Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

November 1st, 2005

Tags

,

Comments

59 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Hardline Hawk or Unapologetic Bigot?

Koizumi’s cabinet lineup has begun the race to replace him in 2006. Japundit and Mutantfrog have both disappointed by not profiling the front-runners, so here goes.

Shinzo Abe has long been noted as Koizumi’s probable successor for years. Abe is a hawk who first become popular with the public for advocating sanctions against North Korea during the abduction controversy in 2002. He is on first-name terms with Dick Cheney and other US defense officials. Abe is now the Cabinet Secretary and is the favorite to become Prime Minister. It’s worth noting that the clamor for Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara to become Prime Minister died down after Abe was noted as Koizumi’s political heir.

For Japan’s neighbors who think Abe is too much, wait until they hear about new Foreign Minister Taro Aso. This is a guy who claims Koreans wanted to take Japanese names during colonial rule, that Japan helped make Korea literate, stated that one of his colleagues was unfit for the prime minister’s post because he was a member of the Burakumin minority, and that Japan is a country with one culture, one language, and one people. Imagine Pat Buchanan as Secretary of State (an extreme, but valid comparison).

The bottom line is that if you like Koizumi, you’ll love these guys. (And of course the reverse is also true). Both are the sons of political dynasties, proving that legacy political families are alive and well in Japan.

There are a few other possible candidates such as Sadakazu Tanigaki and Heizo Takenaka. But I’m sorry to tell Jing, Sun Bin, and Kushibo that all four have visited Yasukuni shrine.

P.S. In case you’re wondering, I’ve been an Abe fan for years, most recently noted here and here.

Comments to this entry

Dan
November 1, 2005
4:01 am
tdaxp *heart* Shinzo
Kushibo
November 1, 2005
4:23 am
I don't dislike Abe, in part because he's an outspoken critic of China, but I would prefer the now out-of-power Fukuda Yasuo, who supports the creation of a secular memorial for war dead to help nip the Yasukuni issue in the bud.

Yasukuni Shrine is not the innocuous memorial some would like to make it out to be. Its sponsors believe Japan was not responsible for what it did in the first half of the 20th century, and on the grounds of the shrine they systematically push to "restore... the truth of modern Japanese history."

A leader who supports visits to Yasukuni Shrine would be as bad as South Korean leader who follows the logic of Kang and Bruce Cumings about North Korea's misunderstood role in the Korean War.
Kushibo
November 1, 2005
4:36 am
Abe is not related in any way to Abe Nobuyuki, a former governor-general of Korea, is he? That whole package probably wouldn't go over very well.
sun bin
November 1, 2005
4:51 am
Aso, what a name :)
sun bin
November 1, 2005
4:54 am
Of course they have visited Yasukuni. Who other than Murayama hasn't?
Kushibo
November 1, 2005
4:58 am
There are quite a few that have not. See, the people who want to depict this as an issue of Korea and China whining about something in the past would rather you not recognize that many Japanese, including politicians, are also uncomfortable with the visits.
Kushibo
November 1, 2005
5:01 am
Also, I don't think Hosokawa had. Even if he had, he was also trying to promote greater understanding among Japanese about imperial wrongdoing against the Chinese, Koreans, and others in Asia/Pacific prior to the end of the war.
Curzon
November 1, 2005
5:09 am
No -- the characters are different:
Guv-general: 阿部
Next PM?: å®”°Ã¥â‚¬Â?
Joe
November 1, 2005
5:22 am
I'm pulling for Jesus m'self.
sun bin
November 1, 2005
5:39 am
curzon,

this is great news.
it will slowly (or quickly) push korea and china together.
afer all, that is what Huntington predicted.

kushibo, what d'ya say? :) let's make peace until the yasukuni clan are gone.
sun bin
November 1, 2005
5:41 am
Joe,

it would be fun watching Jesus vs A-so. :D
Curzon
November 1, 2005
5:51 am
Yes -- it may push Korea and China together. And it will cement the US and Japan alliance. Welcome, welcome news.
sun bin
November 1, 2005
6:21 am
it is cemented already. no visible change to status quo.

