NYTimes appalled Japan's government urges citizens exercise personal responsibility

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aikibiker

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
558
Location
Daytona, Fl
The Japanese government in the wake of the recent hostage drama in Iraq has urged Japanese citizens to exercise personal responsibility and not count on the government to solve all their problems. The NY Times is outraged at this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/22/i...partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=


April 22, 2004
For Japanese Hostages, Release Only Adds to Stress
By NORIMITSU ONISHI

TOKYO, April 22 — The young Japanese taken hostage in Iraq returned home this week, not to the warmth of a yellow ribbon embrace but to a disapproving nation's cold stare.

The first three hostages, including a woman who helped street children on the streets of Baghdad, first appeared on television two weeks ago as their knife-brandishing kidnappers threatened to slit their throats. A few days after their release, they landed here on Sunday, in the eye of a peculiarly Japanese storm.

"You got what you deserve!" one Japanese held up a hand-written sign at the airport where they landed. "You are Japan's shame," another wrote on the Web site of one of the hostages. They had "caused trouble" for everybody. The government, not to be outdone, announced it would bill them $6,000 for airfare.

Treated like criminals, the three have gone into hiding, effectively becoming prisoners inside their own homes. The kidnapped woman was last seen arriving at her parents' house, looking defeated and dazed from taking tranquilizers, flanked by relatives who helped her walk and bow deeply before the media, as a final apology to the nation.

Dr. Satoru Saito, a psychiatrist who has examined the three twice since their return, said the stress they are enduring now is "much heavier" than what they endured during their captivity in Iraq. Asked to name their three most stressful moments, the ex-hostages told him, in ascending order: the moment when they were kidnapped on their way to Baghdad; the knife-wielding incident; and the moment they watched a television show, on the morning after their return here, and realized Japan's anger with them.

"Let's say the knife incident, which lasted about 10 minutes, ranks 10 on a stress level," Dr. Saito said in an interview at his clinic today. "After they came back to Japan and saw the morning news show, their stress level ranked 12."

Beneath the surface of Japan's ultra-sophisticated cities lie the hierarchical ties that have governed this island nation for centuries and that, at moments of crises, invariably reassert themselves. The ex-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 what people call here "okami," or, literally, "what is higher."

To the angry Japanese, the first three hostages — Nahoko Takato, 34, who started her own non-profit organization to help Iraqi street children; Soichiro Koriyama, 32, a freelance photographer; and Noriaki Imai, 18, a freelance writer also interested in the issue of depleted uranium munitions — had acted selfishly. Two others kidnapped and released in a separate incident — Junpei Yasuda, 30, a freelance journalist, and Nobutaka Watanabe, 36, a member of a pro-peace non-governmental organization — were equally guilty.

Pursuing individual goals by defying the government and causing trouble for Japan was simply unforgivable. So the single government official to praise them was, not surprisingly, an American one.

"Well, everybody should understand the risk they are taking by going into dangerous areas," said Secretary of State Colin Powell. "But if nobody was willing to take a risk, then we would never move forward. We would never move our world forward.

"And so I'm pleased that these Japanese citizens were willing to put themselves at risk for a greater good, for a better purpose. And the Japanese people should be very proud that they have citizens like this willing to do that."

As an example of the unbridgeable gap between Japan and America, consider this comment by Yasuo Fukuda, the government's spokesman: "They may have gone on their own but they must consider how many people they caused trouble to because of their action."

The criticism began almost immediately after the first three were kidnapped two weeks ago. The environment minister, Yuriko Koike, blamed them for being "reckless."

After the hostages' families asked that the government yield to the kidnappers' demand and withdraw its 550 troops from southern Iraq, they began receiving hate mail and harassing faxes and email. In the village of Japan, like the one in "The Lottery," one had to throw stones.

Even as the kidnappers were still threatening to burn alive the three hostages, Yukio Takeuchi, a top official in the foreign ministry, said of the three, "When it comes to a matter of safety and life, I would like them to be aware of the basic principle of personal responsibility."

The foreign ministry, held both in awe and resentment by the average Japanese, was the "okami" defied in this case. While foreign ministry officials are Japan's super elite, the average Japanese tends to regard them as arrogant and unhelpful, recalling how they failed to deliver in time the declaration of war against the United States in 1941 so that Japan became forever known as a sneak-attack nation.

