Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Will Mr Abe be a good Prime Minster?

Get TEFL Certified & Start Your Adventure Today!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Will Mr Abe be a good Prime Minster?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Japan

View previous topic :: View next topic

How will Abe be as a Prime minister, please comment

He will be good

10%

[ 2 ]

He will be bad

73%

[ 14 ]

He will be good and bad

15%

[ 3 ]

Total Votes : 19

Author

Message

shuize

Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1270

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:15 pm Post subject:

Like a Rolling Stone wrote:

Well, he is not trying to do those things he is trying to change it for Japan to use the military. Shocked

In America they are now trying to change some of those things back and make some of those freedoms go away. Look at Guantanamo Bay, for example and burning of the American Flag and religious freedoms. Surprised

in Japan I think they can change the constitution more easily because the same party runs all of government.

If I'm not mistaken, after passing by 2/3rds in both houses of the Diet, they still have to put it up for a national referendum. It's not a sure thing.

As for the United States, :Sigh: I thought you were better informed, Rolling Stone. First, Guantanamo Bay is not in the United States -- but the question of how to handle those who do not follow any of the Geneva Conventions themselves and who happily saw off their own prisoner's heads is currently under consideration. In fact, I believe the House and Senate just agreed on the question of how much procedure to grant terror suspects -- which, by the way, turns out to be more than is requried under any of the Geneva Conventions. Second, I seriously doubt a prohibition on burning an American flag represents the height of repression. Regardless, however, it is not a law. You can still burn the flag to your heart's content. Third, to what "religious freedoms" are you referring? Has something happened in the last few weeks that I'm not aware of? I usually keep up on these things.

Quote:

BBC wrote:
Mr Abe, Japan's first prime minister born after World War II, said a constitution that was "more suitable to a new generation" was needed.

Right. As I noted above, in my opinion every generation is entitled to determine the rules by which they will be governed.

Quote:

If they get a new one they must rewrite it so it is not silly. They are going to try something that may be dangerous.

They are not talking about writing a "new" constitution. They are debating amending the current one. As I explained above, it is not going to be an easy process.

And as for the "let's make war easier to have" statement, I seriously doubt that is the position of any Japanese politician. My bet is that many within Japan want a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Counsel -- not surprising really, considering they are second only to the United States in the amount of money they give the United Nations every year with almost zero say in how it gets spent * -- but they do not stand a chance unless they are also subject to sending troops on peacekeeping operations themselves.

In my view, not such unreasonable positions at all.

* An article I just read notes that Japan contributes 19.5% of the United Nation's funds. That works out to equal the combined contributions of France, the United Kingdom, China and Russia -- the other four permanent member of the Security Counsel.

ETA: "permanent"

Last edited by shuize on Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:01 pm; edited 1 time in total

Gordon

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Posts: 5309
Location: Japan

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:47 pm Post subject:

I don't see the big deal if Japan gets an armed forces. Hey wait a minute, they already do, they just need to change its name. Is Japan the only country not allowed to have an army? I know Japan's history, but let it go. Germany is allowed to have an army, why not Japan?

luckyloser700

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 308
Location: Japan

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:41 pm Post subject:

shuize wrote:

Quote:

The sad thing is that Japan is already very closely aligned with the US right now. This has been the case for awhile. But, yes. It's scary to think Mr. Abe wants an even closer alliance. Not necessarily because a closer alliance is bad, but for what purpose?

Why is it a "sad" thing that Japan is closely aligned with the U.S.? Would you be happier if U.S. / Japanese relations were worse? How is that in either country's best interests?

I wouldn't be happy if US/Japanese relations were bad, but the sad thing is that Koizumi and Blair have been viewed as Bush's lap dogs going along with just about anything he proposes. Countries that see the US as the biggest threat to world peace will view countries with leaders like Blair and Koizumi as being equally bad.
I would like to see the leaders of US allies stand up to Bush a little more rather than kissing his feet. If you support US foreign policiy wholeheartedly, Shuize, let me know. I won't wast anymore time typing responses.

shuize wrote:

Quote:

... and the War on Terror as a horrible thing and don't feel too warmly about Japan because of it.