well, until japan re-armed and some take a different lesson on hiroshima comes to power :)
J.Kende
November 1, 2005
6:37 am
Are you able to handicap the odds of Abe being the one to take the reigns after Koizumi?
Curzon
November 1, 2005
6:41 am
I give Abe 70% odds. His chances are highly dependent on his performance as Cabinet Secretary.
Pavlov3
November 1, 2005
7:45 am
Korea has drifted far from the US, but I do not count out a partial reconcilliation in the future. China has acted very arrogantly toward Korea in the past number of years, a fact that Korea is willing to ignore in light of the bad Americans. Breaking into a diplomatic consulate, beating the diplomats and seizing NK defectors comes to mind. (And the Koreans appologized for the incident.)
---
With the US gone from the penninsula maybe they will rethink their foreign policy. (Okay, it is a long shot but still possible)
sun bin
November 1, 2005
7:55 am
pavlov? when did that beating / apologizing happened? any link?
sun bin
November 1, 2005
7:59 am
abe's father, ex-foreign minister: å®”°Ã¥â‚¬Â?æ™”°Ã¥Â¤ÂªÃ©Æ’Ž Abe Juntaro
grand father (mother side): 岸信ä»”¹ former PM

the guy is connected.
sun bin
November 1, 2005
8:07 am
岸信ä»”¹ is Nobusuke Kishi, PM in 1958-60
sun bin
November 1, 2005
8:22 am
and Kishi was 'held as class A war criminal' but not tried.

"see criticism paragraph" :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Military_Tribunal_for_the_Far_East
and click into bio

of course young abe will visit him.
Pavlov3
November 1, 2005
8:41 am
Sun Bin, here it is"¦.
The consulate invasion was on 13 June 2002, it was big news in SK for about one day before it was quickly squashed. I am by no way calling China the 800lb gorilla, but they have broken into a consulate, beaten reporters, even turned the lights out on an investigative meeting of SK assemblymen last year and held them without charges in a Chinese hotel for several hours without charges. First link is the beatings, second the meeting. Despite all of this, SK has consistently downplayed every event, all I am saying is that this may not last once the US boogey man is removed from the equation.
"http://www.hrea.org/lists/refugee-rights/markup/msg00100.html":http://www.hrea.org/lists/refugee-rights/markup/msg00100.html

"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4194-2005Jan12.html":http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4194-2005Jan12.html

"http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=2613":http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=2613

"http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2002/257/":http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2002/257/
Kushibo
November 1, 2005
2:08 pm
Pavlov, do you have a link to South Korea apologizing for the incident.

I remember the incident pretty well, but I don't recall an apology. I have used the incident (and a very similar incident at the Japanese consulate the week before) as an example of Chinese heavy-handed views toward Korea and Japan.

And it was in the press more than a day. I was doing an evening news program every day at that time, and we talked about it for three days at least. And the Japanese incident at least two days.
sun bin
November 1, 2005
4:36 pm
thanks for the link. i remember vaguely of those incidences.

the fact that S Korean did not make a big fuss can be explained this way
1. china may have communicated with the koreans effectively. that they were making a show to the N Korean
2. china in return allowed the refugee to leave the country without much obstruction
3. koreans understands this and do not view this as deliberate attempt to insult. (their account may not be exactly what you take from these reports)

i do not like huntington theory. but this actually supports his theory that the communication between shared culture can be a lot more effective.
Curzon
November 1, 2005
4:40 pm
Since you talk about what Huntington predicted (and for the record, I disagree with clash of Civilizations), remember he ended his book by considering a Chinese invasion of Vietnam. What do you think of that?
sun bin
November 1, 2005
4:44 pm
....to further elaborate 'on the accounts'

1. breaking into embassy was some within a meter from the gate. korean undertood and accepted the explanation that it was the individual who stepped over the line, i guess.

(same for the 'beating'/'clash of body' as well)

2. the press conference: there is some legitimacy in shutting it down. i am not saying it is right. but we all know that china is not a country of free speeech. imagine US congressman going to beijing and hold a conference condemning human right abuse, they would receive the same treatment.
sun bin
November 1, 2005
4:47 pm
well, i think many still think vietnam is bitter about the invasion in 1979, plus the dispute in south china seas.

(contrary to what is reported in the western media, 1979 was the one single true invasion China committed. where in all other border conflicts china was on the defensive, esp 1962)

but wounds have been healed recently. they already agreed on land border, and sea border around tonkin bay. i am sure China is eager to make peace and heal the wounds.

therefore, the risk of conflict is now much smaller than what huntington saw 10 years ago.
sun bin
November 1, 2005
4:50 pm
....con'td

I can bet China will not invade any country in the next 30 (or even 50) years.
(taiwan is not another country in this definition though)

even a conflict with japan is extremely unlikely. the current spat is only a way of negotiating for economical rights.
Curzon
November 1, 2005
4:54 pm
Why can you see changes in the polity over a period of ten years when it comes to Vietnam and China while blinding yourself to the changes in Japan over the past sixty years? "I pity you!":http://simonworld.mu.nu/archives/128196.php :p
sun bin
November 1, 2005
5:46 pm
simple. china was the aggressor in 1979, and made an effort to heal (not totally sucessful yet...just changes)
-- btw, i was just stating a fact that they reached agreement in border, china probably made some significant concession to make that happen.

