Isn't the comfort women resolution pro-war?
Just thinking aloud here ... is any of the following true?
- People that lean to the left side of the political spectrum tend to support resolution 121, the comfort women resolution.
- People that lean to the left side of the political spectrum would tend not to support a similar resolution condeming the large number of abortions in Japan each year.
I'm wondering if people are being ideologically inconsistent on this issue. I think people who lean towards the left are expressing strong dissatisfaction with America meddling abroad, yet at the same time support America meddling abroad. It would seem to merely depend on the issue. I think. I don't really know. Any opinions?
I note this because I've been trying to do a little bit of research on non-binding resolutions. I was curious about their history and arguments for and against them. So far I haven't been having much luck. There is a libertarian sponsored antiwar Internet site that I often visit. While the main contributers to the site, and perhaps it's core support comes from libertarians, on this issue I think they are happy to listen to voices from the left or right or whereever that have similar antiwar views. I noticed recently that this site has a forum at Yahoo with gasp, over 2000 members. I thought, well certainly there must be some people in that group that who believe America shouldn't meddle in the foreign policy issues of other nations, and can fill me in on what the deal is with these non-binding resolutions. I joined the group and posted a short message that went like this:
- I would appreciate some help, if possible. Currently a resolution has been introduced into the US congress to ask Japan to apologize for its use prior to and during WWII of comfort women. I currently view this resolution as a mistake and have posted my opinion about this resolution here (copy, paste, delete white spaces): http://japan.shadowofiris.com/conservatives/congress-resolution-121-comfort-women-sex-slave-ianfu/ I have some questions for this forum. The resolution in question, 121, is called a non-binding resolution. Can anyone direct me to a book or internet site where I can get information on the history of non-binding resolutions, especially in the case where they are scolding another country for some perceived flaw in their government? What do people feel about these types of resolutions? Even when the case is very compelling, as it *might* be in the comfort women case, is it the American congress's job to do this? Is it sort of like war mongering lite? Any information that people can direct me to about the philosophy for or *against* such resolutions would be really appreciated.
One person noted that abuse of women through prostitution seems to go hand and hand with a large military presence overseas. However, two people immediately accused me of defending Japan and suggested my opinion was deficient. But I sincerely don't understand how someone can be antiwar and then support resolutions like this. Oddly, I find it a bit unnerving that some people actively state their position as pro-war these days. Aren't we all anti-war?
Opinions expressed in comment section are the opinions of the author only. Because of a spam problem comments are currently off.
I think people who lean
I think people who lean towards the left are expressing strong dissatisfaction with America meddling abroad, yet at the same time support America meddling abroad. It would seem to merely depend on the issue. I think. I don’t really know. Any opinions?
Matt, I'm generally a little bit more right than left-leaning on most issues, but I have defended 121 and would be opposed to a resolution condemning the number of abortions in Japan.
Of course it all depends on the issue - regardless of which side of the political spectrum one is on.
Consistency depends on angle. The US has allowed human rights issues to be tried in American courts for over 200 years. Officially, the US supports human rights initiatives (yes, I'm aware of the occasional irony there.) The US has a more liberal abortion law than Japan. The only reason to condemn Japan would a step toward a domestic change in the US by a rather small minority in the US and would be inconsistent with American policy in the US, much like the current administration's tying of AIDS relief money to abstinence-only programs is inconsistent with what is done in the US.
I suppose I'd be to the right
I suppose I'd be to the right on almost all economic/business issues and in terms of wanting a small government, but pretty to the left in terms of social issues. I don't think the US should be meddling abroad, but that is party politics and all politics is local. Lawmakers need to do what they need to do to get re-elected.
At the same time, US House Representatives have the Constitutional right to bring up resolutions, have testimony heard, and have them voted upon in a committee. I see no reason to infringe upon this right just because I happen to not support the resolution at hand. Free speech is not halfway. I wish lawmakers had a better grasp on the issues and consequences of their actions, but I also wish that the other side did as well. I wish that I had a better grasp as well.
I don't think that 'left' and 'right' really mean much, nor should they be terms that box people in to certain positions. I can be against the government curbing people's right to bear arms, and yet openly and actively hostile to any religious encroachment in government, and yet forcefully pro-choice. I see no contradiction in such stances. I also see no (realistic) party that represents my views.
Whether people support or do not support this resolution means little to me, since the resolution means little. The essential problem is that there is a perception that Japan has not issued an official apology for its wartime activities. Some people agree, some disagree. They will argue forever. But, this resolution is misguided because it calls upon Japan to apologize under terms that are set for it by the US House, which, once again, would not be a genuine apology.
