www.debito.org
Essay
The Japanese hostage crisis 2004 in Iraq
and
"Little Lindberghing"
By Arudou Debito and Alan
McCornick
(Click
here
to see the Japan Times Community Page Article of May 11, 2004, which
resulted from
these articles)
Date: Tue, 27 Apr
2004
Hello all. Arudou Debito here. What follows are some thoughts
I had on Japan's society
and government reaction to the whole Iraq
hostage mess (where three
Japanese were held prisoner in Iraq,
threatened with death if Japan
didn't withdraw its Self Defense Forces,
and then released after (the
media says) Muslim clerics appealed for
clemency, or (the domestic
internet bulletin boards reckon) a hefty
backdoor ransom was paid.
Two essays follow. The first I dashed out
last week to my Japanese
lists, about what I commonly call the
"Little Lindbergh Effect"
(where a society, in the aftermath
of a national shock, passes a
preemptive law which ultimately oversteps
its intentions--in
Lindbergh's case, a near-automatic death penalty if a
kidnapped child
hostage dies; in the present day, passing the PATRIOT
Act after Sept
11, see <http://
www.debito.org/japantodaycolumns13-15.html#14>).
In
Japan's case,
politicians are proposing to make hostages pay their
rescue
costs....
The second essay is about the ironies of Japan's reaction
to the
hostage repatriation, by friend Alan McCornick of Keio
University. I
believe it does better than most observers in trying to
make sense of
the situation, because Alan doesn't try to find grandiose
theories,
such as "national honor" or "flaws in Japan's
national character".
First, my essay about the political
ramifications:
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//////////
=============================
"VICTIMS TO PAY FOR
RESCUE COSTS": Sankei Shinbun, April 16, 2004
http://news.goo.ne.jp/news/sankei/seiji/20040416/NAIS-0416-01-15-48.
html
(Japanese, excerpt, translated by Arudou
Debito)
Opinions have emerged from the Koizumi Cabinet that
the Japanese
hostages released from Iraq should pay for part of their
rescue
costs....
METI Minister Nakagawa Shouichi said in an
informal cabinet meeting
on Friday morning, "People who get lost in
the mountains have to pay
for their rescue." He added, "The
families of the hostages used
Hokkaido Government offices in Tokyo for
their rescue efforts. The
Hokkaido Government is in a dilemma about how
to cover those costs."
National Research Institute for Disaster
Prevention Chief Inoue
Kiichi also stated in a press conference after
the meeting: "The
victims should bear a degree of responsibility
for the costs."
Party Komeito chief Fushiba Tetsuzo also
stated in a policy meeting,
"How about tabulating the costs, and
sending a bill to the victims or
their
families?"...
=============================
Arudou
Debito here. Thanks to the degree of social shock behind this
policy
drive, I think there's a screw loose in the attitude towards
and the
treatment of the repatriates. Let me speak from the
standpoint of a
fellow human rights activist and one founder of a
volunteer human rights
group (The Community
<http://www.debito.org/TheCommunity
>)
First of all, let me say that I can understand to some
degree why the
public is upset. It's perfectly natural to say, "Why
the hell would
anyone want to go to a dangerous part of the
world?", and their
getting kidnapped did indeed cause a great deal
of public upset and
worry. It's also quite understandable for people to
feel, "Let's fix
it so that this sort of thing never happens
again."
But it's still a jump to insist that the victims pay
for their own
rescue costs. Comparing the Iraq rescue efforts with
mountain rescue
payments misses the point, because people enter these
areas with
different motives. Going into a dangerous area like Iraq is
not just
some mountain stroll gone wrong. It is an earnest attempt to
help
people who are in trouble--and a danger zone is precisely the
place
you will find them. If aid workers should get into
trouble
themselves, the last thing they need is to be blamed for it
(or
worse, to be fined--and in proposals which may amount to millions
of
dollars).
Thus the debate has gone awry by not giving due
consideration to what
these human-aid groups do. By and large, they
exist to alleviate the
world's miseries, and offer a way for people who
care to give of
their time, funds, and even lives to help people. What's
special is
that they often deal with social problems which governments
would
rather not touch. Yes, it is tragic when these aid workers
become
the targets themselves of the very agents of social misery. But
this
should not become grounds for criticism of the aid group. Or
for
financial punishment. The background and mistakes of the
three
hostages in this case notwithstanding, the government should not
be
considering steps like these.
Kidnapping is one potential
risk of working in a danger zone. Nobody
knows this better than the aid
workers, and they go there accepting
those risks. This might be
difficult for those without this type of
experience, but let it be known
that most definitely do not do this
for "kicks".
(buyuuden)
Now let's turn to the political dimension of this
issue. According
to the proposals as they stand, only those people who
enter
"dangerous areas" of the world (kiken kuiki, as defined
by the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs) on official business, such as a
Japanese
company or a government mission, will be exempt from being
billed for
their rescue. That's understandable, but the converse of
this
proposal means that only those who have been, so to
speak,
"sponsored" by the government will qualify. Meaning
that the
government is now creating a mechanism for a certain degree of
social
control. However, as I mentioned above, not all NGOs wish to
have
government sponsorship, let alone involvement, and many prefer to<
BR>
remain unbeholden in their choice of projects (especially if they
go
against their government's wishes). If this policy goes through,
in
practice it will mean that the established aid associations, such
as
the Japan Red Cross (or the corrupt Japan Green Cross), get a
free
pass. But a small, newly-founded, grassroots organization
which
lacks the government's blessing may face the threat of a
"rescue
fine". This is not going to help overseas volunteerism
in Japan.
