Senkaku, Diaoyu, Tiaoyutai

Senkaku, Diaoyu, Tiaoyutai Islands

These strange sounding names all belong to the same set of ROCKS in the East China Sea. Problem is that this same set of rocks is claimed by three different countries—well, almost different, if you consider Taiwan (formerly Formosa) a separate country. Mainland China doesn't. Anyway, Japan, China and Taiwan all claim ownership of these rocks. The rocks themselves are uninhabited (and essentially, perhaps, uninhabitable for all practical purposes) but may contain mineral wealth (especially oil and gas) on the surrounding seabed. The waters around them are also rich in fisheries.

The islands lie about 150 km. northeast of Taiwan, which is, in effect, the nearest claimant to ownership of the islands. The disputed ownership of these islands comes to the surface every once in a while, but the latest opening of this particular can of worms may have hidden dimensions related to history and politics as well as exploitation of potential natural resources.

Put in historical context, the ownership of some of the islands is claimed by a Japanese family dating back to the Edo Period of Japanese history. The country was then ruled by the shoguns of the Tokugawa family from 1603 to 1868. Of course, how valid any kind of deed from that period would be today is questionable at best.

More recent historical and political developments in Japan, however, may play a more determinant role in the current spat. Japan, since the end of World War II until 2009, was ruled basically as a one-party monopoly of the Liberal Democratic Party. The LDP became deeply entrenched under a basically three legged stool of support: agriculture, the construction industry and the bureaucracy. Agriculture benefited lavishly from government subsidies and the construction industry got lucrative contracts for infrastructure spending on large scale public works projects. Then came the collapse of the speculative real estate bubble in the early 90s, effectively ending Japan's gogo years and ushering in the now 20 years (two “lost decades”) of stagnation and loss of confidence in Japan's future prospects.

Enter the new inexperienced administration of the Democratic Party of Japan in September of 2009. After over half a century, the LDP found itself out of power, but it had some secret information that it failed to pass on to the new administration related to the Senkaku islands, also known as Diaoyu and Tiaoyutai.

Shintaro Ishihara,  Governor of Tokyo

The current dispute over the islands was instigated by the right wing Governor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara, a former LDP Diet member. The Senkakus are, it would seem, his personal irredenta. In August this year, some activists from Hong Kong landed on one of the islands (their Diaoyu), were arrested and released by the Japanese government and reprimanded by the Chinese government. Ishihara, who has a history of needling the Chinese, couldn't pass up another opportunity. Instead of letting sleeping dogs lie, he added more fuel to the fire by offering to “buy” the islands “owned” by a Japanese family and started a drive to raise funds from private donations, eventually raising about 1.5 billion Yen (around $19,000,000) and sending a “survey” craft to inspect the islands, clearly as further provocation. He also wants to build landing infrastructure for use by Japanese fishermen “in case they need a refuge from storms”. The government decided to outbid the Ishihara tribe by buying the islands for about 2.1 billion Yen (around $27,000,000) and nationalizing them but allowing no infrastructure to be built nor allowing landings and “surveys”.

Ishihara's "survey team"

These actions on Ishihara's part seem like intentional right wing provocations designed to stir up the Chinese and Taiwanese and consequently inflame the nationalist sentiments of the Japanese—all of whom have political and ethnic “issues” stemming from the war—as well as discredit the DPJ Administration. The question is why and why now?

My guess is it's political machination and manipulation to discredit the DPJ Administration as inept at governing the country, force a national election and put the LDP back at the helm. At the time of the transition from LDP to DPJ rule a crucial back door agreement between the governments of Japan and China was kept from the new administration. At the time of normalization of relations between the US, China and Japan (then under the LDP) with Nixon's visit to China in 1972 an agreement was made to shelve the issue of the islands until a later date when, hopefully, cooler heads would prevail. This secret deal was kept from the incoming DPJ Administration, perhaps intentionally to use as an Ace up the LDP's sleeve for future use—i.e., when the time was ripe for the LDP to perhaps regain power.

Nobuteru Ishihara [2nd from right]

The approval rate for the DPJ has sunk to the 20 percentage points range. It has soured relations with the US over the military bases in Okinawa issue. It hasn't been able to dig Japan out of its 20 years of negligible growth. The Japanese export engine has lost steam with the global economic meltdown. Off-shoring of Japanese companies has led to a two-tier economy at home with many young people stuck in low paying no benefits part time jobs. Agitation for a change in government is on the rise. A charismatic new leader is rising in Osaka with a new party called Japan Restoration offering platform planks that dovetail nicely with the those of the LDP. There is talk of pushing for a general election as soon as possible. There is a reasonably good chance that the LDP allied with one or two other parties including Japan Restoration could regain control of the government. It may be worth noting that Mr. Ishihara's son Nobuteru is an LDP presidential candidate running for election this year.

What I'm saying here is I think the party now out of power, salivating to get back in, is manipulating the islands issue to further discredit and weaken the DPJ and use it as a wedge issue to manipulate a gullible population into voting the LDP back into power.

We could find out if I'm right or wrong in the not too distant future if events proceed on the current track.