in the case of japan, there is no sincere effort to heal. at least on the part of LDP.
but as you know, the recent spat is really more than what happened 60 years ago. WWII's aftermath is the continued distrust, hence opposition to UNSC.
but japan's recent meddling over taiwan is the source of discontent from PRC. vietnam did not meddle with Taiwan or Tibet.

then in the case of Nazi. your link showed a perfect example of apathy. asian victims of war's apathy to nazi victim is mirrored by apathy of european/jewish victim over japanese war crimes.
you don't suffer, you don't feel it. that is the sad human nature.
sun bin
November 1, 2005
5:54 pm
Please also read the LfC comment of that simonworld post.

it is a PORN magazine of very low circulation, and writer of that article really lost touch with HK.

having said that, it is true that people in Asia (ex-japan) are less sensitive to these sort of things than those in US/europe/israel)
japanese imperial (navy) flags were used by fashion designers, (for the coolness, ala prince william) and one of the mainland actress/singer even modelled for it! (though later someone poured a bottle of feace on her during a performance)
Mutantfrog
November 1, 2005
6:21 pm
Sun Bin, are you saying that China's invasion of Tibet was somehow prompted by Tibetan aggression?
sun bin
November 1, 2005
6:33 pm
this is different from vietnam. (and taiwan)

in any case, tibet was not a sovereign country that china recognizes.

today, china recognizes all its neighbors as sovereign countries.
Mutantfrog
November 1, 2005
7:09 pm
Ok, we can at least agree that China didn't consider Tibet to be a sovereign nation.
sun bin
November 1, 2005
7:56 pm
:) yes... (same attitude for taiwan)

there is a clear line they have drawn.
and they retreated to the pre-war boundary after 1962 and 1979.
-- although you can say there are other pragmatic reason for that withdrawal.
(in the case of vietname, i heard the boundary stone was pushed forward for 1-200 meters. and perhaps 'gifted' back as part of the recession to reach an agreement recently)

that makes china different from the aggressors prior WWII, or comintern of USSR, where there is no limit to push.
as a matter of fact, they are now very content with what they have :)

so from a pragmatic perspective, it is important to realize that they made an effort to remove any potential source of disputes in future on land boundaries. they do not have to do so if they are planning to take them 50 years later.
i have just received some maps showing how much China "conceded" to the ex-ussr stans, i will blog about it when i find time.
Curzon
November 1, 2005
8:52 pm
Part of me wonders if the Aso selection is just to make Abe look moderate by comparison...
Pavlov3
November 2, 2005
1:01 am
Sun Bin,
I am not so sure you can easily dismiss the consulate invasion. That is a violation of international law, as is assaulting the staff.
Kushibo,
I could not find a link to the appology, I saw it on TV and mentioned it to some of my Korean friends as being odd. They were all quite embarrassed. The next day, ChangWaDae clarrified that they expressed "regret" over the incident. In this aspect they stepped away from an outright apology, still you have to admit, it is very un-Korean.
sun bin
November 2, 2005
1:34 am
i do not know the facts and i cannot dismiss something i do not know:)
i was just trying to find some plausible reason to explain why the Koreans were not as put off as what you would have anticipated.

it comes down to whether the 2 govts are in amicable relationship and trust each other.

e.g. China protest on US bombing the Belgrade embassy. But had it been the Israel or British emabssy that was bomed. It might have been resolved a lot more amicably.
sun bin
November 2, 2005
1:45 am
with so many google ranked human rights websites it is hard to find MSM reporting of the event :)

so here is what i got from "businessweek":http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jun2002/nf20020620_5862.htm

"FORMAL PROTEST. Something significant is happening here this summer, even if the world doesn't fully realize it yet. On top of disaffected peasant farmers and angry domestic workers, China now has to deal with a growing North Korean refugee crisis. Nineteen North Koreans have been granted shelter in South Korea's Beijing embassy. It would have been 20, except that Chinese authorities recently entered the embassy and removed a 56-year-old North Korean who had been inside with his son.