I worry for those people who say this resolution should not be discussed in the House, or that US Reps have no place discussing it. That is a stance hostile to free speech, and one that seeks to control elected officials by telling that that certain elements of their constituency should be ignored, or that certain issues are untouchable.
The war ended over 60 years
The war ended over 60 years ago. It is stupid that China, Korea and now the U.S. are bringing up issues regarding the war. Of course they claim that Japan has not truly attoned for the past. So what. It is old history.
Should Vietnam demand apologise from the U.S. for abuses in the Vietnam War. Should Filipinos demand apologise from the U.S. for abuses during the Filipino war almost a hundred years ago. Every nation has a record of abuses in every war, some worse then others.
Move on already.
Garrett, Thank you for your
Garrett,
Thank you for your comments. I was a bit rambly in this entry. I really was just thinking aloud, so might not have been particularly coherent. I might not do much better in this response. Advance apologies if I come across as overbearing!
Of course it all depends on the issue - regardless of which side of the political spectrum one is on.
The main thing I was striving for was to look for inconsistencies. Many people might accuse America of arrogance and of foreign interference. However, when that interference turns out to be favorable to them, these previous criticisms are completely ignored.
I agree I have not fully demonstrated this claim to be the case. It's more of a suspicion at this point.
Consistency depends on angle. The US has allowed human rights issues to be tried in American courts for over 200 years.
I have not really studied this issue, but really want to start looking into it. Any books you recommend? Note, your sentence above is vague. The declaration of independence makes use of the notion of human rights. Okay ... but what exactly are you referring to?
I would argue that Japan is a sovereign nation, and therefore the people of Japan have the right to determine issues like this free of American meddling. Japan is about to have an election. And here is America with it's military stationed in Japan, its currency practically replacing gold in Japan's reserves, telling Japan what it ought to do. Do you seriously think any of these congressmen really understand the comfort women issue better than Japan's own legislators?
Will you go on the record as stating the following: I believe America legislators know better than Japanese legislators how best to handle the comfort women issue.
I'm sure there are many factors that go into a congressman's decision to vote for a resolution like this. One would be a brief summary of what it's about. Some of them might even read a little bit of the testimony that was heard. However, you can rest assured that a lot of this is deal making. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Isn't that how it works? Honda says I'll throw a vote your way, if you throw one my way.
On an issue like this, where apathetic voters don't care, it's easy for the worse kind of politics to arise. Oh, you need some pork up there in Montana, well how about helping with this comfort women case, did you read that sad testimony the Dutch woman gave?
Officially, the US supports human rights initiatives (yes, I’m aware of the occasional irony there.) The US has a more liberal abortion law than Japan. The only reason to condemn Japan would a step toward a domestic change in the US by a rather small minority in the US and would be inconsistent with American policy in the US, much like the current administration’s tying of AIDS relief money to abstinence-only programs is inconsistent with what is done in the US.
Imagine this, Garrett. The collection of tax became 100% voluntary. Under no circumstance would anyone be compelled to pay tax. How would that affect tax revenue?
Okay. Now I support the right of a women to choose an abortion. Mostly because the issue is so hard and confounding, I feel it's a choice best left to the person in question. However, where does life begin? Do you know? Is it human life we value or only sentience? So long human life is just a collection of cells, it's not life and it's not human? Really? My only point is this a hard issue. Now say that you really, really believe we must protect all human life, and that abortion is wrong. It's evil.
From that perspective, the government is taking your money by coercion and giving it to a women in a foreign country so she can have an abortion. In my opinion this is the brute majority literally mugging you and doing what they will with your money. A person who believes abortion equals murder shouldn't be forced to pay for the abortion of women in foreign countries.
Where is a our sense of fallibility? Let people in the local community decide about issues of abortion.
To get back to the main issue ...
If an individual from America wants to visit or move to another country, perhaps even taking on foreign citizenship, and then from the inside argue and petition for human rights, I think this is worthy of high praise.
However, the idea that America should export human rights or even act as a spokesman [short of official statements criticizing countries spokesmanship is okay] for them is a paradigm I'm beginning to question. I'm guessing this is a paradigm that first began at the beginning of the twentieth century and reached its full bloom at the end of World War II and the creation of the United Nations.
I'm quickly discovering many problems with such a paradigm, but one I might emphasize here is that the centralization of morality is too problematic. What constitutes a complete list of correct human rights? Certainly abortion is a case in point. Maybe local communities need more room to determine these issues.
I hope to say more about this in the future ...
