hermitage comments

What we, Japanese civilians need to know that Japan accepted the unconditional surrender in 1945, and it was necessary not for the U.S. but for Japan to stop the atrocious war. On the other hand, the U.S. also committed a serious war crime, because they slaughtered nearly 250,000 civlians by the "new weapon". It can be named the "Hiroshima-Nagasaki Massacre". So, yes, every party committed serious war crimes. However, this doesn't justify the serious errors and crimes that the Japanese government did during the war. The government left many their own soldiers in the lurch. The government did not tell the people of the real facts in the war. The government abused her own civilians and soldiers. The government told lies to the peoples in the colonized countries, by not guaranteeing the equality of rights. Japanese people were a partner in the war crime, but also one of the victims of the crime by the Japanese political leaders. This situation makes things difficult and complicated. I can understand those who want to pray at the shrine. But, historically speaking, supporting the right-wing politicians praying at the shrine will mislead the people in the world. Also, it will be a betrayal to the Japanese soldiers and people abused and killed. Unlike their "conservative" political slogans, LDP politicians have destroyed the traditional culture of Japan by converting cities and towns to concrete jungles. What they want to conserve is their power and its status quo, and the fictional glory of the past heroes.

But “the bottom line for us is this is the way to get the cooperation we want, this is the way to get the support for nonproliferation,” he said, urging the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group to move “expeditiously.”

A good joke. But there will be fewer and fewer NTP members. If they continue this kind of comedy, Japan will have to consider leaving the NTP framework "expeditiously".

Imagawa-san,

There are many other issues with which both Koreans and Japaneses can agree. But there are many other conflicting issues. But it's natural. One thing important is that we should not unnecessarily make it over-heated. I wish Korean people to calm down, and trying to closely, objectively, looking at historical facts, not biased by ready-made prejudices and propaganda. I wish Japanese people to have a good balance in evaluating and criticizing what Japan has done in the past. Trying to extract good things only, or bad things only from her history will fail, and lead to a misconception that mislead opinions.

Hi all, btw, how long are you going to discuss this issue. It's clear that the Japanese and Korean governments have different views to this issue. The important point is that the dispute is just that. No war is approaching at all. No real menace exists. Also, in spite of the different government policies. People in both countries don't have to support their government policies. Why do they? I intended to make it clear just that the difference exists and that S. Koreans reactions are excessive. However, I never let everyone to support the Japanese policy. It's your freedom whether you follow which policy. Also, you don't need to follow any of the two government policies. You should have your own.

My point of insisting on the necessity of everyone's calming down is not just based on my subjective view from Japan, but on the fact that we should be free in supporting which standpoints on the issue.

Nationalism is, however reasonable in the relations between nations, not necessary and necessarily desirable, in the contexts of each individual's decisions and judgements about issues, including this.

It's nonsense to criticize each other, representing one's nation. It's the governement's business, not yours.

I hear the Flower Travelin' Band that was active in the early 1970s, famous for their records such as Satori are reunited at the Fuji Rock Festival this year. Is this true?

One idealistic solution is that both Japan and Korea will form a new nation called "Take-Dok Island Republic" which is a special free-trade district with facilities for fishing, tourism and gambling. Fifty percents of the Diet members are Korean or Japanese, and vice versa. :-)

Biblic,

Conflicts are unavoidable between two adjacent nations. I think Korea has had conflicts not only with Japan but with China, Russia, North Korea, etc. Japan has not only been a violent colonialist against Asian countries, but has had other conflicts and battles with the U.S., Russia and other Western countries since the middle of the 19th century.

And today in our East Asian region, it's not sensible to fight each other. It's a waste of life, money and time. Japan has learned that war costs too much, though it may bring a short-time wealth and fragile leadership. Did Japan moved its navy ships to "Dokdo"? No, she just wrote her opinion that has long been told to the Korean government since the 1950s. I know the historical context that you mean. Japan has annexed Korea and exploited her people before and during WWII.

But the sixty years of our history after WWII are also Japan's history. Whyd don't you look at it? Japan has not only nasty and dark history, but at least peaceful, if not better, history as well. As S. Korean people tend to ignore this simple historical fact after WWII, they look emotionally over-reacting to any trifle behaviors of Japan.

But you are right. We should go to mountains in Korea or Japan, and along the river, sing songs, dance, enjoy drinking! Isn't it the ideal scene that Chinese, Korean and Japanese people have dreamed for more than one thousand centuries?

Let's do it, everywhere. That's far better than your/our getting angry with fierce faces.

Have a good weekend.

