Thursday, October 24, 2013
Don's Bikepacking Trip in Niigata and Fukushima
Mate Don Speden, who contributes to Long Division, recently completed a 5-day cycle trip in Niigata and neighboring Fukushima. His writes about the journey here.
A Post about Japan from Long Division
Recently the little time I have spent blogging has been done here, on Long Division, a site about cycling. While not about Japan specifically, I live in the country and necessarily do most of my cycling here, so from time to time I will update Glimpses of Japan with posts from the former blog.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Why Do They Go There?
Just what was the idiot mayor of Osaka, Toru Hashimoto, thinking when he opened his gob regarding the forced (and it was, contrary to his contention) prostitution of hundreds of thousands of Korean and Chinese women during Japan's "liberation" of Asian peoples from western hegemony during the 1930s and '40s? Why did he feel a revisionist history lesson was in order? I suppose such people just can't help themselves. What a wanker. You can read about him here. Oh, and Toru, get a new hairdresser.
Your Kind Isn't Welcome
On April 23 The Japan Times published an article concerning an international student at a university in Kyoto who, attempting to rent an apartment referred to him by the university itself, discovered that the landlord refused to lease to foreigners. That story is here.
I myself recently experienced similar discrimination, only this time the landlord is not a private individual but a public entity: the City of Niigata.
Niigata City owns and manages 25 or so small storefronts in the downtown distict of the city. Rents are cheap, and the area is home to a varitey of establishments, from restaurants and cafes to bike repair shops.
A friend and I (both of us holders of permanent resident visas) hope to open a business in one of the properties, and we asked a Japanese friend to make enquiries at the business district's management office; specifically, we wanted to know if permanent-resident foreigners could sign a lease.
The answer: our kind isn't welcome.
I myself recently experienced similar discrimination, only this time the landlord is not a private individual but a public entity: the City of Niigata.
Niigata City owns and manages 25 or so small storefronts in the downtown distict of the city. Rents are cheap, and the area is home to a varitey of establishments, from restaurants and cafes to bike repair shops.
A friend and I (both of us holders of permanent resident visas) hope to open a business in one of the properties, and we asked a Japanese friend to make enquiries at the business district's management office; specifically, we wanted to know if permanent-resident foreigners could sign a lease.
The answer: our kind isn't welcome.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Yasukuni Shrine
Shinzo Abe, leader of the largest opposition party and almost certain to be Japan's next prime minister, recently visited Yasukuni Shrine. Now, this is no ordinary shrine to Shinto animism. Rather, Yasukuni honors all Japan's war dead, indiscriminately. Young men who were sent on suicide missions as kamikaze pilots are enshrined alongside the war criminals who dispatched them, as well as soldiers who slaughtered Chinese civilians in Nanking. As a private citizen Abe can worship wheresoever he pleases, but his position as high-ranking MP makes visits to Yasukuni problematic, to say the least.
Monday, September 17, 2012
The Potsdam Declaration and Disputed Islets
Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration (to the terms of which Japan conceded by signing the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1972) states:
Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as we determine.
The Allies' list of minor islands pointedly excluded Tokto/ Takeshima, on which the Republic of Korea maintains an outpost but over which Japan asserts territorial claims (as part of Shimane prefecture), as it does the Senkaku Island chain, source of much recent controversy between Japan and neighbors China and Taiwan.
My personal take on the status of the disputed islands is that while the Potsdam Declaration/ San Francisco Treaty does not provide for their ultimate designation, neither does it authorize or encourage Japan to assert its prior claims to these territories. Tokyo's broad interpretation of Allied 'policy' seems disingenuous, given that the Allies aimed to dismember the Japanese Empire, not pave the way for its post-war reconstruction.
The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs explains,
1.The Allies designated the areas where Japan, which was under the Allied occupation, had to cease the exerting political and administrative power and the areas where it was banned from engaging in fishing or whaling, which included Takeshima. These directives, however, stated that they should not be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the assignment of Japanese sovereign territory.
2.The descriptions in the related Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instruction Note (SCAPIN) documents are as follow:
(1) SCAPIN No. 677
(a) In January 1946, the Allies issued SCAPIN No. 677 to instruct Japan to provisionally cease exerting or attempting to exert political or administrative power over some areas.
