spread an ideology. We are not civilised. We are as primitive as the people of the stone age, perhaps more primitive.
In this messy situation, is there a role for universities, for Waseda University for example. I think you should seriously ponder your role. If intellectuals abdicate then the ungodly will rule this world. I need not add that when such people rule this world we will all suffer.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
May I once again thank Waseda University for conferring on me the honorary doctorate.
Thank you.
References
Mahathir Mohamad's Speech at Waseda
Speech in PDF format.
SPEECH BY TUN DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD AT WASEDA UNIVERSITY,
JAPAN ON 3 DECEMBER 2005
“JAPAN: THE KEY TO EAST ASIAN UNITY”
Distinguished Guests;
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Firstly I would like to thank Waseda University for the honour conferred on me by this award of an Honorary Doctorate. I had heard of Waseda University when I was a schoolboy. Those were the days when universities were not very many, and Malaysia had none at all.
The best known universities in those days were Cambridge and Oxford in England and Harvard and Yale in America. Then we got to now of Keio and Waseda in Japan. Somehow famous universities seemed to come in pairs.
I never dreamt as a schoolboy that I would make it to the university, certainly not the famous universities. And of course I did not. The university I went to is not famous. I graduated from the University of Malaya which today is considered one of the 200 best universities in the world but not famous like Waseda University.
But today I am here to receive this Honorary Degree from Waseda University. It is not of course a degree I earn through academic accomplishment. I would probably never pass the examinations here even if I master the Japanese language. But I feel as if I have earned it as much as graduates of the university. Perhaps I had done something to deserve it. So, thank you once again for this singular honour.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I must admit having an abiding fascination for Japan and the Japanese. I grew up at the time when Malaysia, or rather Malaya was a British colony. We had been virtually colonised ever since Alfonso D’Albuquerque conquered Malacca in 1511. Made up of small, weak and divided Malay states, Malaya had never been able to ward off European occupation or hegemony. Even before that we were always vassals to some overlord.
Unlike Japan, Italy, Germany, China and other countries which were once divided into small fiefs, the Malay states did not come together to become a nation until in 1957 when, upon independence, we became a federation and had a central Government.
The Europeans succeeded in also colonising our minds. We believed that the Europeans were invincible, that they were superior beings who knew what we did not know. We believed that Asians, all Asians were inferior.
And this belief was amplified by what we learnt in the English Medium Schools that we went to during the colonial period. We learnt not the history of our own country but the history of Britain and of the glorious British Empire. I actually felt proud that my country was a part of the British Empire on which the sun never sets. I could not imagine an end to this great empire.
There were a few Japanese in British Malaya, before the Pacific War, mostly selling toys or running photograph shops. Once my father brought a Japanese geologist to the house. He was investigating some peculiar rocks found in our small fruit farm. He was not a very impressive man, short, wearing ill-fitting plus fours and thick round glasses - in fact the typical Japanese of the British cartoonists.
Overall my impression of the Japanese was that they were copycats, producing inferior goods, poor imitations of the goods produced by the British. The chrome on the handle of my Japanese bicycle peeled off and the exposed handle-bar rusted.
I did not realise that some of the good products I bought were actually Japanese. I thought Pilot and Eversharp pens were British made. They were very good but they did not have Japanese names. And the “Made in Japan” inscribed were tiny and hidden.
Still inferior though the Japanese products may be I felt proud that an Asian people could manage to manufacture products which I had associated with Europeans. I had of course not heard that the Japanese had actually defeated a European nation, Russia, in a sea battle involving modern warships.
By 1940 there were rumblings of war approaching Malaya. We read of Japan’s invasion of China. Not much was reported in the Malayan papers. But we did know that the Chinese were bitter enemies of the Japanese. And in Malaya there had always been a big Chinese community. They collected funds to help the Chinese war effort and they boycotted Japanese goods. But as a Malay I was not too interested in this Chinese sentiments. The British had successfully divided us so that the Malays and the Chinese lived in different compartments, barely aware of each other and certainly not too interested in each others affairs.
In December 1941 the rumours about a Japanese invasion of Malaya became a reality when Japanese troops appeared in my hometown of Alor Star. It was a traumatic experience for me. A platoon of British troops was seen retreating in the rain near my house. My faith in British invincibility was shattered. And that faith never returned even though in the end the British and their allies won the war. The Japanese invasion decolonised our minds. That is the greatest contributions that Japan made to us Malays, and to many people in Southeast Asia.