Defying the "okami" are young Japanese, freelancers and members of non-profit organizations, a status traditionally held in low esteem in a country where the bigger one's company, the bigger is one's social rank. They also represented something more: they belong to a generation in which many have rejected traditional Japanese life. Many have gravitated instead to places like the East Village in Manhattan, looking for something undefined. Others have joined non-profit organizations to help people in Africa or Iraq, a new phenomenon here.

Others have gone to Iraq looking to report the true story, since Japan's big media have always avoided dangerous places. (Indeed, almost all the big media departed from Iraq in the last week on a government-chartered plane, leaving Japan's most important military mission since the end of World War II essentially uncovered.)

Mr. Yasuda — who was in the second group of hostages and also described the stress he found here far greater than what he felt during his captivity in Iraq — quit his position as a staff reporter at a regional newspaper to report as a freelancer in Iraq.

"We have to check ourselves what the Japanese government is doing in Iraq," Mr. Yasuda said in an interview tonight. "This is the responsibility on the part of Japanese citizens, but it seems as if people are leaving everything up to the government."

The "okami" reacted with fury at such defiance. Some politicians proposed a law barring Japanese from traveling to dangerous countries; even more said the hostages should pay the costs incurred by the government in securing their release.

"This is an idea that should be considered," the Yomiuri Newspaper, Japan's biggest daily, said in an editorial. "Such an act might deter other reckless, self-righteous volunteers."

When two freed hostages mentioned wanting to stay or return to Iraq to continue their work, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi angrily urged them "to have some sense."

"Many government officials made efforts to rescue them, without even eating and sleeping, and they are still saying that sort of thing?" he said.

The comment was revealing, one that would not be uttered, at least publicly, in the United States where the government is supposed to serve the people. Here, the government is now trumpeting "personal responsibility" for those going to dangerous areas — essentially saying that travelers shouldn't accept any help from the government to secure their safety or get out of trouble.

Again, no Japanese politician dared to speak out against this idea.

Indeed, Mr. Koizumi's handling of the hostage crisis translated into positive polls, and the issue diverted attention from Iraq's worsening security situation and the fact that Japan's troops, according to this country's peace Constitution, are supposed to be in a non-combat zone.

Grasping Japan's attitude toward them, the hostages found themselves under crushing pressure, Dr. Saito said.

According to him, the 18-year-old Mr. Imai registered a blood pressure of 150. Ms. Takato, who had a pulse rate of over 120 beats per minute, kept bursting into tears. When the doctor told her she had done good work in Iraq, she cried convulsively and said, "But I've done wrong, haven't I?"

On Tuesday, Ms. Takato, using the tranquilizers Dr. Saito gave her, finally left Tokyo for her hometown in Hokkaido. According to the media, she made this comment about returning to her family home, but it could just as well have been about coming back to Japan:

"I feel like going back home quickly, but I'm also afraid of going home."
 
NYT has turned into a multi-schizo source of drivel. Imagine them praising Powell in "taking risks to move the world forward" while railing against GWB for doing the same :confused: . And chastising the victims :scrutiny: . The Islamists nabbed them and threatened to kill them.
 
Oh dear God.

We're looking at a cultural enshrinement of cowardice that FAR exceeds anything in the US. Or anywhere else.

<rant mode: ON>

National cowardice means they are wide open to risk of dictatorship (again).

National populations that allow homicidally dictatorial governments to run them are guilty of crimes. Such populations enable horrible civil rights violations. Which makes sane nations have to eventually go and do cleanup...and that can get ugly. Collatoral damage at a minimum, nukes as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki or their direct equivelent at Dresden and other "firebombed" cities.

They had it coming. They enabled evil via cowardice.

Japan ain't learned this yet. I predict they'll need to go back to school.

<rant mode: OFF>

There. All better :).
 
They need to get unplugged from the hive and join the human race.

Such groupthink is astounding.

And yes Jim, I agree 1000%
 
"You got what you deserve!" one Japanese held up a hand-written sign at the airport where they landed. "You are Japan's shame," another wrote on the Web site of one of the hostages. They had "caused trouble" for everybody

Kind of reminds me of how people like Jane Fonda, Sen. John Kerry and V.V.A.W. spit on and defamed Americans returning from service in Vietnam back in the 60's.
 