(b) Article 3 of the note states, "For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to include the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands north of 30 degrees North Latitude (excluding Kuchinoshima Island)," and listed Utsuryo Island, Cheju Island, the Izu Islands, the Ogasawara Islands and Takeshima as the areas "not included" with those where Japan was allowed to exert political or administrative power.
(c) Article 6 of the same note, however, states, "Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration." (Potsdam Declaration, Article 8: "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.")
(2) SCAPIN No. 1033
(a) In June 1946, the Allies issued SCAPIN No. 1033 to establish the so-called "MacArthur Line" and designate the areas where Japanese people were permitted to engage in fishing and whaling.
(b) Article 3 of the note states "Japanese vessels or personnel thereof will not approach closer than 12 miles from Takeshima nor have any contact with the said island."
(c) Article 5 of the same instruction note, however, states, "The present authorization is not an expression of allied policy relative to ultimate determination of national jurisdiction, international boundaries or fishing rights in the area concerned or in any other area."
3.The abolishment of the "MacArthur Line" was directed in April 25 1952, and three days after, on April 28, the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect, which consequently nullified the directive to cease Japan's political and administrative power in the aforementioned areas.
The ROK claims that the Allies did not recognize Takeshima as part of Japan's territory based on the SCAPIN documents mentioned above, and includes them in the evidence for its claim for the sovereignty over Takeshima. However, both of the SCAPIN documents clearly state that they shall not be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the assignment of Japanese sovereignty, and therefore such claims are obviously not the case.
The territory of Japan was determined by the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which subsequently came into effect. This clearly shows that none of the treatment of Takeshima prior to the effect of that Treaty affects the title to Takeshima.
Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as we determine.
The Allies' list of minor islands pointedly excluded Tokto/ Takeshima, on which the Republic of Korea maintains an outpost but over which Japan asserts territorial claims (as part of Shimane prefecture), as it does the Senkaku Island chain, source of much recent controversy between Japan and neighbors China and Taiwan.
My personal take on the status of the disputed islands is that while the Potsdam Declaration/ San Francisco Treaty does not provide for their ultimate designation, neither does it authorize or encourage Japan to assert its prior claims to these territories. Tokyo's broad interpretation of Allied 'policy' seems disingenuous, given that the Allies aimed to dismember the Japanese Empire, not pave the way for its post-war reconstruction.
The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs explains,
1.The Allies designated the areas where Japan, which was under the Allied occupation, had to cease the exerting political and administrative power and the areas where it was banned from engaging in fishing or whaling, which included Takeshima. These directives, however, stated that they should not be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the assignment of Japanese sovereign territory.
2.The descriptions in the related Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instruction Note (SCAPIN) documents are as follow:
(1) SCAPIN No. 677
(a) In January 1946, the Allies issued SCAPIN No. 677 to instruct Japan to provisionally cease exerting or attempting to exert political or administrative power over some areas.
(b) Article 3 of the note states, "For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to include the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands north of 30 degrees North Latitude (excluding Kuchinoshima Island)," and listed Utsuryo Island, Cheju Island, the Izu Islands, the Ogasawara Islands and Takeshima as the areas "not included" with those where Japan was allowed to exert political or administrative power.
(c) Article 6 of the same note, however, states, "Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration." (Potsdam Declaration, Article 8: "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.")
(2) SCAPIN No. 1033
(a) In June 1946, the Allies issued SCAPIN No. 1033 to establish the so-called "MacArthur Line" and designate the areas where Japanese people were permitted to engage in fishing and whaling.
(b) Article 3 of the note states "Japanese vessels or personnel thereof will not approach closer than 12 miles from Takeshima nor have any contact with the said island."
(c) Article 5 of the same instruction note, however, states, "The present authorization is not an expression of allied policy relative to ultimate determination of national jurisdiction, international boundaries or fishing rights in the area concerned or in any other area."
3.The abolishment of the "MacArthur Line" was directed in April 25 1952, and three days after, on April 28, the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect, which consequently nullified the directive to cease Japan's political and administrative power in the aforementioned areas.
The ROK claims that the Allies did not recognize Takeshima as part of Japan's territory based on the SCAPIN documents mentioned above, and includes them in the evidence for its claim for the sovereignty over Takeshima. However, both of the SCAPIN documents clearly state that they shall not be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the assignment of Japanese sovereignty, and therefore such claims are obviously not the case.