I pictured Japan after the war as being totally shattered, destroyed by American bombings. I thought of the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the massive bombing of Tokyo. And I believed Japan would not recover, at least not for a long time. If it did, it would be the same cheap inferior goods producing Japan, always copying and always second-class.
In 1961, 16 years after the war ended I came to Japan for the first time. And I was amazed. Japan had practically recovered fully. Tokyo was being rebuilt at a furious pace. The elevated highway to Haneda was being built in preparation for the Tokyo Olympics. In Osaka, Matsushita had factories even in the rice fields. And Japanese products were no longer cheap imitations. They were of high quality and original. Still they were relatively cheap.
The whole impression was not of a defeated Japan, sulking and licking its wounds. It was of a dynamic Japan rising from the ashes like a phoenix. It was of a Japan shaking off its recent disastrous experience, determined to rebuild and to recapture its greatness.
As an Asian I was proud. As I said the defeat of the British forces in 1941 – 42 had shattered my belief in the White Men. What I saw in Japan in 1961 completely erased my sense of inferiority as an Asian. I told myself if Japan could do it, other Asian countries could also do it.
When I became Prime Minister of Malaysia in 1981 the first thing that leaped into my mind was the picture of Japan reconstructing which I witnessed in 1961. Could Malaysia emulate Japan? Could Malaysia learn from Japan how to develop the country, to industrialise, to give its people a good life? And to regain our honour, after 450 years of foreign rule and domination.
And so the Look East policy was formulated and adopted and it became a major part of Malaysia’s strategy for development and industrialisation. I am glad to say that Japan responded to Malaysia’s policy and provided scholarships and places in the universities and in the industrial establishments. My one regret is that I had almost deliberately forgotten the Japanese language which I learnt during the Japanese occupation. I thought it was of no use to me. How wrong I was. So I had three of my children studying and working in Japan and learning the Japanese language. I believe in leading by example. I cannot ask other people to get a Japanese education if I do not begin with my own children. When I introduced the Look East policy, Malaysians were still oriented toward the West, in particular Britain. I had to change this mindset. The Look East Policy was designed to do this.
I have a belief that if we help others we will reap rich benefits for ourselves. It came from the observation that after Japanese companies invested and set up industries in Malaysia, they helped to solve our unemployment problem and in many other ways they enriched our country. And when we became rich we became a good market for their Japanese goods. Clearly by prospering us you prosper yourself twice, once from investment profits and then from selling your products to us. A poor Malaysia would not make a good market for you.
On the other hand when a country is poor and is full of problems, its neighbours and other countries will suffer from the fallout of its misfortunes. Thus when Vietnam was impoverished by the war, its victory against the US resulted in a huge number of refugees landing on Malaysia’s shores. We had our hands full trying to deal with this fallout from a neighbouring country. When many other countries in the region are troubled with all sorts of problem; including unemployment, Malaysia feels the impact of their misfortunes. Conversely when they are stable and prosperous, Malaysia is not only free from undesirable fall-out problems, but we are able to trade with them, to benefit from their markets.
Out of this experience we developed a philosophy which has served us well. We now believe in and we promote the policy to prosper our neighbours. The common English saying is “Beggar Thy Neighbour” i.e. to benefit from making your neighbour poor or beggars. You win if the other loses. It was a zero sum game. Our slogan, our national creed is “Prosper Thy Neighbour”. We do this through training facilities for personnel from neighbouring and other third world countries and by investing there. We cannot afford to give financial aid. By adopting this as a policy we find our own country prospering and we get less fallouts from the problems of our neighbours. Additionally these countries are always supportive of us when we need their support - as in the United Nations for example. Prosper Thy Neighbour is not altruistic. It is enlightened self-interest. I commend this to Japan.
But unfortunately, the world today is led and dominated largely by rich and powerful countries who do not subscribe to the “Prosper Thy Neighbour” philosophy. They are still bent on beggaring other countries, on impoverishing them, and undermining their stability in order to prosper and secure themselves.