Kind of reminds me of how people like Jane Fonda, Sen. John Kerry and V.V.A.W. spit on and defamed Americans returning from service in Vietnam back in the 60's.

Those same people and others just like them are doing the same thing today.
 
Jim M & Pendragon

Jim M & Pendragon,

forgive my stupidity, but could you elaborate on your statements?

Are you critisizing the Japanese gov't for scolding their citizens?

OK granted, the 3 were doing good things. And calling them "Japan's
shame" is a bit harsh.

However, if the government tells them not to go to Iraq, but they
go anyway of their own accord, should the government not be P.O.'d
that they had to expend resources to get them out? Including the
potential risk to others in a rescue?

Not trying to start a forum war, but I'm curious...

(or maybe I just haven't had enough coffee yet)
 
Apparently in Japan it's considered gauche to question or disobey a government official. :rolleyes:

This isn't about personal responsibility, it's about violating the Groupthink and the penalties for doing so.

I can't state my opinion on the Japanese government without the board software automatically censoring me. :D
 
Fish2xs: the government's reaction was overboard but not wholly without merit.

The difference though is the "enshrinement of cowardice" obvious in the government, media and general population.

Here in the US, at a minimum most people would at least recognize they got "cajones" or the cultural equivelent. We *respect* that...a whole HELL of a lot more than we respect the idea of mindlessly toeing the government's line.

The only thing THEY respect is exactly that: toeing the line, not making waves, "group harmony" and the like.

:barf:

Cowards. Idiots. Grrrr.

:barf:
 
I make some distinctions that I can't ignore about this situation.

First, I have no problem with people ignoring governmental travel advisories. It is a personal choice. I also would NEVER expect Herculean governmental efforts to save me if I got my keister in a sling such as these Japanese nationals did.

Secondly, I'd be deeply ashamed if after having gotten in hot water in a foreign land where I was advised of the danger or the danger was facially obvious, as it is in Iraq, were my family to come forward and plead for national policy to be changed on my behalf save that I be killed. That is craven. I am an adult who would have made his own choice, presumably aware of the attendent risks, and live or die with the result. I do think that the public spectacle of the families playing "terrorism weenies" relentlessly in the Japanese press is what really ticked off the populace there. That seething rage was compunded by a couple of them expressing in interest in going back immediately, raising the spectre of more of the same wailing. On some level, this same whining bothers me about some of the military families in this country. As a veteran of some very long deployments to some not very nice places, I find the "when are they coming home---we were promised" whine rather distasteful and would have probably sought a divorce had my wife shamed my service that way to the press.

Third, those folks would have not necessarily been condemned for going to Iraq were they American activists or journalists, but had they been kidnapped or burned alive, as was threatened, not many here wouldn't say that on some level, they got what was coming to them. Swimming in shark infested waters can be done, but it is understandable if one winds up as food if one does.

The main cultural difference is that here, those folks would have been on the morning talk show circurt, with a ghost written book to come, soon followed by a made for TV movie. I don't know which national reaction is worse--ours or Japan's.
 
To the angry Japanese, the first three hostages — Nahoko Takato, 34, who started her own non-profit organization to help Iraqi street children; Soichiro Koriyama, 32, a freelance photographer; and Noriaki Imai, 18, a freelance writer also interested in the issue of depleted uranium munitions — had acted selfishly

This seems very bizarre. If taking a risk to help others is selfish then would not caring about anyone else be generous?
 
Boats:

History has proven that a small number of reckless individuals are nowhere NEAR as dangerous as large numbers of craven cowards.

The latter caused over 100 million murders in the 20th century alone.

An entire nation that considers cowardice a "civic virtue" is a VERY dangerous nation indeed.
 
I agree with Jim again.

Travel advisories are for tourists and business travellers. If you want to go help children in war torn countries, you heart beats in time with Gods as far as I am concerned.

But - you also understand that you pretty much forfiet your expectation of safety.

There was no recognition of the courage it took to go, or the good they tried to do - only the annoyance that they "got outta line".

