Letter from Kyoto

Dissolving of the lower house

As the postal privatization bills did not pass the upper house, the lower house of parliament has been dissolved and Prime Minister Koizumi called for an election instead of offering his resignation. The privating of postal service may be an important problem but I do not believe that it is worthy of dissolving the house. at this time. It cannot be the issue of the election.

The reason why the bills did not pass the upper house was that Liberal Democrat Party(LDP) divided over the postal privatization, which may result in the dropping of government.

Is it not natural that some of LDP should oppose the bill? It is said Mr Koizumi would bar those who voted against him from running on the LDP ticket. One member even killed himself before the bills were rejected probably because of strain of stress over this problem. A series of incidents gives an illusion that what has been happening is a rivary between gangstars.

The sky in 1945

The color of the sky is different from those I have seen in foreign countries.' I remember what a friend of mine who had just returned from Tahichi said. It was April and the cherry blossoms were at their best then. They were beautiful indeed against the blue sky.

On August 6 the atomic bomb was dropped, which killed many people in Hiroshima instantly. It is said that bomber looked even beautiful against the blue sky.

Victims of the atomic bomb included many children, who could not have been responsible for the war at all. Was the damage brought about as the result of bombing collateral? The damage was too great to be collateral.

From the beginning the assumption that there are issues that can only be solved force is not true at all. Any problems can be solved without recourse to forces. No one should not be killed in the war.

A war on commuters

It turned out that a man shot dead whom I mentioned here yesterday was unconnnected to the incidents. 
"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005."  This is what  policed announced.  Though my ability of English may prevent me from understanding the meaning,  I do not understand why they are satisfied.
"For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."
It seems that the man has lost his life in an accident.  But is it not that he was shot dead?  The tragedy could have been avoided if the police had just arrested him instead of shooting him.  As I wrote yesterday, he could have been arrested because he was pushed to the floor.  It is awful that one can be shot on mere suspicion though I know some may say trying a head-shot was necessary to stop a suicide bombing.  One witness said, "It's a war on commuters." London or any other cities in the world should not be battlefields where such accidents can happen. The man who was shot dead must have had someone he loved.  I hate every possibility which might make it impossible for us to have beautiful time.  I explained the meaning of this beautiful time in my essay entitled 'Beautiful Time.'

Shooting to kill in London

The attempted bombings has shocked me but besides the incident itself what bewilders me most is that a suspected terrorist was pushed to the floor and five shots were unloaded into him. If he had been a suicide bomber, the only way you stop him might have been to try a head-shot. But wasn't there a possibility to shoot the wrong person? The fact is that he was pushed to the floor. If so, why was it necessary that he was shot dead because you might have been able to arrest him? Such doubts whirl in my mind. If someone is shot by mistake, will this mistake be called 'collateral' damage? London seemed to have become a battlefield.

Who decides?

The verb 'penser' is applied only to the first person. I mean to say that other expressions such as 'he thinks' or 'she thinks' can be true only on the analogy of 'I think.' It is possible to imagine she/he may think just I think but as is often the case of such analogy guessing is not easy because it is natural that one should think uniquely from her/his point of view.

I remember Prime Minister Koizumi saying that we should not yield to terrorism. Precisely he said in Japanese that xx(subject) should not yield to terrorism without refering to the subjet. In Japanese such expression is possible just in case of Greek or Latin. I think he should have said that he should not yield to terrorism. There is no telling the decision for someone else. He said furthermore, 'The nation is ready for the battle against terrorism.' I am not ready for it though I am Japanese. I do not want him to decide my will without my consent.

The only solution to the problem we face at the moment seems to be not so difficult as it appears. So long as Self-Defense Forces keeps being stationed, Japan never fails to be the target of terrorism because it must be regarded as army of occupation though the aim of its activity there is believed to be the support of recostruction (reconstruction would have been unnecessary if Iraq had not been destroyed in the first place) . I strongly demand the prompt withdrawal of SDF from Iraq.

Indifference

As I had so many things to do for a long time, I could find no time to write messages here. Many have changed since I wrote last time here in Japan or I would say little has changed. I seldom read artcles recently about Self-Sefense Forces stationed in Iraq. Few people seem to have interest in what they have been doing there though the existence of the Self-Defense Forces itself violates the constituion. Indifference is something which politicians welcome most. Earthquakes or railway accidents which have attracted attention may be useful for politicians to divert the attention of citizens.

hostage release

I am relieved to hear that three Japanese hostages were released. But the fate or whereabouts of two other Japanese remais unclear. The Mujahedeen Brigages who kidnapped three Japanese had demanded that Japan withdraw the Self-Defense Forces. The goverment had insisted that Japan would not bow to kidnapping. Though the help of the Islamic Clerics Commitee which contacted the abductors led to the releas of the hostages, the prime minister did not mention the commitee, who is against the deployment of the Self-Defense Forces. Here in Japan three hostages has been criticized for their behavior because they should have known how dangerous Iraq was. Therefore there are some who believe that it was their own responsibility that they ventured their lives in such a country. But without their activiy it could not have been known that there are Japanese who are against the decision by the government to enter the Iraq war with the declaration for the Bush goverment.

Japan hostages

Though I have been waiting for news of three Japanese who were kidnapped by insurgents, nothing new has been reported to my dismay. I believe the only means to save the lives of the three is the immediate withdrawal of the Self-Defence forces. But the government has no intention of withdrawing, which would mean to leave them in the lurch. Prime Minister Koizumi's flat denial has made me angry. Far from withdrawing the Forces, the governement dispatched another force for Kuwait yesterday. In the face of Japan-US alliance the lives of people seems less important and insignificant. I strongly hope the safe return of the three without injury.

My Diaries on the war in Iraq (4)

In Japan, once something had been done, it becomes an accomplished fact, and this then becomes an established procedure.
Read more
My Diaries on the war in Iraq (4)
Written between March 29, 2003 and April 6

emotional response

Democracy seems to have become extinct here in Japan. The dispatch of Self-Defense Forces had been decided before it was approved by the special committee of House of Counselors on Iraq issues, which means that congress has no power to deter Self-Defense Forces when it tries to exceed its original defense role. Even now it apparently violates Japan's constitution which has renounced war and the use of force as means of settling international disputes.
What embarrasses me most is that there exists strong emotional opposition when we discuss the problem of the dispatch of SDF to Iraq. Some people say we should not oppose to the dispatch because the member of SDF is trying to perform difficult tasks for Iraqi people without regard to the danger which may await them. They say we should send them off to Iraq with respect to their bravery and pray for their safe return. I do not intend to criticize individual members at all. I just want to question the constitutional basis of the dispatch of SDF to Iraq.
The problem of the existence of the massive destructive weapons at the start of the war has not been much discussed. Government party may want to ignore them. But unless the weapons are found out the war cannot be justified, which means the dispatch of SDF cannot be justified.
What I want to emphasize here is that the war is never justified as means of settling problems if the weapons are found out.