Mr. Dioguardi - While
Mr. Dioguardi -
While previous House Resolutions on the subject of comfort women may be seen as having been written in such a way as to scold or chastise Japan, H.R. 121 hones in on the main U.S. concern regarding the comfort women problem--that only a very brief window of time remains for the GOJ to come clean on a political issue driving a wedge between Japan and South Korea (and to a lesser extent between Japan and the Philippines and Australia). While certain commentators in Japan and their U.S. clients may purport to see an election-oriented quid-pro-quo in the background of the Resolution's popularity, the main U.S. Congressional interest in the issue is strategic--if the South Koreans and the Chinese, plus a goodly number of Filipinos and Australians, have a good reason to hate Japan, then the U.S. has to expend energy playing the role of an activist referee in the region.
The U.S. has problems enough elsewhere.
On the Japan side, successive Japanese Cabinets, fearful of a) losing right wing support and b) a cascade of lawsuits (see Kobayashi Yoshinori's illustrated screed in the July 25 edition of Sapio for the manga version of this paranoid fear) have been instructing the Gaimusho to mindlessly repeat a lie--that the government of Japan has officially apologized to the confort women.
H.R. 121 suggests to the GOJ that it should 1) recognize the failure of this campaign of misrepresentation, 2) stop prevaricating and issue a Diet- or Cabinet-approved statement of remorse to comfort women while there are still a few of the comfort women around to receive it.
In issuing H.R. 121, the U.S. House of Representatives is encouraging the GOJ to act in manner that will further U.S. longterm interests in the Asia-Pacific region. Mayhap I be wrong, but I think that furthering U.S. interests is one of the House's jobs.
MTC, Well said. Here,
MTC, Well said. Here, however, is where I think the rub is: The case against Japan is that it has not issued a sincere apology that has been ratified by the Diet or approved by the Cabinet. If this happens as a condition of a US House Resolution, the ammunition behind that accusation may still exist; that is, it will be said that Japan only apologized to appease America and didn't really mean it. And then, the attempt to further US interests (which you correctly point out is one of the House's jobs, though I wonder if the extent of US interests hasn't been overstretched) has not been accomplished.
Matt,
I would argue that Japan is a sovereign nation, and therefore the people of Japan have the right to determine issues like this free of American meddling.
I agree 100%, but I think Japan needs to be strong enough to not bend to the 'meddling.' It has to learn to play realpolitik in the international arena.
Jon,
No offense intended, but your comment resembles the worst kind of hostility toward human rights abuses and free speech that somehow makes its way into otherwise intelligent people. This is the argument often seen (and easily predicted): "The people who are protesting (insert atrocity) are not protesting (insert another atrocity), so they must be hypocites." This is a logical fallacy.
When you ask if other nations should demand apologies for wrongs, I would have to say yes, though we (as private citizens) may not know what form those apologies may take when governments make deals. Again, it's politics.
MTC, While certain
MTC,
While certain commentators in Japan and their U.S. clients may purport to see an election-oriented quid-pro-quo in the background of the Resolution’s popularity, the main U.S. Congressional interest in the issue is strategic–if the South Koreans and the Chinese, plus a goodly number of Filipinos and Australians, have a good reason to hate Japan, then the U.S. has to expend energy playing the role of an activist referee in the region.
I view this in the complete opposite way. Recently who has shown the most concern about anti-Japanese zeal. China. They seem to think the situation has gone too far and that it is now detrimental to the their international relations with Japan.
Now, putting China to the side here ...
What two countries in Asia routinely feel free to take potshots at one another in order to make domestic gains?
South Korea and Japan.
What two countries in Asia have the most significant American military presence and are reliant on America for their security?
South Korea and Japan.
Is this just a coincidence? I don't think so.
As both countries are protected under America's umbrella they can fan nationalistic flames at home for all it's worth and completely ignore the international impact this is happening. They don't have to worry about the international impact, because that's America's job. That's what America's suppose to do.
So it is precisely America's presence and interference that is creating the problem not the converse.
America's debt is getting exponentially bigger and its military over extended. It's time America stopped playing big brother and slowly withdrew from the region. The last thing America should be doing is taking sides in an issue such as the comfort women. While the issue is serious and real and complex, the players are basically involved in petty nationalistic squabbling.
America is fanning the flames of argument between the two countries by taking sides. The issue should be ignored at this point, as it is internal to Asia and not relevant to the American electorate.
As far as your specific comments about the comfort women, if possible I hope to address these in future entries to this blog.