This country is ripe for a powerful dictator because everyone is so used to "going along to get along".

Afterall, if government policy is the highest law, the government can do anything and who are you to question it?

Here in America, we know that there are "higher laws" and our actual law even recognizes that with the "doctrine of competing harms" - while not perfectly applicable in this situation, few Americans would fault a person for flauting travel policy for the purpose of rendering humanitarian aid.

That the Japanese to not seem to understand this is disturbing.
 
These people weren't tourists, they're people who exercised a call to a higher moral responsibility despite public stigma. To the Japanese, "responsibility" means "doing what you're told" whether by your parents, teachers, society, or the State. This isn't the same as an American's or a libertarian's belief in personal responsibility.

Japan is a borderline police state with an insanely high conviction rate... basically, you get accused and that's it (even if not convicted, the stigma you will suffer afterwards will make you feel you might as well have been). This lends to their supposed low incidents of gun crime because "enforcement" is so complete. But police state enforcement is not exactly something to aspire for....
 
I guess I am not reading this the same way as everyone else. The NYT may have found or manufactured some sense of violation of the hierarchical nature of Japan as the reason scorn was heaped on these folks, but I do think that after watching the NHK coverage on TV myself, that a lot more folks were pissed that these people put the country through a spectacle of anti-war types and the hostages' families getting wide play to bring the troops home to save them.

The sentiment of much of Japan was the same as it would be here were such demands made so selfishly: "Get stuffed."

Yes, some Japanese are angry that this trio ignored governmental warnings to not go to Iraq and among others, PM Koizumi expressed some hyperpaternalistic anger that they'd inconvenienced the Foreign Ministry, but I do not then make the leap that Japan is a nation of cowards for heaping some scorn on these folks.

In many ways the Japanese hostage trio has elicited a response similiar to one I feel from time to time. Living near a rather large range of mountains, we have various idjits who ignore all advice or lack of experience and then go and get themselves injured or killed doing something, that in the end analysis, is wholly unnecessary: in my example, climbing mountains and in Japan, going to be aid workers or "freelance journalists" in a very dangerous and unstable country. In either case, a governmental bailout of individual disdain for the inherent risks is, somehow, either demanded or expected. The question for me is where this expectation of collective paid rescue from the consequences of individual indiscretion comes from.

Maybe people should get the natural outcome of their choices from time to time to illustrate their folly to themselves and others? Nope, this country never asks the obvious question: "Were you born stupid or did you have to work at it?" Strangely enough, more polite variations of such a question were asked in Japan, especially after two of them wanted to immediately go back.

That last sentiment informed much of the Japanese "man on the street" anger I saw on their own news coverage this month, not some rehash of the proverbial nail that sticks out getting hammered down once again, though there was an element of that.
 
The public reaction as reported by the NY Times, a paper known for distortion, is upsetting.

But let me ask a purely rhetorical question: what's the difference between these three people ignoring or defying their government's orders not to go to Iraq, and a very similar situation involving the "human shields" at the outset of the war last year? I don't see a whole lot of difference, except in the public reaction that the NYT is describing.
 
US Forces would be just as pi$$ed at American freelancers sneaking into an al-Qayyida snakepit for the sake of an exclusive interview, or for the sheer thrill of it, or even for 'humanitarian work'.

Wasn't Jane Fonda just such a freelancer?

Freelancers-made-hostage in a battle zone always put REAL soldiers at risk, even if the soldiers don't effect an actual rescue, because hostages are an unnecessary, weighty complication to an already tricky job, holding up missions and diverting intelligence resources. Those freelancers had no real obligation to be where they were captured, and had even been strongly warned against ever going.

Putting the coalition to additional risk and concern, their government to additional burden, and their country to additional worry ---and for what?
Selfishness. Irresponsibility.

You wanna call these irresponsibles 'heroes'?


:barf: :barf: :barf:
 
Boats: this particular reaction, on the part of much of the Japanese "man in the street", is only one small part of what looks like a much larger pattern of cowardice in that society.

A full recitation of other such clues, usually in reports much more credible than the New York Slimes, would take days to compose.
 
