Skip navigation

Tag Archives: nationalism

I touched upon this in my previous post, but I want to expand on the issue of the abduction issue acting as justification for a more active Japanese security policy.

In the event of a North Korean nuclear attack, incredible numbers of the Japanese populace will no doubt perish. But it is still only a potential tragedy and is yet to overly worry ordinary Japanese citizens. […] For them, nuclear weapon development by North Korea is more or less a technical, abstract topic. The Japanese public is, however, strongly sympathetic [on the abduction issue] because the abductees are no different from the average Japanese who has neither a strong affiliation with any political organizations nor close relations with North Korea.

Nakatsuji, K. (2004). Prime Minister in Command: Koizumi and the Abduction Question. Korea Review of International Studies , 7 (1), 35-46: p. 36.

This quote, to me, is the ultimate expression of the role of the abduction issue: giving an abstract risk a human face. It is, as Lynn Hyung-gu describes in ‘Vicarious Traumas: Television and Public Opinion in Japan’s North Korea Policy’ (Pacific Affairs, 79 (3), 2006, Fall), a national trauma, a narrative of drama highlighting the victimhood of the Japanese nation. It was unjustifiable and abhorrent for North Korea to snatch these young (and in some cases, not so young) men and women from their families, friends, lives and countries. No-one can argue that fact. It makes North Korea seem practically criminal, a reasonable assumption.

A gander at the Cabinet Office surveys on issues of foreign affairs demonstrates the popular appeal of the abduction issue when compared to the more ‘abstract’ missile and nuclear issues. In the surveys, Japanese citizens are asked to state the issues which concern them regarding a range of areas, however the one of interest right now is obviously responses regarding North Korea. I have compiled the responses from 2000 to 2007 (minus the missing data from 2001) to demonstrate the appeal of the abduction issue when compared to the nuclear and missile issues. Please click on the thumbnail to view the chart.

The abduction is shown to figure strongly in the Japanese mindset. The nuclear issue is shown to be rising after the second nuclear crisis in 2000 and the political fallout at the start of the Bush administration’s tenure in the United States and the tougher line held by then-newly elected Koizumi. In 2006, respondents polled in the same month as the North Korean nuclear test and a couple of months after the Taepodong-2 test still more frequently listed the abduction issue (86.7%) as a concern when compared to the nuclear issue (79.5%). The missile issue also figures strongly (the three issues dominate the list of issues, consistently in top three except for in 2000 where the nuclear issue had yet to fully emerge). However, the chart does not show the priorities of the respondents, i.e. which they are more concerned by.

The Japanese populace is saturated with knowledge of the abduction issue, a human drama that tugs at ones heartstrings. It got that way due to the tireless campaigns of the Kazokukai (Association of the Families of Victims Kidnapped by North Korea [AFVKN]) and Sukuukai (National Association for the Rescue of Japanese Kidnapped by North Korea [NARKN]) and the spectacle of Koizumi’s visit to Pyongyang in 2002 which resulted in the return of Soga Hitomi, the Hasuikes and Chimuras. It was at the Pyongyang Summit that one man positioned himself at the heart of the issue: Abe Shinzo. He won the adoration of the families for suggesting that Koizumi not to sign the Pyongyang Declaration, insisting that the Prime Minister extract an apology from Kim Jong-il and subsequently not return the surviving abductees to a fate in North Korea (Edström, B. (2007). The Success of a Successor: Abe Shinzo and Japan’s Foreign Policy. Silk Road Studies Program. Washington, DC/Uppsala, Sweden: Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, p. 8 / Pilling, D. (2006, September 16-17). The son also rises. Financial Times Weekend , pp. W1-W2.).

Abe shaped the growth of the issue, helping to globalise the appeal of the civil society movement. His support for the issue was a crucial part of his rise to the position of Chief Cabinet Secretary and then to the Prime Minister’s office. His short-lived tenure as Prime Minister started off with a flurry of activity regarding the abduction issue: he invited the Kazokukai to his office (something Koizumi had never done, preferring to keep them at arm’s length) and then created a cabinet-level body called the Headquarters of the Abduction Issue, consisting of the entire cabinet and headed by himself (why this was institutionalised is uncertain, presumably it could have just remained as a recurring feature of cabinet meetings). Furthermore, the nuclear test allowed Abe to stretch some economic muscle and impose sanctions on North Korea, something that he and the families had been calling for for a long time.