Everyone knows that it's difficult to answer this question. Also, I believe everyone doesn't want to see too many unnecessary violent scenes in a movie or TV program, because such things are just nasty. So, if today's movie producers cannot restrict themselves from shooting too many violent scenes, the government will have to restrict it. But, first, they themselves should make a better set of guidelines about violent scenes in film and video works.

Everyone should understand that territorial conflicts cannot be so easily solved. And there's no possibility of Japan's using her military force to solve this problem (though S. Korea has already used her military force to control the island). For Japan, doing it will just increase tension and only damage her economical and social conditions, and the Japanese Constitution prohibits such a method. So, it's not necessary for anyone to over-react. Rather trying to solve the global warming will be much more effective for both countries. Don't you think so?

Yes, I understand that Japan is not in a position to decide what the S. Korean government do. It's their freedom. Do they dispatch corps to the island? Do they build a hotel on the island for the tourism of excited patriotic people from all over Korea? Everything is at the S. Korean government's disposal. It's their freedom. But I recommend them not to lose money.

I guess the Japanese government will just write her official opinion about the issue in some documents or guidebooks, textbooks, etc. They won't move any one of their navy ships, until S. Korea introduces visible imbalance of power in the area. It's not just peaceful but cost-effective, isn't it? It's nonsense to spend money of Japanese taxpayers for the illusionary military tension.

biblic,

"the territorial conflict made by Japan is getting more intense and widespread, yielding another counter-territorial request from Korea".

So, the issue is disputed, and disputable, as I wrote. I am happy to know that you chose to widthdraw the previous old-Japanese-militant-like, imperialistic, arbitrary and selfish statement.

I know it's hard to solve the issue soon. So, I'm proposing we should calm down. Today's S. Korean reactions meke me fee as if Japan's battleships are approaching Takeshima and S. Korea to re-annex S. Korea and recaputure the island. But in reality, such a thing has never occured. Why do S. Korean people instigate the people unnecessary? For the President to distract criticisms against his political ability to foreign Japan?

bibric,

"Second, the territorial issue is an indisputable one for the possessor."

Ha, ha, ha. This is just nonsense. If there's someone (even only one in the world) who disputes it, it's disputable for anyone. Even if someone can say "it's indisputable", it is just a sheer false statement. Ha, ha, ha. This is the very obvious truth. Etymologically, the word "dispute" meant "contending with words". So, if one does not regard it as a dispute, if the opponent regards it as a dipute, it can be a dispute, which is disputable. Anyone can see this simple logic.

Also, I think your saying "the territorial issue is an indisputable one for the possessor" can be associated to the very imperialistic, colonicalistic assertions typically done by Japan in the 1930s and early 40s. I know S. Korean military force is protecting the Takeshima area today to control the area. On the one hand, S. Korean people criticizes severely Japan's invasiona nd annexation of Korea in the past. I can understand their criticisms and anti-Japan sentiment, because I know Japan in those days was a terrible autocratic regime.

But on the other hand, S. Korean people base their opinion about Takeshima on a very violent, militaristic principle: "the territorial issue is an indisputable one for the possessor."

Isn't this a terrible contradiction? Why don't they understand why I say they should calm down anyway. Or, S. Korean people wants to invade Japan, to satisfy their naive sentiment? Still they want to criticize Japan's bad conducts in the past. It's incredible. S. Korean people, you should have a good logic and a good eye to look at the reality, not any illusion about Japan.

Oh, "5. Everyone in Japa knows it cannot be solved in near future" is correct.

Dear all, One interesting solution to this issue: Known facts:

S. Korea's and Japan's opinions are completely different. S. Korea refused to discuss it at ICJ. The Japanese constitution prohibits her to solve any diplomatic issues by military action. Compared to the strong reactions by S. Korean people, Japanese people are less interested in this issue. Everyone in Japan knows it can be solved in near future.

Based on these, one possible solution is to propose:

Both Japan and S. Korea stop inisting on their right about the island. Japan will pay all the cost to redevelop the island, opening ports, airport, apparatus for fishing, tele-communication, eletric power plants, etc. Costs other than the infrastructure will be paid by both parties. Both Japan and S. Korea will collaborate to build a town for tourism and fishing. The town will be regarded as a S. Korean town according to S. Korean admistrative law. The town will be regarded as a Japanese town according to S. Korean administrative law. Japan and S. Korea will sign a special tax treaty to avoid double taxation from the islanders. (A resident can choose to which government they pay the tax). Also, another treaty to suppress military actions around the area by both nations and to guarantee the security of fishermen and transportation in the area.

This will work, without damaging any of Japan's and Korean's claims.

This dispute is called a "dispute", because Japan and Korea have different views to the issue.