Japan is funding the War on Terror? Since when? That's great news. I'm sure U.S. taxpayers will be glad to hear it.

Japan has funded large military exercises in the Pacific and Indian Oceans designed to ready American and Japanese forces for a possible conflict with N. Korea as well as to protect oil interests in the Middle East. This kind of funding is seen as indirect support of the War on Terror. Here's an article japanfocus.org/products/details/2204 or check out other articles concerning Japanese funding of US military activities. Without this financial support, the US would have to spend military money it would like to use in the Middle East on the exercises and other activities in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. This funding from Japan allows the US to use more money in the Middle East. That's why it has been labeled as support for the War on Terror.

shuize wrote:

Quote:

Japan is already in a bad situation ...

Really? In what way?

Relations with many of its Asian neighbors like China, S. Korea, and N. Korea are bad, the national debt and public debt burden are the highest in the industrialized world, poverty is higher than it's been in many years...

shuize wrote:

Quote:

What bothers me the most is the lack of interest (or lack of willingness ) on the part of J citizens to make more noise about the things their government does in the interest of the country.

Maybe because most Japanese realize things aren't quite as bad as you seem to think.

Yeah, maybe. Rolling Eyes

shuize

Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1270

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:06 pm Post subject:

luckyloser700 wrote:

I wouldn't be happy if US/Japanese relations were bad, but the sad thing is that Koizumi and Blair have been viewed as Bush's lap dogs going along with just about anything he proposes. Countries that see the US as the biggest threat to world peace will view countries with leaders like Blair and Koizumi as being equally bad. I would like to see the leaders of US allies stand up to Bush a little more rather than kissing his feet. If you support US foreign policiy (sic) wholeheartedly, Shuize, let me know. I won't wast (sic) anymore time typing responses.

Poison the well, if you like. But if you have examples of either Koizumi or Blair "kissing [Bush's] feet" I'd be interested in reading about them. I know Blair has been quite eloquent in his support for the War on Terror -- so well spoken in fact that I wish he were the one making the case for U.S. involvement in Iraq instead of Bush. Is that what you mean by "being Bush's lap dog" -- being a strong advocate for a cause he clearly supports?

Quote:

Much like the first Gulf War. By the way, as I asked above, I'm still curious which governments feel it is "a horrible thing" for Japan to have funded much the first Gulf War? Are they governments whose opinions we normally give much weight?

Quote:

This kind of funding is seen as indirect support of the War on Terror. Here's an article japanfocus.org/products/details/2204 or check out other articles concerning Japanese funding of US military activities. Without this financial support, the US would have to spend military money it would like to use in the Middle East on the exercises and other activities in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. This funding from Japan allows the US to use more money in the Middle East. That's why it has been labeled as support for the War on Terror.

I'm not sure how exercises in the Pacific related to possible conflict with North Korea have anything to do with the current War on Terror.* But as you're certainly aware, the United States maintains military bases and runs joint operations with allied countries all over the world. Do those countries also qualify as supporters of the War on Terror by virtue of those operations? Why would Japan�s support count as any more "horrible?"

Quote:

Relations with many of its Asian neighbors like China, S. Korea, and N. Korea are bad...

Well, if you hadn't noticed, North Korea hasn't really been the best of neighbors (missiles launched overhead, decades of abductions, etc.). As for South Korea and China, I doubt trade would be at an all-time high if things were really so bleak.

Quote:

the national debt and public debt burden are the highest in the industrialized world, poverty is higher than it's been in many years...

I didn't realize you were referring to domestic issues. Every argument up to that point was related to foreign affairs. Yes, I agree Japan is going to have to come to terms with spending and will probably end up having to reduce social services in order to keep the system solvent. However, I don't believe things are quite as dire as many would have us believe. Nor do I see how the Prime Minister would make the situation "unbearable" -- but I guess it sounds dramatic enough.

