Fear of Japanese Nationalistic Revival Unfounded: public opinion and government prudence dictate otherwise

There is a fear, both in East Asia and the world at large, that rising Japanese nationalism will lead to an inexorable decline in relations and eventually conflict between that country and China.

These fears are, of course, predicated on the history of ultra-nationalism in Japan which gradually increased in the first part of the 20th century into a rabid racism and superiority complex. This laid the foundations for the aggressive expansionism of the Japanese Imperial Army into China in the 1930s and against USA and the rest of East Asia in the 1940s.

However this perception of a ‘shift to the right’ does not hold much ground. Firstly, the Japanese public remains firmly against Japan taking a more assertive military stance. In a recent poll, 64% of respondents were against revising Article 9 of the constitution, which prohibits Japan from taking any offensive military action. 82% of people wanted to maintain Japan’s three non-nuclear principles of refusing to manufacture, possess or store nuclear weapons. 77% were against exporting Japanese military technology abroad.

Anti-nuclear sentiment is strong in Japan

Perhaps, interestingly, 65% of respondents believed that the administration of Shinzo Abe would cause tensions in East Asia (particularly in relation to China) to rise. Related to this are the 63% who believed a territorial dispute was the most likely cause of conflict and 55% who saw China as the main state threat to Japanese security.

The territorial dispute between Japan and China in the East China Sea has intensified during Abe’s premiership and does seem a potential flashpoint for regional security. Yet despite respondents fearing the growing tensions over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, the majority still do not desire a revision of the military and constitutional status quo in Japan.

Aligned with public opinion are the ‘Big Business’ interests of Japanese corporations, who depend on a stable relationship with China to maintain the economic equilibrium. Abe is not stupid; he has staved off an ultra-nationalist revival by making symbolic gestures (such as visiting the Yasukuni Shrine and mobilising the Japanese coastguard in the East China Sea) whilst urging restraint and dialogue.

If anything, Chinese nationalism is the concern. Part of the CCP’s agenda is to stir up a hatred of the ‘other’; this is perpetuated by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), which has shown in its recent confrontation with Vietnam in the South China Sea that national interests will not be subordinated for any concession.

China, rather than Japan, threatens to escalate conflict in East Asia

Ultimately, despite Japan’s history of destructive nationalism, there is cause for optimism. Whilst tensions may be rising in the East China Sea, there is no reason to believe that this will end in conflict. Firstly, China and Japan are too economically interdependent; second, Japan’s public are clearly against a resuscitation of military aggression; thirdly, despite his seemingly nationalist outlook, Shinzo Abe will not allow it. He has engineered a position of dominance for the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which the interlude of Democratic Party (DPJ) rule threatened to render impossible.

Whatever the case, a repeat of the ’30s and ’40s is not on the cards.

Poll Data

http://mansfieldfdn.org/program/research-education-and-communication/asian-opinion-poll-database/listofpolls/2014-polls/asahi-shimbun-special-public-opinion-poll-040714/

Advertisements

50 Years of Pointless Bloodshed: Farc vows to fight on

In May 1964, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc) was established by a group of Marxist rebels intent on creating a communist state in South America. In the intervening half-century some 220,000 people have been killed in the armed struggle between the criminal/terrorist group and government forces.

Manuel Marulanda (Sureshot) was one of the Farc’s founders and died in 2008 without ever being caught

Like many left-wing guerrilla groups that formed with a strong ideological premise, the Farc has descended into a militant criminal gang, operating in the realm of narco-trafficking, political assassination and abduction more characteristic of the big Colombian drug cartels or the Mafia.

Whilst some progress has been made in the ongoing Havana peace talks between representatives of the Colombian government and the Farc (including agreements on land reform, political participation and the drug trade), a lasting concord appears unlikely. Quite simply, the Farc cannot be trusted. The organisation is no longer a coherent body and militant criminals acting under the Farc banner will quickly discredit any move towards reconciliation.

After sustained efforts by the Colombian government – with US support – the Farc’s national coordination has been irreparably damaged

The failure to completely eradicate the Farc (which had seen its numbers decline from approximately 20,000 to 7,500 in the first decade of this century) is part of the reason President Juan Manuel Santos has lost the first round of his re-election campaign to right-wing candidate Oscar Ivan Zuluaga.

Zuluaga, quite reasonably, sees the peace talks in Havana as a delaying tactic by the Farc, allowing it to rebuild whilst simultaneously drawing concessions from the government.

Because of Colombia’s geography – vast swathes of forest and rural highlands – wiping out every last vestige of the Farc is likely to prove extremely difficult. Just as the Maoist Shining Path group in Peru causes periodic instability, the Farc is likely to continue do the same thing. Indeed, its nominal leader, ‘Timochenko’, has promised just that:

We promised to win and will win…after 50 years of incorruptible battle, we will continue to fight as long as it takes if the oligarchy insists on impeding peace.

The Farc maintains most of its territorial control – and popular support – in remote rural villages

Timochenko dreams of an ‘effective peace’ and refuses unconditional surrender. What concessions he really expects from a country terrorised by his group’s activities for half-a-century is hard to fathom. And the notion that the Farc would willingly uphold any signed agreement, given its history, seems faintly ludicrous.