Nationalism isn't an issue in Japan

By ROBERT DUJARRIC
Special to The Japan Times

As Japan renews its claim on Takeshima (Dokdo to Koreans) and prepares to mark the Aug. 15 anniversary of the end of the Great East Asia War, we can expect more Asians — and some Americans — to warn against the dangers of rising Japanese nationalism. What is striking, however, is the absence of nationalism in Japan compared to its Chinese and Korean neighbors and its American ally.

Regardless of the metric used, Japan scores very low on nationalism. Its investment in its armed forces as a percentage of national income is small, especially for a country living in close range of two potential war zones (the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan).

Moreover, in the past two decades the offensive capabilities of North Korea against Japan, namely its ballistic missiles and nuclear program, have grown significantly.

China, another potential adversary for Japan, clearly has a much stronger military than 20 years ago. But Japan continues to keep its military investment at around 1 percent of national income (perhaps a little more if other expenses are included).

The phenomenal waste in Japanese procurement programs also shows that the military budget is as much a funding mechanism for Japanese businesses as a tool to build up a strong military.

Moreover, when it comes to dealing with the outside world, Japanese diplomats are as unlikely as those of the Holy See to resort to threats of force. There are no John Boltons in the Japanese Foreign Ministry. This peaceful, low profile reflects a basic fact often ignored by outsiders: Japanese voters favor candidates who care about bread and butter issues over those whose concern is Japan's greatness and military might.

The origins of this phenomenon are that Japan, unlike other players in the region, tests negative on risk factors for aggressive nationalism.

Nationalism often arises out of a sense of national victimization. A major cause of Chinese and Korean nationalism is a belief that foreigners preyed upon and humiliated their countries. As a result, many Chinese and Koreans want to see no insult to their national dignity go unpunished, however insignificant.

A case in point is South Korea's quixotic campaign to rename the Sea of Japan the East Sea. In Japan's case, however, there is no sense of victimhood. Yes, Japanese either experienced or know about U.S. terror bombings during the war. But, with a few exceptions, this pushes them toward pacifism. It fuels their contempt for the Japanese militarists who led the nation on a war that destroyed the country. It may also make them dislike the alliance with America, but it does not make Japanese long for a new Imperial Japan armed to the teeth ready to conquer lost territories.

Another foundation of nationalism is a belief that one's country has a destiny to lead the world, or at least its region. This helps explain the support of Americans for military intervention and the conquests of Revolutionary and Napoleonic France. Though Chinese nationalism lacks the universalistic ambitions of America's, many Chinese think that history gave China a right to regional primacy.

In Japan, however, there is none of the messianic urge found in Western cultures. Nor do Japanese have the same sense of civilizational and historical greatness that is common in China.

There are also domestic factors that energize nationalism. One is fear for the country's territorial integrity and/or a belief that there are still unredeemed provinces. In the Chinese case, anxiety about Tibet, Xinjiang (Chinese Turkestan), and Inner Mongolia fuel Han nationalism. Moreover, for most Chinese, Taiwan is a Chinese island that must be brought back into the motherland.

In the Korean case, national division can only encourage nationalism, even though South Koreans are lukewarm toward actual unification. Memories of Japanese aggression in both nations also generate a nationalist reaction in China and Korea. In Japan, however, there is no domestic separatism to be afraid of. And, despite the pro forma Japanese claims on the Northern Territories and Takeshima, few Japanese care about them.

A second domestic issue is nationalism as an alternative tool to confront the government. In autocratic China, nationalism is an indirect way to oppose the ruling party. When demonstrators throw rocks at the U.S. embassy or attack Japanese diplomats, they are also criticizing their rulers for being weak-kneed. Moreover, simply by marching through the streets, or gathering virtually on the Internet, they demonstrate to the Communist Party that the people can mobilize on their own.

Though South Korea is now a liberal democracy, many of its leftwing nationalists came of age when anti-American (or anti-Japanese) nationalism was fused with the fight against the military regime. Japan, however, has been a free society for well half a century, if its citizens are unhappy they simply go to a voting booth rather than seek alternative forms of mobilization.

Japanese society may have problems but nationalism is not one of them.

And the author is Robert Dujarric (is director of the Institute of Contemporary Japanese Studies at Temple University Japan in Tokyo).
Ah yes, another japnophile's opinion on Japanese imperialism.

korean nationalism?

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/new...0807300009.html

At least Korean nationalism didn't killed millions of innocent people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

cough cough north korea.

At least Korean nationalism didn't killed millions of innocent people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

I wouldn't call that nationalism. I'd say that the wrong ideology was the cause of that..

Right...for Koreans, it doesn't take an entire nation to commit a massacre..only one will suffice

True Korean Hero

Epitome of Korean Male Beauty

Anyone who is famous must be Korean!
Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il's government has killed 100 times as many Koreans as did Japan, China, or the US/Russia combined.

Yep, just as I predicted...yet another excuse. It's amazing to what lengths Koreans will go to to defend the horrific disgusting crimes of their so called "brothers" up North, without a doubt the most evil regime ever to have existed.