* I recognize, however, that the North Koreans have resorted to terror attacks in the past.

luckyloser700

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 308
Location: Japan

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:03 am Post subject:

shuize wrote:

luckyloser700 wrote:

I wouldn't be happy if US/Japanese relations were bad, but the sad thing is that Koizumi and Blair have been viewed as Bush's lap dogs going along with just about anything he proposes. Countries that see the US as the biggest threat to world peace will view countries with leaders like Blair and Koizumi as being equally bad. I would like to see the leaders of US allies stand up to Bush a little more rather than kissing his feet. If you support US foreign policiy (sic) wholeheartedly, Shuize, let me know. I won't wast (sic) anymore time typing responses.

Quote:

"We"? If you're referring to countries like the US, Britain, Japan, etc..., they probably wouldn't give much weight to the opinions of opposing governments because by ignoring them, "We" stand to lose nothing from a monetary standpoint. So, in that respect, not much weight at all.

shuize wrote:

Quote:

Relations with many of its Asian neighbors like China, S. Korea, and N. Korea are bad...

As for China, when Japan's money is no longer important enough for her to want to participate in such vigorous trade, who knows what she'll do?

I'm not trying to be a doomsayer here. I'd like to see Mr. Abe, or any leader of Japan do things that are positive for Japan and her people. Maybe he will. He hasn't been shaking things up, in a good or bad way, yet.

As for Blair and Koizumi, they represent groups with a large interest in oil resources. They have aligned themselves with the US to protect their interests. I can understand why this desire to protect resources exists; I just don't like the way the US and her allies are carrying out this protection. If you truly believe (or at least say you do) that the so-called War on Terror is only that, a war on terror, I don't know what else to say on this issue.

NorthofAmerica

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 187
Location: Recovering Expat

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:27 am Post subject:

shuize wrote:

As for the United States, :Sigh: I thought you were better informed, Rolling Stone. First, Guantanamo Bay is not in the United States -- but the question of how to handle those who do not follow any of the Geneva Conventions themselves and who happily saw off their own prisoner's heads is currently under consideration. In fact, I believe the House and Senate just agreed on the question of how much procedure to grant terror suspects -- which, by the way, turns out to be more than is requried under any of the Geneva Conventions.

You are seriously mistaken if you think that the US respects the Geneva Conventions let alone surpasses them in its treatment of prisoners. That Guantanamo Bay is not in the United States is irrelevant, although it has been used an excuse to deny prisoners legal rights that America claims to be fighting for overseas it in no way excuses the US from the Geneva Conventions. Of course the US administration tried to call these people "enemy combatatants" so it could torture them outside the confines of the Geneva Convention but its own supreme court denied those claims. Nonetheless of the hundreds of prisoners or "detainees" in Guantanamo only a handful have been charged with any crime and even then they won't be allowed access to the evidence collected against them. I would hardly call that "Freedom on the March"
The act going through your government right now about how to treat "detainees" is being systemically re-tooled and rewritten to deny them the rights under Geneva. Just like the American government lied about its wiretapping so it could spy on its own citizens in direct violation of its own supreme court it is lying again so it can torture prisoners. In fact right now George Bush is in the process of retroactively pardoning himself of any war crimes so he'll never be held responsible for what they're doing. So the next time a poor American soldier gets captured and tortured, don't cry foul. And the next time America gets attacked by terrorists don't pat yourselves on the back and say it's because of your freedom that they hate you.

Don't get me wrong. I really like a lot of Americans and American contributions in the world but the current government is completely berserk and twisted and not worth defending in any way. They are destroying what America is supposed to stand for and inviting disaster to the US while they profit from innocent deaths, state sponsored terror, and war.

gaijinalways

Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 2279

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:33 am Post subject:

NA posted

Quote:

I really like a lot of Americans and American contributions in the world but the current government is completely berserk and twisted and not worth defending in any way. They are destroying what America is supposed to stand for and inviting disaster to the US while they profit from innocent deaths, state sponsored terror, and war

.

Ouch Embarassed

, but too true. That's why some Americans traveling abroad in sensitive areas now say they are Canadians. Rolling Eyes

'Gitmo' is being retooled as a big mistake, and more are being released, but why many were there to begin with is very questionable. Of course, it's nothing like the Japanese unit 731 where people can hardly talk about it as there were no survivors.