Now consider a potential political abuse. Hark back to
the dark days
of corrupt Dietmember Suzuki Muneo, using the Ministry of
Foreign
Affairs as a political moneyspinner and an expansion of his
power.
<http://
www.debito.org/japantodaycolumns16-18.html#18>
In 2002,
he
excluded from a MOFA meeting on Afganistan an aid group called
Peace
Winds Japan for personal reasons (apparently their leader didn't
say
hello to him properly at a meeting).
<http://
www.sankei.co.jp/databox/muneo/20020129.html>
in Japanese )
Point
is this sort of thing has happened before. Now there would be
a
financial penalty involved which would probably bankrupt
the
organization. Hence the "Little Lindberghing" I'm talking
about:
This draconian policy proposal will easily become a way to keep
the
NGOs and grassroots under a degree of government
control.
What a shame. As Colin Powell pointed out in his appraisal
of this
situation (see Alan's essay below), volunteerism is a good thing
for
a society. Japan, which is not a country well-known for
its
volunteerism at home or abroad, is now only truly emerging from
its
shell and understanding that the world's problems need more than
just
money thrown at them. For the grassroots levels to start
organizing
and participating is a healthy development of a civil
society--one
which is taking up even domestic issues such as
government-sponsored
discrimination against foreigners, ahem
<http://
www.debito.org/immigrationsnitchsite.html>.
It would be a
shame
for this overall positive development to be nipped in the
bud.
Let's face it. The world is not always a happy place. Not
everyone
believes in peace and brotherhood towards their neighbor. That
is
why there are trouble spots, and the aid groups are usually the
first
ones on the scene. It would be a shame for the Japanese public
to
buy into the current undercurrent of "Japan is the safest place
in
the world, and if you go overseas and get into trouble, it's
your
fault and your responsibility. So stay home and mind your
own
business. Volunteerism only leads to trouble for you and
your
family." This may be an extreme argument, but it's one in
response
to an extreme proposal in an attempt at balance.
Of
course I want to tell people to avoid dangerous areas. But going
there
is their decision. Not their families', and they should not be
punished.
Instead, I suggest that for areas designated as
"dangerous" by
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, people sign a release
waiver making it
clear that they go there on their own recognaisance;
if anything befalls
them, government assistance will not be
necessary. A bit cold-blooded a
counterproposal, yes. But it is far
better than blaming someone for
getting hurt while trying to help
others.
Arudou Debito,
Sapporo
http://www.debito.org
April 22,
2004
ENDS
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////
Now, on to Alan McCornick's essay. I believe it does
better than
most in trying to make sense of the situation, because Alan
doesn't
try to find grandiose theories, such as national honor or flaws
in
Japan'snational character. In fact, he reacts to the
April 27 New
York Times article which in his view (and mine) really
doesn't get to
the heart of the matter. The NYT author cites some bogus
cultural
value about "okami", which nobody I've talked to in
Japan has ever
heard
of:
=============================
"Beneath the
surface of Japan's ultra-sophisticated cities lie the
hierarchical ties
that have governed the country for centuries and
that invariably
reassert themselves at moments of crisis. The former
hostages'
transgression was to ignore a government advisory against
traveling to
Iraq. But their sin, in a vertical society that likes to
think of itself
as classless, was to defy okami, or, literally, 'what
is
higher'."
http://www.iht.com/ihtsearch.php?id=516645&owner=&date=
20040423100018
=============================
Overseas
observers are falling back into the trap of seeing Japanese
as prisoners
of their culture, which is a facile (and rather
demeaning) way of
patching over an outsider's inability to understand
the inside
("Hey, I can't understand their feelings. Must be
culture.")
How about watching the wide shows or reading the (very
nasty) BBSes out
there--which would give a much closer approximation
of why people are
angry?
Other observers go so far as to cite hundreds of years of
culture:
=============================
"It's as if the
honor of the country itself had been smeared by the
reckless result of
these poor brave Japanese, who were just trying to
make a difference...
It's a deep-rooted cultural need to always put
the welfare (and in this
case, the reputation) of the group above the
concerns of the
individual...I'm not saying that the Japanese should
change the way
they've been taught to think for centuries. But it's
worth pointing out
that this tendency to hold back, not make waves,
be the nail that stays
down instead of sticking out (and therefore
get hammered), not take
risks and listen absolutely to authority has
maybe held back Japanese
people in the great world scheme of
things... I love Japan and the
Japanese, but this week I'm glad that
I'm an American." Gil
Asakawa, Nikkei View, http://nikkeiview.com/
===============
==============
Quite honestly, I'm not 100% sure why people reacted
the way they
did. But I do not think it was a matter of deference to
authority.
More of ingratitude, I think. Anyway, I'll let Alan talk
now.
Arudou Debito in Sapporo