It's funny...within the past 10 years, thousands of S. Koreans have been kidnapped, tortured, brutally murdered by North Korea. 9 sailors were killed in a naval skirmish with a N. Korean frigate. Just last week, a S. Korean tourist was SHOT DEAD by a North Korean soldier on a TOURIST beach.

So what do Koreans do? Absolutely nothing. In fact, the S. Korean media desperately tries to hide and keep all of this information hidden as much as possible.

However, some stupid Koreans start to IMAGINE that US beef is the most dangerous threat to ever hit the country in 100 years. What happens? The entire nation goes completely ape$hit with people rioting all night, people calling for the assassination of G.W. Bush and LMB, etc.

Then, the perceived threat of Japan landing on some stupid totally insignificant rocks covered in bird$hit out in the Sea of Japan is IMAGINED by Koreans. LOL. The entire Korean nation goes completely ape$hit again, with people mutilating birds, chopping off fingers, screaming 24/7 all day all night...

Oh, wait...did someone actually get killed by a N. Korean soldier last week? Who cares about that! Never mind! What's more important to us Koreans is trying to build up xenophobic hatred towards other nations rather than actually acknowledging what the REAL threat of danger to our country is!

cough cough north korea.

ok then would you like to explain why every single totalitarian society has failed so far (ALL of which have accompanied much killing of its own people; eg. Stalin's Russia, Mussolini's Italy, Pinochet's Chile, etc) and that 99% of all nations in the world are presently democratic?

Sorry man, it's no excuse. It's reality.

Just because 99% of all Nations are "Democratic" really doesn't mean $hit. Most of these "Democracies" are complete failures anyway.

Nationalism is a tool of Governments. Korean nationalism is synonymous with Japanese hate. Everytime a Korean is proud of their Country for their (Economy, Cars, Sports, Culture, etc.) it's always related/compared to Japan. You can't find a proud nationalistic Korean that also doesn't bring up Japan when doing so.

"Most of these "Democracies" are complete failures anyway."???!?!?!

which school/university did YOU learn economics and politics from? or did u fail those classes miserably?

and how does "Just because 99% of all Nations are "Democratic" really doesn't mean $hit"??? it means it works, dude man wake up to reality. and i just you take another economics course because obviously your so misinformed its like dangerous

cough cough mao and his chinese so called "cultural revolution" and communist totalitarianism have killed millions and millions of their own chinese countrymen

Nice, you completely rearranged the order of sentences.

Just because so many Countries are of Democratic nature, it doesn't mean "it works". -> Many of these Countries have failed to live up to the purpose of Democracy and have also failed in stabilizing their economies.

Maybe you should actually look up what your 101 professor told you instead of taking him at face value. I can give you examples of Countries that experienced economic growth through different means than having a Democracy and I can give you the examples of the Countries that have failed under Democracy.

and btw, I can give YOU examples of non-democratic societies that have miserably failed, with millions of deaths within its own borders, rampant famine, and near-complete economic collapse...

military regime from 1973 to 1990 was authoritarian, certainly, but not totalitarian

The late strongman ruled harshly but left behind the most successful country in Latin America.

And what's your point? YOU were the one questioning my knowledge of Economics and Politics suggesting Democracy is the best and only Government capable of doing anything right. I'm saying otherwise. Now, explain to me what I don't know about Economics and Politics and it's correlation to Democracy.

@coreano - Pinochet did eliminate many people but his

His regimes economic policies are mostly still in place today.

Got it from this: http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/6731331.html

But that might be the few exceptions. In history there have been dictatorships that have saved nations from disintergration and economic problems. But with time they usually evolved eithier forceably or not to giving power to there citizens and they go democratic. But being democratic like being in a dictatorship does not guarantee economic rewards. If you get stuck with a corrupt leader or a leader that does not know what he is doing you are in trouble.

What you don't know about politics is perhaps its applicability to the real world. There is a famous course that you can take at UChicago (One which I have taken btw) that deals specifically with this issue at hand. YOU state the fundamentals and so can I and so can anyone who reads a simple book on it. You underestimate its applicability; there are reasons why there exist counter-measures to any type of society that one may want to lead, despite the fact that its measures may sometimes go completely against one or a few of its philosophies to preserve the integrity of the whole. Seriously, I suggest you go back to first year politics, because any knowledgeable politics major/specialist would LAUGH at your stating that democracy are "complete failures anyway"

any knowledgeable politics major/specialist would LAUGH at your stating that democracy are "complete failures anyway"

Most of these "Democracies" are complete failures anyway.

You completely misunderstood what I said. As I recall you were implying some sort of importance in the fact that "99% of the World is under some sort of Democracy" compared to "Totalitarian societies - which are dead and failed". I was merely saying that such a suggestion is bullocks because a great many of these Nations that are "Democratic" have failed because they've in turn become either shoddy Republics or brutal Dictatorships.
Your quoting of me is way off buddy. And if they did reply, all they could say that it's not necessarily true. That Democracy is in jeopardy in these countries, not dead.
Anyway where's my lesson on Economics? Or do you take that one back?