Press reports say the invasion turned into a scrum, with Chinese police beating a South Korean embassy employee as well as a local Chinese woman who worked at the legation. Seoul filed a formal protest with the Chinese ambassador in Korea -- an action it usually tries to avoid. "

It seems Korean filed a serious preotest on the event.
sun bin
November 2, 2005
1:55 am
and from "smc":http://www.smc.org.ph/amnews/amn020615/northeast/korea020615.htm

"On 13 June, a ten-year old (or 15-year or 13-year) boy entered the South Korean consulate. The boy's father was dragged out of the building by security guards and then taken away by paramilitary police. The South Korean government accused Chinese security guards of entering the South Korean consulate in Beijing without permission, and hauling the North Korean asylum seeker away. A South Korean diplomat (or two diplomats and a journalist according to other reports) was/were injured during the scuffle. The Korean government immediately lodged a protest with the Chinese Foreign Ministry, saying the incident was a grave violation of South Korea's sovereignty and demanded that Beijing hand over the detained defector. On the other hand, China blamed the diplomats who scuffled with the police. The incident is expected to worsen the tension between South Korea and China."

the description differs a little. but it talks about both sides of the story and about a formal protest by the korean.

it seems that it was the overzealous embassy guard (or given specific order to prevent refugee entering) was "doing his job" or "putting a show on N Korea".

again, this kinds of thing can escalate between hostile country, but can also settle easily.

are you sure you heard korea apologized (not china apologized)?
Kushibo
November 2, 2005
2:02 am
Pavlov,
Sun Bin,
I am not so sure you can easily dismiss the consulate invasion. That is a violation of international law, as is assaulting the staff.

No, you can't. It was very serious. Nearly the same incident the week before at the Japanese mission (bewildered and clearly surprised Japanese mission staff stood by in shock as the Chinese police ran in and pulled out the North Koreans; the next day Japanese authorities demanded "our North Koreans" back).

Kushibo,
I could not find a link to the appology, I saw it on TV and mentioned it to some of my Korean friends as being odd. They were all quite embarrassed. The next day, ChangWaDae clarrified that they expressed "regret"Â? over the incident. In this aspect they stepped away from an outright apology, still you have to admit, it is very un-Korean.

Is it possible someone was not misunderstanding the reporting of the incident? I do NOT recall South Korea apologizing for this (and they would have nothing to apologize about), and more important, had they actually done that, the fallout from kowtowing to China over something like that would be felt even today.

I remain incredulous about that version you present, and the articles sun bin is presenting seem more in line with my memory of what happened.

Both Japan and South Korea experienced the same incursion by Chinese police over the space of a week. It underscores for all to see how the Chinese view their neighbors.
Pavlov3
November 2, 2005
2:34 am
Sun Bin,
Very good quotes and a bit less damning than I thought at the time, but my main point was that China is heavy handed with SK and gets away with it currently, that may not be the case in the future. Did China ever appologize, I could not find it in any of the links, yours or mine. I don't even want to get into the Koguryo issues.
Kushibo,
Yes, it is possible that it was an erroneous first report I saw. No, I do not have any links it did not occur to me at the time to write them down. Once again, my original point was not to villianize the Chinese or squable over small points, just to show they often do not play nice. I could make a long list but I think no one here wants to be knee deep in Kimchi, if you know what I mean.
Kushibo
November 2, 2005
2:37 am
No, please villainize the Chinese authorities. They are villains, but it seems everyone wants to pretend otherwise: Koreans, Americans, many Taiwanese, Japanese, etc.

What they did at the Japanese and South Korean missions those past weeks underscores probably better than anything else exactly how they view those two neighbors.
sunbin
November 2, 2005
4:05 am
yeah...great east asian war:) fortunately that is not going to happen.

you can villianize china as much as you like. but whatever they did in the past, they are learning to play by the rule of international community. there is still the nasty N Korea, which is going to be a problem for both SK and China (but not a problem for Japan, instead NK provides a good excuse for japan to re-arm)

the fact is that there are more business interests that tie these 3 countries(Chn, SK, Jpn) together.

with recent development in japan, china and korea will move closer together, no one can change this (except, maybe koizumi, but he is not going to)

don't fancy conflict between korea and china, it is not going to happen. not until japan behaves responsibly.
lirelou
November 2, 2005
5:58 am
Sun Bin. Not to nitpick, but the 1979 Chinese "invasion" of Vietnam was more in the line of a punitive expedition and not a full blown, all out invasion of the country. It had a limited purpose, that of punishing Vietnam for the overthrow of China's client Pol Pot government in Cambodia, as evidenced by the size and composition of the force. That they grossly underestimated the will and capabilities of the Vietnamese Armed Forces is another matter.
sun bin
November 2, 2005
6:14 am
lirelou, yes that is true, too. divert vietnam's force from cambodia. though it was already too late.

but you can't just invade another country just because they invaded another country. PRC did not have that sort of treaty with Cambodia.

i can try to defend all other armed conflict China was involved, with some justification, but not this one.