Mr. Dioguardi: 1) The
Mr. Dioguardi:
1) The Chinese are holding back now. However, they are laying the groundwork for a comfort women counteroffensive should Abe Shinzo transgress the silent mutual agreement to not visit Yasukuni (I have confirmed this with China's diplomatic corps)
2) I cannot speak for the South Korean government (I have long since forgotten all my Korean) but the members of the Japanese central government does not take potshots at the South Koreans for domestic gains. The prefectural legislators of Shimane and Nakagawa Shoichi might--but they should be seen for what they are: pathetic glory seekers.
3) Your theory that the presence of U.S. soldiers encourages the politicians of countries to be irresponsible and provocative does not hold water. If so, Djibouti would be the trashtalking king of the Horn of Africa. Conversely, Iranians would be the most peace loving and relaxed people on the planet.
4) The comfort women issue does not engender petty nationalist squabbling. It exposes real, searing weaknesses in postwar Japan's handling of World War II--a series of mistakes and wrong turns that have proven to be a costly legacy for Japan.
5) As for the statement "The issue should be ignored at this point, as it is internal to Asia," South Korea has been screaming about this issue for years. Japan has been trying to bury it. Where is the neutral ground upon which the two parties can meet to come to terms?
6) As for "not relevant to the American electorate", I am afraid America's elected representatives--persons who tend to fail or succeed based on their sense what is or what is not relevant to the electorate--do not agree with your assessment.
MTC, The comfort women issue
MTC,
The comfort women issue does not engender petty nationalist squabbling. It exposes real, searing weaknesses in postwar Japan’s handling of World War II–a series of mistakes and wrong turns that have proven to be a costly legacy for Japan.
This is very well put, I think. Opposition to Japan's bid for a permanent seat at the UNSC despite its acheivements post-war is but one sign of Japan reaping what it has sowed.
1) The Chinese are holding
1) The Chinese are holding back now. However, they are laying the groundwork for a comfort women counteroffensive should Abe Shinzo transgress the silent mutual agreement to not visit Yasukuni (I have confirmed this with China’s diplomatic corps)
Do you sincerely think that the Chinese are concerned about the ethical situation here? I think they are only concerned with the politics of the situation and perceived self-interest of China as a whole. Is that not the case?
2) I cannot speak for the South Korean government (I have long since forgotten all my Korean) but the members of the Japanese central government does not take potshots at the South Koreans for domestic gains. The prefectural legislators of Shimane and Nakagawa Shoichi might–but they should be seen for what they are: pathetic glory seekers.
When I stated potshot I was talking about things I've seen in the media. You provide an excellent example yourself when you point out "Kobayashi Yoshinori’s illustrated screed in the July 25 edition of Sapio for the manga version of this paranoid fear". This may not be specifically what I am talking about, but there are clearly groups and significant opinion makers who consistently act irresponsibly when giving their opinion on these matters.
As far as potshots from Korea, they constantly paint a simplistic picture of the occupation which no one questions because they were the victims. There is a very strong reluctance, perhaps partially warranted, not to question a lot of the Korean claims regarding the colonization of their country. It seems clear to me the government takes advantage of this when it presses its claims.
Not only do I notice this when public figures speak, but when I read the history that is presented on many Korean government sites. These sites present a very clear tale of evil versus good and avoid revealing Korean complicity in Japanese colonization.
I think it is both of the above forces that make it very hard to get a even handed version the relevant history. I sincerely think I can see a bit of racism or at least culturism on both sides of this issue.
People overestimate the probelm of nationalism in Japan, and underestimate the problem of nationalism in Korea.
3) Your theory that the presence of U.S. soldiers encourages the politicians of countries to be irresponsible and provocative does not hold water. If so, Djibouti would be the trashtalking king of the Horn of Africa. Conversely, Iranians would be the most peace loving and relaxed people on the planet.
I can't really take these remarks seriously. America once assisted in overthrowing the Iranian government and is now attempting to do so again. In the past, America indirectly supported Iraq when it was waring with Iran. America has constantly meddled in Iranian policies, to Iran's detriment.
I would say that it is now American involvement in Iraq that is the biggest impediment to the relevant parties finding a solution to their problems.
In general, America has been meddling in the middle east for over half a century; has any of this created a stable region? Pointing to the middle-east is not a good argument for American meddling.
I don't know much about Djibouti, but I would guess the leaders are too busy exploiting their own people with American money to worry much about international relations.
4) The comfort women issue does not engender petty nationalist squabbling. It exposes real, searing weaknesses in postwar Japan’s handling of World War II–a series of mistakes and wrong turns that have proven to be a costly legacy for Japan.
But, MTC, most of the people who fought in WWII or remember what happened are dead. Most young people in Asia can't get enough Anime, and there's been a boom in Korean things in Japan. People want to let go of these issues and just get along.