Abe was also part of a loose group of LDP Diet members that were more willing to move towards what Abe termed ‘a beautiful country’ (utsukushii kuni). Central to this was the instilling of patriotic pride and the return of Japan to being a ‘normal’ country (i.e. revision/removal of Article 9 of the so-called ‘Peace Constitution’). Like those of his ilk, and perhaps sensibly, Abe has been said to have an ‘inherent suspicion of China‘. Despite the moderation with which he treated China during his time as Prime Minister, it is this suspicion that causes problems.

As Christopher Hughes wrote in a paper presented at a conference in Swansea (The Domestic and International Dimensions of Security on the Korean Peninsula), there are a number of layers to the threat posed by North Korea. Certainly, there is the ‘existential military threat’ posed by North Korea’s increasing missile and nuclear arms, but also there is the ‘domestic security threat’ that breeds mistrust of the zainichi chosenjin (North Korean residents in Japan), the ‘alliance political-military threat’ which threatens the stability of the US-Japanese relationship (this is an issue I will cover in a later post), and finally, and crucial, the ‘pretext military threat’.

Hughes wrote that ‘North Korea has come to fill the position of serving as the prime public legitimisation for nearly all major changes in its security policy’. When those in power have a suspicion of rising China, it is thus probable that North Korea is being used as a pretext to prepare Japan for the probable strategic trajectory of collision with the rising power. It is often left publicly unsaid, but privately, it seems, concern regarding China’s rise runs rife. This is the context in which the abduction issue is manipulated.

The abduction issue is thus one of the justifications for using North Korea as a pretext to prepare for China. It produces energetic support, and so the issue is kept alive. Hope for the supposed dead or missing (depending on whose side you subscribe to) is kept alive. Considering that there has been no real progress since the ‘return’ of the abductee’s children to Japan in 2004, there has been a surprising amount of coverage of the issue.

The issue operates within a climate of insecurity. Continually pushing the abduction issue forwards incites outrage, while fear is generated and manipulated by the multiple other issues, namely the existential and domestic threats. Thus the abduction issue is not directly part of a politics of fear, but instead promotes the insecurities and fears surrounding the nuclear and missile issues by virtue of being linked to the same target. It colours the threat perception of the Japanese people making them predisposed to believing that North Korea is criminal or irrational, a threat by virtue of it being evil and willing to attempt anything. All the while, China hawks in the LDP are benefiting from the outcomes: an increased awareness of the need for defence, and the subsequent all-threat nature of procurements and policy changes.

As a result of the multi-layered North Korean threat, Japan seems more willing to increase its military power, in terms of both hardware and legislation. The MSDF and Air Self-Defence Force have gained more offensive capabilities, considering the purchase of Tomahawk cruise missiles and precision guided munitions, both of which could be used against a North Korean ballistic missile launch (Hughes, 2007). Meanwhile, Japan has boosted its intelligence capabilities, launching a series of optical and radar imagery satellites under the remit of the Cabinet Information and Research Office, increased intelligence activities in the Public Security Intelligence Agency, and greater integration of military intelligence under the Defence Intelligence Headquarters (Choi, S.-J. (2004). The North Korean factor in the improvement of Japanese intelligence capability. The Pacific Review, 17 (3), 369-397). Each move is dual-use, as open to use against North Korea as against China, and ultimately, that is the point.

The abduction issue has been (ab)used a security framing tool. It is linked to a range of bilateral issues by nature or design and these other issues benefit from the public’s outrage towards the abduction issue. The appeal of this to politicians is clear in the widespread concern expressed by the public in the Cabinet surveys. The abduction issue provides the means to act on North Korea’s nuclear threat through sanctions and military build-up. The abduction issue has become a tool of choice for pushing through regional security policies. It is a pretext and a frame that immediately lends a leader trust. One danger for the issue itself is its continuing use risks pushing the public towards apathy, but then again, memories seem to die hard in East Asia.