The territory of Japan was determined by the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which subsequently came into effect. This clearly shows that none of the treatment of Takeshima prior to the effect of that Treaty affects the title to Takeshima.
Friday, September 14, 2012
China Sends Ships to Senkakus
Six Chinese vessels entered Japanese territorial waters around the Senkaku islet chain today.
Japan condemned the violation of waters around the islets, which it annexed in 1895.
The Chinese asserted that they have a much older historical claim to the rocks.
Japan condemned the violation of waters around the islets, which it annexed in 1895.
The Chinese asserted that they have a much older historical claim to the rocks.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
The Senkakus, Rocks of Contention
The Senkaku chain of islets, claimed by Taiwan (to which they are closest), China, and Japan, have dominated headlines in the country since the Japanese government announced earlier this week that it had purchased three of them from their private owner, one Kurihara, of Saitama Prefecture.
Now, I have been following the Senkaku business for some while, and at no time has the Japanese press (or any other, to my knowledge) explained why islets annexed by the country in 1895 had to be bought from a private owner for 2.2 billion yen.
I checked English-language Wikipedia but learned nothing about that issue, though many others were elucidated.
Then I checked the Japanese-language Wikipedia, and there it was:
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B0%96%E9%96%A3%E8%AB%B8%E5%B3%B6
To summarize, one Koga, a fisherman from Fukuoka, was given a free 30-year lease of the Senkakus in 1895 for the purpose of developing a fishing industry.
In 1932 his eldest son negotiated to puchase 4 of the islets for 15,000 yen (25 million today) for the purpose of continuing where the father had left off.
In the 70s the descendents sold the islets to Kurihara for 45 million yen.
Smart investment, Kurihara.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
We Talkin' 'Bout Maintenance
If fifteen years in Japan have impressed upon me anything, it is this: the attitude of my local government (and, Dear Reader in Japan, yours, too, most likely) towards maintenance of public property (much of it, anyway) is not unlike that of former NBA star Allen Iverson towards practice.
Let us consider litter (as opposed to garbage) collection. Where I live (Niigata City, pop. 810,000), litter is picked up from roadsides and city beaches and parks not by the city itself but, in the case of the two former places, by volunteer school, neighborhood, civic, or business groups- once a year. And in the case of all but the largest public parks (There is only one, really, in Niigata City, and it is regularly maintained by a private firm) the authorities typically retain the services of pensioners to perform simple cleaning tasks, but then only at medium-size outdoor facilities.
In other words, in Japan there are no full-time city workers whose responsibility is litter "abatement", among other things. (Moreover, Japan does not put low-risk prison inmates to work in this way to repay their debt to society.)
Maintenance is also not a priority when it comes to caring for school buildings. Twelve years of teaching in public secondary schools in Niigata has taught me that, typically, the school building has a life of 30-40 years, at the end of which time it is razed or gutted. The replacing of broken windows and unclogging of drains (sometimes not even the latter, though, as I'll soon show photographically) is the usual extent of the "maintenance" performed on these buildings during their lifetime.
... to be continued
Let us consider litter (as opposed to garbage) collection. Where I live (Niigata City, pop. 810,000), litter is picked up from roadsides and city beaches and parks not by the city itself but, in the case of the two former places, by volunteer school, neighborhood, civic, or business groups- once a year. And in the case of all but the largest public parks (There is only one, really, in Niigata City, and it is regularly maintained by a private firm) the authorities typically retain the services of pensioners to perform simple cleaning tasks, but then only at medium-size outdoor facilities.
In other words, in Japan there are no full-time city workers whose responsibility is litter "abatement", among other things. (Moreover, Japan does not put low-risk prison inmates to work in this way to repay their debt to society.)
Maintenance is also not a priority when it comes to caring for school buildings. Twelve years of teaching in public secondary schools in Niigata has taught me that, typically, the school building has a life of 30-40 years, at the end of which time it is razed or gutted. The replacing of broken windows and unclogging of drains (sometimes not even the latter, though, as I'll soon show photographically) is the usual extent of the "maintenance" performed on these buildings during their lifetime.
... to be continued
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