IZAKAYA - 居酒屋

red "chochin" lantern

       MY friend Hank and I were whiling away an evening in one of the local watering holes recently; the sake flowed and tongues loosened up along with inhibitions. These places are called “izakaya” and are close cousins to pubs and bistros or even the neighborhood bar/cafe where you can buy food and drink. The atmosphere is friendly and warm and relaxed and conducive to “letting it all hang out”--in the right company, of course.

As the evening wore on and the bottomless sake cup began to blur the edges, Hank began to talk about how his relationship with his significant other was going through a rough patch. Communication had broken down over what seemed to him a misunderstanding but, to her, callousness. “So, what happened,” I asked. “It's a long story that started a few month's back. In a nutshell, she felt that I was putting my own interests and those of an old friend before hers,” was the way he put it. “Is that true?” I asked. “Well, in a manner of speaking, you could say that, I guess,” he mused somewhat absently and more than a little boozily.

   
“In that case, shouldn't you apologize and be done with it?”

“It isn't that simple,” he said, “we both have a history of less than admirable behavior in times of crises.”

“What do you mean?”

“We both tend to be good time Charlies, and don't handle it well when the party suddenly comes to a screeching halt—as it inevitably does sometimes. When the shoe drops it all depends on whose foot it hits that determines who behaves less than nobly. This time it fell on mine,” said Hank as he upended another cup of sake without going into detail.

Hank went on to describe how accusations were met with counter accusations, debates of escalating heat about misunderstandings and/or seeing things through the dark filter of your own circumstances and feelings of hurt and betrayal ad infinitum. In psychobabble terms they were essentially talking at or over each others heads instead of talking to and listening to what the other guy was saying, intent on being 'right' and scoring points.

“So, sounds like your basic he-said-she-said kind of dead end. How does the story end? Sounds like you and your s.o. are at a crossroads,” I pressed.

“You got tha' right, awright,” he slurred at bit. “We did get as far as deciding that we didn't want to throw all those years away lightly. Still, there was an empty place that wasn't going away. Something was missing and neither of us could summon up the courage to state the obvious.”

“Oh, and what was the 'obvious'?” I queried.

“It's hard to put my finger on it. We were too polite and deferential and accommodating while at the same time the warmth and touch were missing,” he mused a little sadly.

“You mean no sex?” I commented, coming right to the point.

“Not exactly. Well, yes, that, but more importantly the easy communication that comes when you feel free to touch another person just matter of factly and that seems impossible to do when the underlying norm is the tension of unresolved and unfinished business brooding in the background,” he clarified.

“You're using quite a bit of past tense,” I noted. “Has the 'unfinished business' gotten resolved or is the relationship kaput?”

Hank brightened up a bit through his now pretty dense alcoholic haze. “I don't know the ending, yet. But I think we made a small breakthrough. Sometimes, a song can say things much better than you can. We had both been listening (although not together) to Dave Mason's We Just Disagree and Elvis singing You've Lost That Loving Feeling--both songs just pregnant with meaning in our impasse. After a couple drinks we got into a 'discussion' about an incident involving some mutual friends in which our own mutual antagonisms resurfaced. The discussion segued into a rehash of our old argument about the most recent letdown and my transgressions. One thing led to another as the heat escalated. Finally, she concluded with, 'This is what I'm hearing from you. What do you have to say about that'?”

He was really primed now, on a roll.

“I guess the booze loosened my tongue.” he said. “Without offering any counterargument this time, I just said that what I'm hearing from you is that you just don't like me anymore. You said before that deep down you still love me. That may be true, but you don't like me anymore and that's more important. You've lost your feel for me and I've lost mine for you.”

“Wow! That must have hit a nerve,” I exclaimed.

“Well, I guess so. It did break the ice. It cleared away a lot of the detritus and left us both metaphorically naked with no place to hide. It was a simple honest statement of true feelings of loss and sadness, some reaching out and a lot of swallowing of pride. She responded in the same spirit coming over and hugging me and saying, 'I do still like you and love you, too, but was afraid and didn't know how to reach out. It seemed more like caving in to me'.”

“Yeah, me too,” I laughed. “Pride is a son-of-a-bitch. It's like an addiction that keeps you hooked even when you know it's no good for you. But, about that 'caving in' thing..... it's not caving in I think, it's more like jumping off a cliff into the abyss. I think we just stepped back from the edge.”

“Sounds like a potentially happy ending,” I said.

“I sure as hell hope so. And I think I've had enough of these, too,” Hank smiled for the first time that night. “Let's get the hell out of here and go home!”

The Crashing Sound of Silence

Bill Clinton convention speech

Romney acceptance speech


The conspicuousness of absence!

Where was their ex-president?


The Republicans seem to be ashamed of their past presidents. I wonder why? Except, of course, for the ghost of a B-movie actor who co-starred with an ape in his most memorable film.

OK. Romney [above link] looks and acts like a marionette. Wooden. Quite a few nips and tucks Clinton [also above link] still knows how to work a crowd. Folksy. He looks like you hope you will at his age. The man's a policy wonk with charisma. Although a little exaggerated here and there, his assertions could probably pass the fact checker test with a reasonably good grade. In spite of a couple of doozies about a certain past sexual indiscretion! But, hey, we all make mistakes, right? At least he's not "not letting the fact checkers interfere" with the content of the ad campaign.

The moral of this story is that it's good to have an all too human but charismatic ex-president in your corner.

So, where is theirs?