But such a difference is common, between two adjacent nations, isn't it? It may be natural that there can be many differences and conflicting issues between two nations.

Also, it's known that Japan cannot legally recapture the island, because the island is currently controlled by S. Korea, and Japan's constitution restrics her use of military force very strictly. It's impossible to have any evil intention of recapturing the island, nor re-invading or re-annexing S. Korean controlled areas today and in future.

This means that this "dispute" is just a difference of opinion between the two nations.

The recent reactions by the S. Korean government and people look to be over-reactions. They are depicting the "difference" as serious menace from Japan. But such menace doesn't exist really. It's an illusion and a showy political propaganda. Calm down. Look at the reality, not the fiction.

It seems Korean people forget that Takeshima/Dokdo is currently controlled by South Korea, regardless of Japan's own opinion that has been expressed for many decades.

Also, it's clear that Japan has no power and legitimacy to recapture the island by force.

Linking the Japan's claim about Takeshima/Dokdo to her will to invade Korea again is totally nonsense. Associating it to the Japanese imperialism in the past and its revival is also totally nonsense.

S. Koreans should calm down. Such over-reactions will benefit North Korea only. The protecting the freedom and democracy, which S. Koreans have established through struggles for decades should be more important.

Calm down. Over-reactions will damage the general interest of both S. Korea and Japan. Of course, I agree that Japan also should not instigate people to stick to the issue unnecessarily.

Peace of mind. Peace in Asia.

bibric, If China or Taiwan brings the Senkaku issue to ICJ, I think it is possible that Japan will agree to do it. It's one possible approach. Thanks.

nipponlove,

I agree today's rightwingers and nationalists in Japan are busy in justifying what Japan did in the past. And, I believe most of what they say are wrong or misleading, about the most basic negative side of Japan's conducts in the past. And, I can understand why Koreans get angry at those historical revisionists in Japan.

And yet, even S. Koreans cannot erase the history of what Syngman Rhee, selfish dictator in S. Korea did arbitrarily in the past, as Japaneses cannot erase its dark history in the first half of the 20th century.

Regarding this issue of Takeshima/Dokdo, Syngman Rhee played the central role. So, Japan proposed to discuss the issue at ICJ, but they refused it, long ago.

I agree it's rightful for S. Koreans to criticize Japan's bad conducts, invasion and annexation before/during WWII. If so, S. Koreans also should have the chance of looking back her dark history in the 1940s-70s.

Since the end of WWII, better or worse, Japan has not had the opportunity to be brutal and committed military actions, while Korea and China were so aggressive, having initiated cruel wars in Asia.

Look at the reality of today's Japan, and youre vision about 20th-21st century history will restore a good balance.

I really think that S. Korean politicians and people should first look at the reality of Japan and her diplomatic policies. Japan has never used its military power to solve a problem since the end of WWII.

S. Korean people should stop enlarging the megalomaniac, subjective, unreasoned illusion about Japan today, and see what the Japanese government did about the dispute of Takeshima/Dodko. She has just mentioned her policy in a book. The policy is not new to S. Korea, because it is that which S. Korea refused to discuss at ICJ many decades ago.

Most Japanese people are tired of hearing the noisy voices of this kind of mass hysteria again and again. S. Korean people should understand that their over-reactions will make the Japanese opinions more and more conservative and narrow-minded. On both sides, people have to be indifferent to the reality, it's where fanatic nationalists come in, and making things worse and worse.

Calm down. This is what I want to say to South Koreans.

OssanULTRA,

Oh, it will destablize relations between Japan, the U.S. and S. Korea, and bring more uncertainty into the political scene, won't it?

As the Japan-U.S. alliance is designed basically to compete against the expansion of communist, anti-capitalist or autocratic nations, if it's applied to any other situations such as the possible (but not realistic) Japan-Korea conflict, there will be too much risk to the relations between all the interested nations as well as to the treaty system and the alliance themselves. Only North Korea, China and Russia will get some benefit from the uncertain situation in the alliance between the free democratic nations in East Asia, won't they?

(sorry for the last too lengthy message).

OssanULTRA wrote:

invokes the US-Japan mutual defense treaty.

This doesn't work, as the U.S. today has a neutral policy about this dispute about the islets.

bibric, Thanks for the good comments. I am a Japanese, and unlike rightwingers that have upserged in recent years in Japan, I agree that Japan was responsible for many nasty bad conducts before and during WWII; conspiracies, murders, tortures, etc....

The bad, bureaucratic conservatism of the Japanese politics, as many here have pointed out, was not too bad, in the sense of war and peace. The government was not so adventurous to begin a war.

But how adventurous have other Asian countries been? Japan kept the peace in East Asia by not initiating any military action.

