
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
Kushibo
November 1, 2005
4:23 am
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
sun bin
November 1, 2005
4:51 am
sun bin
November 1, 2005
4:54 am
Kushibo
November 1, 2005
4:58 am
Kushibo
November 1, 2005
5:01 am
Curzon
November 1, 2005
5:09 am
Guv-general: 阿部
Next PM?: å®”°Ã¥â‚¬Â?
Joe
November 1, 2005
5:22 am
sun bin
November 1, 2005
5:39 am
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
it would be fun watching Jesus vs A-so. :D
Curzon
November 1, 2005
5:51 am
sun bin
November 1, 2005
6:21 am
well, until japan re-armed and some take a different lesson on hiroshima comes to power :)
J.Kende
November 1, 2005
6:37 am
Curzon
November 1, 2005
6:41 am
Pavlov3
November 1, 2005
7:45 am
---
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
sun bin
November 1, 2005
7:59 am
grand father (mother side): 岸信ä»”¹ former PM
the guy is connected.
sun bin
November 1, 2005
8:07 am
sun bin
November 1, 2005
8:22 am
"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
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
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
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
sun bin
November 1, 2005
4:44 pm
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
(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
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
sun bin
November 1, 2005
5:46 pm
-- 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
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
November 1, 2005
6:33 pm
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
sun bin
November 1, 2005
7:56 pm
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
Pavlov3
November 2, 2005
1:01 am
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 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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
November 2, 2005
6:14 am
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
November 2, 2005
7:44 am
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
Joe
November 2, 2005
5:28 pm
Joe
November 2, 2005
5:29 pm
Curzon
November 2, 2005
11:26 pm
sun bin
November 3, 2005
6:52 am
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
sun bin
December 14, 2005
8:21 am
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
OneFreeKorea » Get a Load of This Aso.
September 1, 2008
4:58 pm
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Fukuda Resigns
September 1, 2008
5:31 pm
Meet Taro Aso, Japan’s new Prime Minister | Japan Probe
September 22, 2008
8:22 am
Taro Aso, Japan’s new Prime Minister « tM! MONOGATARI
September 23, 2008
12:01 pm