Japan

I would like to respond to Justin Raimondo's reply to my letter on [his column,] "The Rape of Japan."

When I said "Asia," I meant the Orient (as they said in simpler days), the conquest of which was possible.

Raimondo seems to imply that the Japanese weren't really conquering anything. Well, I for one, am happy I wasn't among those that the Japanese Empire "merely established its sphere of influence" over.

He says that "Japanese expansionism was 1) a reaction to the perceived threat of Western domination of the region and 2) a response to the embargo placed on trade with Japan by the US and its allies." Although I agree that FDR, like Wilson earlier in the century, was eager to get into the war and, along with America's soon-to-be allies, actively and unreasonably provoked Japan, it must be rembered that Japan was as agressively colonial as any of the Western powers and never had to deal with the humilation of Western occupation, unlike China.

Japan rapidly industrialized in the 19th and 20th centuries while happily joining the Western powers in their colonial exploits. Japan claimed exclusive trading rights in China, along with the western powers. In 1894 Japan sent their troops into Korea and soon attacked a Qing army provoking the first Sino-Japanese War of 1895. China was forced to cede Taiwan as a result. And not much later, the Japanese army was putting down the Boxer Rebellion side by side with the western devils. Japan's history up until World War II continues pretty much in the same manner.

It is clear that Japanese imperialism was competing with Western imperialism, not revolting against it. The notion that Japan was "resisting Western hegemony in Eastasia" is the same thinking that values the Monroe Doctrine and U.S. intervention in "our backyard" of Latin America.

Raimondo then compares Japanese textbooks with American textbooks, Nanjing with Dresden. I was trying to point out the difference between Germany and Japan, the losers of the war. Of course American children won't be taught about Dresden because the victors write the history. What is interesting is the way recent Japanese history is taught in Japan as opposed to how recent German history is taught to German children. I never claimed to support this sort of indoctrination as a solution to anything. I was simply pointing out that the Japanese have not had to submit to as much guilt and shame as Raimondo suggested in his piece.

As for the issue of apologies. I see nothing wrong with apologizing for misdeeds of the past and then making sure they don't happen again. And frankly I'd like to see the U.S. say sorry for a lot more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is unrealistic, and I do not suggest that apologizing is any sort of political solution. But the issue is a little more complicated in Eastasian culture, where the meanings and consequences of apology are very different from those in the west.

~ M. Conklin

Justin Raimondo replies:

The difference between "competing with Western imperialism" and "revolting against it" is a distinction without a difference. How should the Japanese have resisted the incursions of the West -- by subjecting them to a barrage of aggressive flower-arranging? And what's wrong with the original Monroe Doctrine?

---

Distorted Presentation

[Regarding "An Evening With Wesley Clark," by Colonel George Jatras:]

I found this to be an excellent description of US/Nato's crime against Yugoslavia, an analysis of the warped leadership that perpetuated acceptance of that crime through a one-sided, unquestioning and demonizing mass media ... and the ... kind of personality overseeing the US military.

I attended a somewhat similar distorted presentation of the Yugoslavian conflict/invasion ... at the end of 1999. It was funded/sponsored by the Hartford Seminary -- an institution priding itself in the study and acceptance of all religions.... The two speakers were professors from their respective teaching communities: a Catholic priest and so-called historian of the Kosovo issue; and a lawyer from the Boston area who was to discuss the topic from the international legal point of view.

...The historian-priest came off akin to Jatras' picture of Gen. Clark -- with a 100% pro-Albanian, anti-Serb stance... The lawyer's presentation was somewhat muted, completely omitted talking about his intended topic, but was noteworthy for not appearing pro-Albanian. After the session when I asked him why he didn't even go into the legality/illegality of the US/Nato "incursion" ... (which I sensed he was truly inclined to be supportive of the Serb position), he responded that this was not the forum for him to speak his mind.

...With the influx of many, many Albanian refugees taking advantage of the open-door refugee immigration policy here in the US and abroad, I noticed about 40 of them lined up along the balcony of the rather small ... auditorium, complete with a translator -- perhaps a somewhat intimidating audience for that lawyer-professor!

...Anyone at Antiwar.com have any stats on how many Albanians entered the US and other countries during this period? How many Serb refugees, in comparison?

Another aside: With mention of the Pentagon Papers, renewed due to the demise of the Washington Post's K. Graham, do you think we may yet uncover CIA or Pentagon initiated documents scripting this whole Yugoslavia war sham? Would the Post publish/reveal such material with the same zeal that it applied during the Vietnam incursion?

Finally, are there any savvy writers [and/or] historians ... who could effectively present [the non-interventionist perspective] -- sparring with the likes of the O'Reilly Factor, etc. -- on the various TV outlets; and, if so, it would be great if Antiwar.com posted the names, places and dates so that viewers like us would listen in and ... be able to comment in support thereof.

~ Pyotr K.