These powers claim that their intention is to help these poor countries by getting them to adopt the systems and the philosophy which they themselves use with success. They want all countries to be democratic overnight. They want these countries to open up to their capital and their powerful conglomerates and banks.
Because they believe that democracy is so good these powers are prepared to kill people in order to make them democratic and free. Somehow this does not seem logical - to kill people so they can be free. But that exactly is what we are seeing today. Hundreds of thousands of people are being starved, deprived of medical help through sanctions, bombed and rocketed so as to free them. Even if they become democratic, the cost in human lives and physical destruction is far too high. There are other means to democratise Japan for example than to drop atom bombs on its cities.
Democracy advocates free choice. But there is going to be no free choice for people and countries of today as far as the ideology is concerned. Democratise or the democrats will come in and force a Regime Change. They will finance the opposition and train them. They will demonise the existing Government which they condemn as undemocratic, so that a friendly “democratic” Government is empowered. If the people object to this then they should be eliminated, liquidated, killed. This is democracy from the barrel of a gun. We are seeing this happening before our very eyes today. Yet if the country has no wealth to be exploited, no regime change would be required. Millions die in poor African countries without anything being done.
In the early years after the last world war there was much talk of freedom and independence. And many former colonies of the Western powers gained independence. Malaysia is one of them. One of the elements that give meaning to independence is non-interference in the internal affairs of nations. The United Nations itself pledged to uphold this principle.
For a time the Western powers respected this principle. But not for long. Very quickly they invented ways of interfering in the internal affairs of independent countries.
First this was done through unofficial agencies. The Non-Government Organisation is a new phenomenon. Claiming that they had a responsibility to prevent human rights abuses, to guard against environmental degradation, to promote democracy etc. they gave themselves the right to ignore borders, ignore the independence of nations, to interfere in the domestic affairs of countries. Financed by unknown people, they used locals to harass independent Governments. They support the local NGOs with funds.
Impatient at not getting quick results they resorted to violence, accusing Governments of a whole list of misdemeanours. Their prime targets are those countries which appear to be developing well after achieving independence. These countries are accused of being undemocratic, of not respecting human rights and of polluting the environment. They are particularly supportive of labour rights and strikes which can paralyse industries which compete with their industries.
There may be some truth in what they say but their disrespect for the independence of nations has breached international norms of behaviour. Still their controlled press and their people make out that their breaches are justified. Soon the principle that the management of domestic affairs of independent states are the sovereign rights of nations is subjected to sustained attacks. The principle should be ignored and powerful countries should have the right to interfere. Effectively a new form of colonisation is being practiced by the former colonial powers. Neo-colonisation has now become a reality.
To cut a long story short, as a result of the NGOs ignoring borders and the principle of non-interference, today the big powers blatantly arrogate to themselves the right to interfere directly in the internal affairs of independent countries to the point of forcibly changing their Government.
Non-interference in the internal affairs of independent countries is a good principle. It gives meaning to independence. But it must be admitted that sometimes the Governments of some countries are so oppressive, and the people are so powerless to protect themselves that the only way to stop the abuses of power by the Government is to get outside help.
Cambodia is a case of point. When it was ruled by the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot, two million Cambodians were tortured and killed in the most brutal manner. News of this massacre of the people by their own Government leaked out slowly. The world would be justified in interfering. But the world ignored the news and did nothing.
In Bosnia Herzegovina the Serbs carried out ethnic cleansing in full view of the world through TV. Some 200,000 Bosniacs were killed. In Srebrenica Dutch soldiers did nothing as Serbs slaughtered some 7,000 Bosniacs practically in front of them. Perhaps it was due to respect for internal affairs. But what were the Dutch soldiers doing there if not to stop Serb atrocities on behalf of the United Nations.
In Rwanda and Burundi millions were killed due to tribal wars which the Governments were unable to stop. And many more cases of massacres by the Governments or because Governments are not strong enough to maintain law and order occur in many countries in recent times. Should the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of countries be respected in such cases? Obviously not. The world community has a duty to prevent these things from happening. It has a right to do so.
Who represents the world community? Obviously it is the United Nations. The United Nations has been authorised to interfere in the internal affairs of nations if there is no other way to stop Government abuses of power or when Governments are not strong enough to maintain law and order.
But what we are seeing is the unlawful seizure by a super power of the role and rights of the United Nations.