Notes: I admit, this is tenuous in places, but this is the point of my blogging here, I can refine and reshape my understanding of the issue according to my active research and thoughts. Furthermore, while writing this post I realised something that I had since forgotten from writing my dissertation: this is a politics of outrage too… So I have changed the subtitle of the blog accordingly.


Al Jazeera takes a look at Japan’s military future with Robert Dujarric and Hisahiko Okazaki. Worth the watch, particularly because I had no idea Okazaki could speak English.

Part 1

Part 2

via Japan Probe

Nihon igai zenbu chinbotsuI recently finished watching ‘The World Sinks Except Japan’ (nihon igai zenbu chinbotsu), a movie based on a book with the same title, parodising another book which was also recently made into a film, ‘The Sinking of Japan’ (nihon chinbotsu). This is a terrible film, yet it has some satire (probably a hold-over from the source novel). I really can’t recommend anyone else to watch it…

What is it about? The world’s landmasses sink due to hokey geophyics, leaving a stream of foreigners making their way to the only surviving country: Japan. The refugees put increased pressure on Japan, which is already short on supplies because of its need for imported resources. It is a comedy, although not a very successful one. The only place it succeeds is in its social commentary, namely the experience of foreigners.

The worst thing for me is the acting which plays up to the unsophisticated humour. If anything, foreign actors in a Japanese film are rarely very good, and this film does not buck the trend. Many of the foreign characters are all supposed to be American, but to any English speaker it is obvious that most come from East Europe, as well as other European countries. On the other hand, I’ve never heard such bad Japanese accents coming from foreigners. It’s truly cringe-inducing!

At first glance, the film seems to be nationalistic in tone. I cannot imagine many Chinese or Koreans watching the way their leaders are portrayed without them believing this to be some form of Japanese propaganda. A viewer might even see xenophobia and racism in this film. If any of you do watch it and feel that way, I can only ask you to reconsider. I saw it put best on a review at there are some people who thought Team America was a right-wing, conservative film. In both cases, one must understand that they are in fact parodies of those very perspectives.

In the film, the arrival of the foreigners is greeted with some excitement, particularly because the first to arrive are those with the cash and power to get there: world leaders and movie stars. They attempt to continue their lives but their money is worthless and they can barely speak their host nation’s language (one part of the film is the announcement that the eikawas are closing to be replaced by a Japanese language school franchise founded by Dave Spector). They end up on the streets, working bottom-rung jobs (prostitution, human billboard) and stealing whatever food they can (because Japan’s lack of resources has sent the price rocketing). They will do anything for an umai-bo. The foreigners descend into crime and homelessness, and the Japanese people are increasingly xenophobic. The solution put forward by the government (headed by a character called Yasuizumi…) is the Gaijin Attack Team (GAT). They round up foreigners and deport those who have failed to assimilate (where to is another question).

The whole premise exaggerates the xenophobia of some portions of Japanese society by placing them in an extraordinary situation. It plays up to the fears of immigration and becoming a foreigner in one’s own country. Perhaps my favourite scene, and only a moment of it, is when one of the main characters (a journalist) wakes up on a train to find himself surrounded by foreigners. Amongst the sea of gaijin’s faces, he spots another Japanese man and they both smile, albeit sheepishly. Anyone who has spent time in Japan will recognise this… some of us indulge in it, others rebuke it. It even has a name: ‘the Gaijin Dilemma’ (I believe this first came from Azrael at GaijinSmash). It’s all about comfort in the unfamiliar, and I love that the film had this small moment.

The film isn’t afraid to play up Japanese insecurities about foreigners, and its a self-deprecation that is entirely welcome. However, at the end of the day, the film struggles to get past its basic humour and poor editing to truly deliver the commentary that lurks beneath. Had it have done so, it might have been worth watching.

No doubt everyone already knows what I’m going to talk about, simply from reading the title: the propensity of Japanese politicians to say the wrong thing.

Some modern legends have been Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara, former Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori and current Foreign Minister Taro Aso, but it seems we have additional candidates popping up every week: Defence Minister Fumio Kyuma and Health Minister Hakuo Yanagisawa. Are these all just ham-fisted individuals? How did these people become politicians? Are they saying these things on purpose? Does this tell us something about Japanese politics? Is there a honne/tatamae distinction come in this? That is what I want to get through in this post…

Read More »