One needs to understand that the Japanese are a very "racially pure" people and as a nation have very few non-japanese citizens.They would be angry at the people who went to Iraq to help "Gaijiin" because it goes against a historical and cultural mindset.I have worked in Japan and it is just the way it is there...had a girlfriend in Osaka who was 1/2 Korean.She had some nasty things to put up with while growing up.It's NOT one world guys.
 
Cowards. Idiots. Grrrr.

Well my dear sweet Japanese wife dissaproves of what the Japanese hostages did, and she is not a coward, nor an idiot...

Or is she?? Hmmm???

:fire: :banghead:

I hope the mods close this rascist thread before I get myself banned...

WildAlaska
 
But let me ask a purely rhetorical question: what's the difference between these three people ignoring or defying their government's orders not to go to Iraq, and a very similar situation involving the "human shields" at the outset of the war last year? I don't see a whole lot of difference, except in the public reaction that the NYT is describing.

Need not be rhetorical, think it through rather than on a shallow level before you barf... brains over guts.

The difference? Intent. Pure and simple... like asking what's the difference between cold blooded murder and killing in justified self defense. The very monkier of "human shield" shows the intent... to protect enemy targets at the cost of allied lives; it's an open thumbing of one's nose against the warnings while knowingly and willingly exchanging allied lives for enemy lives.

In this case, this was post-war Iraq... heck the media stopped flapping about it until the insurgents decided to make headlines... there was no reasonable expectation of causing things to go FUBAR. Now, even if you want to say there was every indication things would go FUBAR, you can simply look at their behavior and reactions to see that they didn't know.

Again, the difference is intent. One group says, "I know what damage this will cause but I'm doing it anyways." The other, "I didn't know what damage it would cause and I wouldn't have done it if I did" (the public apologies- though I suspect they knew the potential costs of going; just not of coming back).

Even barring all that, timing is yet another difference. Entering a country targeted for military action or during a war... duh. Entering a country post allied "victory" to provide survivor relief, wholly different story. If anything, there's the misreporting of the level of our "victory" to blame. But blaming relief workers is like calling the heroes at 9/11 idiots for not getting out of NYC in case more terrorist attacks were coming.
 
Wild, don't get over sensitive about this. The article was written by a Japanese person about the Japanese. Further, those critizing the issues Japan has as a nation are still- in general- recognizing the difference those individuals exhibited. We recognize that individuals need not adhere to national or social pressures.

The fact that you're painting your wife, an individual, with our national criticism might show that you're bunching the Japanese together more than we? If you reread Jim's post, his comments are driven more towards the rigidity of conformism than the position itself (as he said, "not wholly without merit"). Now if your wife believes what she belives purely because it's Japanese national policy and a passive desire to make the least amount of waves... then, maybe, Jim's comments could be directed towards her... but I imagine her views are rooted elsewhere. Heck, the fact that she married you and is in this country suggests she's more an individual than "okami" worshipper, don't you think? In fact, I imagine her choices have come at some personal cost. What if she obeyed "okami" to it's utmost? Doubt you'd be married...

Again, this is a cultural criticism... not one levelled at every Japanese individual.
 
Paladin, the question was indeed rhetorical, since I have strong feelings about what the "human shields" did both in terms of deed and of political considerations prior to our invasion.

The difference between relief workers after the Major Combat operations are over--a phrase the media loves to pick upon, but consider the last time we employed AC-130's or cruise missiles over there---and those who held themselves as self-appointed targets for suicide to stop us is quite clear.

The reason I posed the rhetorical question was to try to draw out opinions from both the opponents of our invasion of Iraq as well as proponents of the invasion, and try to have them reconcile their opinions of the relief workers with those of the "human shields."

Over the past few months, there seems to be more diversity of opinion over the goals and the current achievements in Iraq. That simple question, I figured, might elicit a small firestorm of argument.

Not wanting to get bogged down in arguments myself, I figured that was the least I could do. And, never let it be said that I didn't do the least I could do. ;)
 
Guys, you're not taking the Asian mindset into consideration here. As a full blooded Chinese, I was brought up on the concept that to bring trouble to yourself is also akin to bringing shame and trouble to your family by extension. Understand that this brings it out to a national level. Remember that Japan is still an Asian culture with some Western trappings. Always remember the culture your dealing with, something the US military is failing miserably at in Iraq.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top