Of course that's not good enough. We really do need to take a deep and serious look at Japan's history and the history of the entire region in the early 20th century. But not so that we can determine just how evil Japan is was, but so that we can find universal principles that help guide future courses of action every where.
If people think there is justice to be had here after so much time has passed, they are deceiving themselves. I see the comfort women as mere pawns being pushed around on a chess board by bigger players who don't sincerely care about them.
5) As for the statement “The issue should be ignored at this point, as it is internal to Asia,” South Korea has been screaming about this issue for years. Japan has been trying to bury it. Where is the neutral ground upon which the two parties can meet to come to terms?
You've already excluded America from this neutral ground when you argued resolving the case was in America's self-interest. You've basically stated that finding Japan guilty, guilty, guilty is in American self-interest. Is that neutrality? Neutrality is letting Korea and Japan and the other relevant countries work it out themselves.
6) As for “not relevant to the American electorate”, I am afraid America’s elected representatives–persons who tend to fail or succeed based on their sense what is or what is not relevant to the electorate–do not agree with your assessment.
They succeed mostly by ignoring the American constitution and dealing with an incredibly apathetic electorate. Watching CNN does not count as being informed. I can't imagine if you actually sat down with your average America and explained this entire issue to them that they would want to take a stand either way. They would surely and wisely say, "not America's problem."
Matt, I'm sorry it's taken me
Matt,
I'm sorry it's taken me so many weeks to get back to you. I'm glad you linked back to this from your recent post on the passage of the resolution.
You brought up a lot of very good points in your reply to my earlier comment - many things I'd like to address. However, for the sake of brevity, I'm going to take a narrow focus and stick to 121.
First, you're right, I was unclear. I was specifically referring to the Judiciary Act of 1789, which included the following line:
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.
This is commonly known as the Alien Tort Statute.
In recent decades (at least), this has been interpreted to mean that US District Courts can legally be a venue for claims, usually human rights-related, even if the US itself is not directly involved or, more specifically, even if the crime or abuse or action (or whatever more accurate word you'd like to insert) in question did not occur in the District over which the Court would normally have jurisdiction. The Alien Tort Statute has also been discussed as a way of bringing suit against the US government or its agents when other avenues fail.
I take a positive view of this. I guess it could be abused for the purposes of American meddling, but it also provides legal recourse for people in situations where they otherwise would not have one. I can think of few things more important. Until a viable, universally accepted, and strong ICJ or something like that comes into being, the Alien Tort Statute and similar stautes of other countries are the only way to get around national sovereignty, which numerous precedents show the "international community" to have accepted as not final. In other words, allowing the political prisoner of a totalitarian regime to have his day in court in a third country provides a check, at least in principle, against abuses of power when a sovereign country's own justice system is either not functioning or has been subverted to political aims.
This is also the lens through which I view HR 121. Obviously, there are myriad tangential issues that are included, but the core is that a group of people have made a humanitarian claim and the US House had heard it.
I do think the legal footing would have been more solid had this been a court case, but that's there where realpolitik comes in. It is much better for Japan and the US that this come up in a non-binding House resolution, where there is no realistic expectation of enforcement.
As I see it, the ball is in the Japanese government's court and long has been. On one hand, the Japanese government could take rigorous steps to show that they have done everything possible to put WWII-related issues behind them. On the other, the Japanese government could have greatly reduced the impact of and publicity related to this issue by simply not publicly responding. In a sense, Rep. Honda played the Japanese government masterfully, getting it to bring the issue to a head and making it impossible for the US House to deal with it quietly, which is exactly what Honda wanted.
To quote you:
If an individual from America wants to visit or move to another country, perhaps even taking on foreign citizenship, and then from the inside argue and petition for human rights, I think this is worthy of high praise.
I agree, but part of the point here is that the Japanese government and Japanese courts have not dealt with the issue to (what would be) the plaintiffs' satisfaction. Whether or not we agree with that is irrelevant, they ought to have the right to seek a reasonable redress and Japanese courts have not provided that. Furthermore, think of what's implied in what you suggest. Should victims of American abuses or atrocities have to seek US citizenship in order to seek redress?
Taking on citizenship in a country, especially when it is the voluntary decision of an adult, implies accepting certain responsibilities along with gaining the rights of citizens. I would find it enormously unjust to ask former sex slaves to take on Japanese citizenship.
I'll get back to you soon with more - either here or on your more recent post.
[...] and grew out of the
[...] and grew out of the ongoing debate at Liberal Japan in response to Matt Dioguardi’s posts of July 9th and July 31st - both of which are well worth reading and discussing, especially for those readers [...]