some in china (eg Liu Yazhou) said it was a proof Deng demonstrated to the US (right after his visiting US) that China is breaking away from the Soviet Block, and in exchange, the West would help with China's reform.
lirelou
November 2, 2005
6:29 am
Sun Bin. I must partially defend you on one point. Mistaken violations of international law can happen among low ranking members of a nation's security forces. During the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama (whether or not we like the word, it did topple a government), a U.S. patrol forced itself into the Nicaraguan Embassy in Panama City. The Nicaraguans protested, U.S. authorities reminded their troops of international law, and shhrugged the incident off. In the case of China, however, the security personnel that forced their way onto Korean diplomatic soil were personnel who by nature of their duties (security around diplomatic compounds) should have known that the territory inside the gate was legally Korean soil, and that they had no jurisdiction there.
sun bin
November 2, 2005
7:44 am
lirelou,

yes, you are right.

if you have been in beijing, you can see these guards standing outside the various embassies, throughout the winter. I am sure they are recruited from the villages and not highly educated.

but there is also possibility they received explicit instruction to block refugee entrance at all cost, as some might speculate.
sun bin
November 2, 2005
7:50 am
OK, as promised, here are the "new changes to Xinjiang/Stans border maps":http://sun-bin.blogspot.com/2005/11/map-no-more-border-dispute-between.html
Joe
November 2, 2005
5:28 pm
I've found Shinzo Abe's real life doppelganger... CLASSIC JON ARBUCKLE:

Joe
November 2, 2005
5:29 pm
http://www.3net.pl/garfield/jon.jpg
Curzon
November 2, 2005
11:26 pm
Abe is indeed the overwhelming favorite. From the "Asahi:":http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200511020232.html

Abe won the support of 33 percent of respondents to the telephone survey conducted on randomly selected voters from Monday night through Tuesday... Trailing far behind was Foreign Minister Taro Aso, at 5 percent, followed by Seiji Maehara, head of opposition Minshuto (Democratic Party of Japan), with 3 percent.
sun bin
November 3, 2005
6:52 am
Probably unrelated question.

Why does Japan want US soldiers to move back to Guam, and paying $3bn to do so?
Mutant Frog Travelogue » Blog Archive » Shinzo Abe, barbarian-defeating shogun?
November 5, 2005
6:41 am
[...] The Chief Cabinet Secretary position, a combination of press secretary and chief of staff, gives Abe an excellent platform to become even more well-known to the people (many CCSes have gone on to become prime ministers, most recently the late Keizo Obuchi). But he shouldn’t need too much help: he’s already way ahead of the field in opinion polls. Abe has been getting some blogger support too: Lord Curzon is a longtime fan, for one. [...]
sun bin
December 14, 2005
8:21 am
Aso has a "speech":http://sun-bin.blogspot.com/2005/12/speech-of-day-asian-strategy-as-i-see.html

I think Curzon should volunteer to help him write it in the future. It looks like babelfish/google automatically translated text from Japanese.
The Acorn » Prioritising Japan
January 17, 2006
3:44 am
[...] Shinzo Abe, who many people believe will succeed Junichiro Koizumi as prime minister of Japan, put it very correctly. Not only do India and Japan have common interests, they are also generally well-disposed towards each other. Yet, the pace at which the bilateral relationship has grown leaves much to be desired. Fortunately he has clearly declared an interest in putting relations with India on a more important track. “We need not only to look at Japan-China relations but also to have a bird’s-eye view of the whole of Asia or the world when we engage in diplomacy with Asian nations,” he told the public broadcaster NHK on Sunday. [...]
OneFreeKorea » Get a Load of This Aso.
September 1, 2008
4:58 pm
[...] Curzon at Coming Anarchy isn’t much of a fan, either.  But keep it in perspective, fellow bloggers.  As long as [...]
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Fukuda Resigns
September 1, 2008
5:31 pm
[...] An election is due within the next six months. The heir apparent is a rather kooky and quirky bigot (thanks for reminding me of my own words [...]
Meet Taro Aso, Japan’s new Prime Minister | Japan Probe
September 22, 2008
8:22 am
[...] that have shocked or offended people. He’s joked about Alzheimer’s patients, said that members of the burakumin minority are not fit to be Prime Ministers, hinted that an LDP loss could lead to the rise of Nazi-like extremism, and made insensitive [...]
Taro Aso, Japan’s new Prime Minister « tM! MONOGATARI
September 23, 2008
12:01 pm
[...] the past that have shocked or offended people. He’s joked about Alzheimer’s patients, said that members of the burakumin minority are not fit to be Prime Ministers, hinted that an LDP loss could lead to the rise of Nazi-like extremism, and made insensitive [...]