Was Syngman Rhee more peace-loving than the contemporary Japanese prime ministers? Are the South and North Korean governments more peace-loving than Japan today?

You should look at the reality of Japan today, not the illusion produced by your or your government.

<strong>Moderator: Please stay on topic. Your post should refer to the disputed islets.</strong>

To say briefly, many Japanese people are tired of hearing histerical voices of the people obsessed by megalomania again and again.

Japan wants its neighboring countries to be calm, well-balanced and practical, though there can be some differences in opinion.

Farewell to the hysteria.

No, thanks. Serious Japanese nationals are too busy to join the spree in Seoul. When the megalomaniac symptom in the Korean politics is remedied, we will talk with S. Korea again about more practical and valuable issues. See you then.

Fanatic nationalists on both sides cannot see the reality of the history. How good was Syngma Rhee, who gave S. Korean the tiny rocks of Takeshima? How really good he was?

"Japan acts like a little kid who just got a toy taken away ! Whinin and blubberin with no real logical discussion taking place."

Please tell the fanatic activists crying before the embassy of Japan in Seoul, of the meaning of the "logical discussion", and ask them why they are not "a little kid who just got a toy taken away".

Which side is more mature is very obvious. Calm down.

Yes, the voice of "Calm down" can be seen only from the Japan side. This proves the maturity.

BTW, the Treaty of Peace with Japan in 1951 doesn't say Japan must renounce the territory of Takeshima. There's no reason for S. Korean's continuing occupying Takeshima.

However, unlike S. Koeran protesters, we do not think the issue can heavily affect the Japan-Korea relation. The issue is just one of many issues. There are more important issues such as North Korean nuclear weapons.

S. Korean activists lack balance in viewing things happening in the world.

Calm down. Takeshima/Dodko won't go away.

The main reason why S. Korea refuses to discuss the issue at ICJ (International Court of Justice) is that the Syngman Rhee Line was totally irrational and unreasonable.

Yes, the Japanese colonialism and anexation of Korea by Japan was injustice totally. However, not all S. Korean assertions cannot be justified. Each issue needs verification and scrutiny.

If S. Korea does not agree with Japan's claim, she must agree to discuss it at ICJ, before occupying the island.

S. Korea's policy is a doble-tongue policy. On the one hand, they criticize Japan's bad conducts in the past, but on the other hand, they justify their irrational and inconsisting conducts such as occupation of the Takeshima island.

Let's go to ICJ! Japan will follow the final decision at the court! It's strange the state appeals to military force to occupy the island criticizes Japan's annexation of Korea in the past. Use your logics, instead of military force. Let's discuss at ICJ.

westurn,

"Japan appears selfish and immature when it digs its heels into minor riffs like this one."

So, which do you mean? Japan should have protected the island by using her army, when S. Korea started occupying and controlling the island? Or, you mean, Japan should stop insiting on her rights on the island?

You seem not to understand the long history of this dispute. See the following url: http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/index.html

Also, Japan has proposed to discuss it at International Court of Justice in 1954. See the following: http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/proposal.html

In spite of the long history of this disptute, Japan has not ever unecessarily enlarged this issue, not to make it affect larger, more important elements in the Japan-S.Korea relation.

Even if the Japanese government's policy about Takeshima is unchanged, there are different opnions among Japanese people. People think that the issue is just one issue, and should not affect the basic principle to build better relations with East Asian countries.

It's very natural that there are territory issues between the two adjacent countries. But it should not affect the entire direction of the relationship between the countries. This idea is commonly shared by many people as well as by the Japanese government.

People protesting against the Japanese embassy in Seoul should understand that such a protest is not necessary at all. It's nonsense. It's too emotional. It's too hasty. Japan won't attack Korea to recapture the island, because it's nonsense, illegal, impractical, and wasteful.

I believe Japan's colonialism was a failure, and injustice. However, today's S. Korean's reaction to this issue is eccentric. The true enemy is in North Korea that is oppressing people in North Korea. Why do you benefit the tyrant in North Korea by worsening the Japan-S.Korea relation? What are you thinking?

No one in Japan is angry about S. Korean policies as well as their recent reaction to this issue. They are just embarrassed and disappointed.

On the issue, they have their own opinions not all of which match the government's official policy perfectly. Just that. Some of them may strongly agree with the government's policy about Takeshima, but others may not, and just that.

They are not angry at all. They are just sighing, seeing fanatic and unbalanced, excessively emotional reactions by S. Korean people. Then, they utter: "Oh, how do they cope with more important issues such as North Korean nuclear weapons?. . . ."

Calm down, please. Takeshima won't go away.