Blair is often referred to as often as Bush's 7poodle' because he often follows Bush's policies, hence now poor Tony is in the position of being unpopular, some say even more so than Bush (though that would be hard to beat). Koizumi in that sense was a bit more independent, but certainly Japan does tend to follow/support many US decisions, though opting out of the Kyoto protocol was not one of them that Japan actively supported.

shuize

Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1270

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:12 am Post subject:

I'm in a rush, so I will post this quickly and check in later.

luckyloser700 wrote:

I'm still curious which governments feel it is "a horrible thing" for Japan to have funded much the first Gulf War? It was your statement. Do you still stand by it?

NorthofAmerica wrote:

Tell me, what do the Geneva Conventions say about individuals who do not follow an organized command structure, do not wear uniforms of an organized fighting force and do not afford their prisoners reciprocal treatment under the Conventions? Are such idividuals even classified as prisoners of war under the Conventions?

Assuming they are entitled to classification as prisoners of war (which I believe is far from certain -- think back to what happend to soldiers captured fighting out of uniform in past wars), when do the Conventions require release? Is it not at the "end of hostilities?"

Now, given that Al Queda has repeatedly vowed "forever war" with the U.S., I think a good case can be made under the Conventions that it is not required to release any of them.

Putting that aside for the moment, as noted above, the United States has released hundreds only to recapture some of the same individuals fighting against it again -- so what would you have the United States do with those individuals? Are there historic examples of a country affording enemy soldiers captured on the battlefield a criminal trial?

Big John Stud

Joined: 07 Oct 2004
Posts: 513

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:53 am Post subject:

I voted yes, because I think he like Koizumi will not let China bully Japan around. Did anyone notice today in the Japan times an article about China already warning Japan about Taiwan? I often think the U.S. and the U.K. were on the wrong side of the war in the Pacific.

furiousmilksheikali

Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 1660
Location: In a coffee shop, splitting a 30,000 yen tab with Sekiguchi.

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:08 am Post subject:

Big John Stud wrote:

I voted yes, because I think he like Koizumi will not let China bully Japan around. Did anyone notice today in the Japan times an article about China already warning Japan about Taiwan? I often think the U.S. and the U.K. were on the wrong side of the war in the Pacific.

Right Big John, fascism was preferable to anti-colonialism?

Like a Rolling Stone

Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 872

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:20 am Post subject:

shuize wrote:

As for the United States, :Sigh: I thought you were better informed, Rolling Stone.

Thankyou

Sorry, maybe that was a sidetrack!!! Surprised

I mean, do we want Mr Abe to change the contitution?

He has.... said "Unit 731 didn't exist", there were no "comfort women" and likes the textbooks that question Nanking. So, is he the best PR man for the constitution change? Confused

But you are right about constitution ammendments: Here is the constitution for you:

the guys who wrote the constitution of Japan wrote:

CHAPTER IX: AMENDMENTS
Article 96:
Amendments to this Constitution shall be initiated by the Diet, through a concurring vote of two-thirds or more of all the members of each House and shall thereupon be submitted to the people for ratification, which shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of all votes cast thereon, at a special referendum or at such election as the Diet shall specify. 2) Amendments when so ratified shall immediately be promulgated by the Emperor in the name of the people, as an integral part of this Constitution.

Here's waht they want to change:

Quote:

CHAPTER II: RENUNCIATION OF WAR
Article 9:
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. 2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized

See the words "forever renounce", that seems a bit permanent. What do you think they should change it to Shuize and Gordon? Confused

Maybe "not always renounce", "renounce it sometimes"????? Confused

shuize

Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1270

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:57 am Post subject:

Like a Rolling Stone wrote:

Sorry, maybe that was a sidetrack!!! Surprised

Yes, I got wrapped up in the sidetrack as well.

Quote:

I mean, do we want Mr Abe to change the contitution?

Are you Japanese? I think the question of whether Japan changes the Japanese Constitution should be left up to the Japanese.