When one country seizes for itself the right to determine who is in breach of universal laws and to act without the approval of the international community then it is going to abuse the rights and the power. As the saying goes, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” We are seeing this in Iraq. To rid the country of one person, more than 500,000 children have died as a result of sanctions and more than a hundred thousand people have been killed during and after the invasion of Iraq. What is worse is that getting rid of the dictator has not brought about the results that were promised. If at all the situation has become worse than when the offending leader was in power. All these point to poor understanding and bad action by the country which had seized power that rightly belongs to the United Nations.
Separation of power is an important way to prevent abuses of power. The objection against authoritarian rule is because separations of power does not exist. There is therefore no checks and balance. The good thing about democracy, apart from the right of the people to choose the Government, is the separation between the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. Each would be in a position to check abuses by the other two.
When we have one super power as lawmaker, enforcer and executioner with no one, not even the international community to check it, there will be abuses. Thus despite evidence to the contrary, that power decided to invade Iraq, killing its people and destroying its towns and cities in order to rid the country of its leader who was alleged to have weapons of mass destruction. Today it is manifestly clear that Iraq had no WMD. Worse still the leader of the super power is proven to have lied about the WMD. But we cannot bring back to life those who have been killed, including the soldiers of the super power. When power is vested in one country, this is what can happen and has happened. It is sad to see this blatant abuse of power being endorsed by some countries. The world will not be a safe place if unilateral seizure of power is supported.
Instead we should strive for a more democratic world where there would be checks and balance. For some time now we have been trying to promote an East Asia Economic Group. We need this even more now since we cannot bring back a bipolar world. The centers of power today are with (i) North America and (ii) the European Union. Both are ethnic Europeans. Only Asia can provide a check against absolute domination of this world by Europeans. And in Asia we look to Japan as one of the leaders.
Asia has the credibility and the economic and political clout to intervene when either North America or Europe try to arrogate power to themselves. In fact only East Asia can play a moderating role. No other region can at this point in time.
Unfortunately East Asia is in disarray. We are still living in the past, still being dragged down by the baggage of history. Japan still refuses to admit the wrongs that it committed in the past.
China too is living in the past. And in China’s and Japan’s past, there are a lot of things which instil anger and enmity, towards each other. It does not help if there are deliberate provocative acts, calculated to revive memorise of past conflicts and enmity.
In Europe, France and Germany had been at war for more than a century. But they decided there was no merit in wars. They decided to bury the past, to forget their enmity and to be partners in the building of a new peaceful Europe. And we have seen the result - 60 years of European Peace among members of the European Union.
Cannot we do the same, we Asians, Japan and China in particular. Must we allow the mistakes of the past to determine our future forever? These baggages of history - must they shackle us to the past and destroy our future.
The key to East Asia unity lies with Japan and China. The key to East Asian stability is also with Japan and China. Alignment with non-Asian countries in the past had cost Japan much. If Japan aligns with non-Asian countries again it may result in other East Asian countries seeking non-Asian alliance. Then instead of cooperation and unity there would be confrontation. That could not be good for Japan, for East Asia or for the world.
Ladies and Gentlemen.
Never has the world been as rich and as advanced technologically as it is today. Yet 1/3 of the world live in poverty while one tenth live a life of overflowing wealth and luxury. And this one tenth is spending trillions of dollars on ways to kill people. The result is a world living in fear of terror. And the terror is getting worse because the rich use military might to suppress all opposition against them.
The sad state of the world today is due to adherence to the strategy of “Beggar thy Neighbour”, of a zero sum game where one gets rich by impoverishing the other, where rich countries apply sanctions to starve people, to kill them; where the powerful consider war, that is the killing of people, as a way to settle disputes, to spread an ideology. We are not civilised. We are as primitive as the people of the stone age, perhaps more primitive.
In this messy situation, is there a role for universities, for Waseda University for example. I think you should seriously ponder your role. If intellectuals abdicate then the ungodly will rule this world. I need not add that when such people rule this world we will all suffer.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
May I once again thank Waseda University for conferring on me the honorary doctorate.
Thank you.
References
Mahathir Mohamad's Speech at Waseda
Speech in PDF format.
Let's talk free.
You can ask me anything except my privacy.
You can ask me anything except my privacy.