Quote:

Here's waht they want to change:

CHAPTER II: RENUNCIATION OF WAR
Article 9:
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. 2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized

See the words "forever renounce", that seems a bit permanent. What do you think they should change it to Shuize and Gordon? Confused

Maybe "not always renounce", "renounce it sometimes"????? Confused

First, I think section 2 is already irrelevant. Japan now maintains land, sea and air forces. I think there is something to be said for amending that part just to reflect reality.

Second, the "forever renounce" wording does not matter. It could even state "this portion of the constitution may never be changed," so long as they follow the proper procedure for amending the constitution, I'm fairly confident they may amend it. You can't bind future generations to a document whose authors are all dead. Just imagine the U.S. Constitution had said "slavery may never be abolished."*

As for the wording, I'm sure the politicans could do better than me. But I suppose something like, "Japan, being a member of the international community, reserves the right to individual and collective self-defense under the international laws of war. Moreover, as member of the international community, Japan reserves the right to participate in international peacekeeping operations as authorized by the United Nations Security Counsel."

* I suppose it's technically possible to amend a constitution to require future amendments to require the unanimous consent of every living Japanese citizen. But if something like that were done, I'm guessing it would go the way of the Articles of Confederation in the U.S. which technically required unanimous consent among the states before amendment -- the founders just wrote a new constitution (the current Constitution) which required ratification by 3/4 of the states and prounouced it in force when the ninth state ratified it.

Last edited by shuize on Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:18 am; edited 1 time in total

Like a Rolling Stone

Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 872

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:15 am Post subject:

[quote="shuize"]

Like a Rolling Stone wrote:

Sorry, maybe that was a sidetrack!!! Surprised

Yes, I got wrapped up in the sidetrack as well.

Quote:

I mean, do we want Mr Abe to change the contitution?

shuize wrote:

Are you Japanese? I think the question of whether Japan changes the Japanese Constitution should be left up to the Japanese.

Quote:

Ok, now your making me work hard. Neutral

I should say "Is it good for Mr Abe to change it?" but really that does mean...."Do I want... or should I want... should people in the world want...?" But.... it doesn't matter if I am Japanese and only they have the right to AN OPINION. I think I can have an opinion and ask for other people's opinions. Smile

Freedom of speech Wink

For example, Japan wants to join the UNSC, so can we, in the world communtiy say what we want for them to do this? This is international opinion. Turkey wants to join the EU, so we say in Europe, you must change for us.

If what you say is true then you msut believe it is up to Iran or North Korea and their people if they want nuclear weapons. (Maybe you do, then OK Confused

) If a country makes a constitution that is crazy can or should we disaprove? I'm not saying Japan wants a crazy constitution i just mean that i think we can say if we disaprove. Or this whole thread is wrong. Surprised

shuize

Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1270

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:32 am Post subject:

I think you should reserve the right to use fewer smilies.

Quote:

Sure. Japan (and Turkey in your example) may only join those organizations through the consent of the other member states. The Japanese Constitution, on the other hand, is specific to Japan and the last I heard only Japanese citizens had a vote.

I'd think Europeans, and Britons in particular, would have learned that telling others how you think they should vote generally does not work well. But I'm sure President Bush appreciates the Guardian's letter writing campaign to Ohio voters prior to the 2004 election to convince them they should vote for Kerry. Republican strategists report that it made just enough difference to deliver Ohio, and thus the election, to Bush. Of course, those Guardian readers certainly had a right to voice their opinions. But, unfortunately for Europe, they do not get a vote.

As for the nuclear weapons issue, I believe Iran is under international treaty obligations not to devleop nuclear weapons (although I could be wrong on this). North Korea renounced similar treaty obligations. Regardless, whether they develop such weapons would be an internal decision. The international community of course has the right to bring various kinds of pressure on them for doing so. As they do with Japan. Is that what you're proposing?

Ah, hell, I'm just taking the piss ... word it however you like.

Like a Rolling Stone

Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 872

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:41 am Post subject:

Do you think Mr Abe will be good or bad (on balance) Mr Shuize?

Display posts from previous:

	Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Japan	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Teaching Jobs in China