John Mccain likes to talk about Japan, especially lately. He'd like to cast his presidential run as the chance Mccarthur wanted and never got. And why not? The parallels between the occupation of Iraq and the reconstruction of Japan after World War II are obvious to everybody, right? It makes sense to keep troops in Iraq for 100 hundred years, after all noone's clamoring for us to leave Japan right?
Now. I hate to get all Lloyd Bentsen on ya, but I am from Texas after all so here goes: John Mccain, I live in Japan. My wife is Japanese. You, John Mccain, know next to nothing about Japan.
First of all, the true history of the Japanese occupation was much more volatile than most Americans are taught. In the beginning there was poverty, ravaged cities, and general lawlessness. It's true that the Japanese directed most of their anger at eachother, and not at US soldiers. The war had taken its toll on many families, and most of them just wanted to eat. In the end, it was not so much the US presense in Iraq, as the resurgence of the yakuza that helped bring social order. The Yakuza took over the black markets and any crime that was happening was under their strict supervision. At times, they had at least tacit approval from the police. You can read a little about this period here.
The eventual result was the ANPO treaty of 1950 which set up an American presence in the country, but gave political power to the natives. The reason for the troop presence was two-fold. One: the US needed bases in the pacific from which to send troops and air coverage to fight the Korean war. Two: several new political parties had sprung up since the fall of the war time government, including socialist and communist elements. There were also fears of a potential invasion from Russia if we were to withdraw. In the end, the Americans formed an alliance with the conservatives, some of whom had behind the original drive to war, in order to fend off left wing influence. This despite the fact that the socialist party had been key allies in the early years, helping to redistribute farm land, and the fact that the conservative elements were despised by a certain portion of the population. There was also widespread dismay when the US refused to give up operational control of a large portion of Okinawa.
The new left waited for much of the 1950's but when the ANPO pact came up for renewal and revision in 1960, a series of protests broke out. These protests would continue to grow in intensity until a planned visit from Eisenhower himself had to be cancelled after a street mob shook the car of his envoy. Read here.
The next ten to fifteen years were the most socially volatile in the history of powst war japan as militant groups both left and right, urban poor, and in particular students protested what they saw as undue American influence on their government. Many believed there was little difference between the Americans and the military government that had led to so much suffering. There were frequent riots and confrontations with police. Students began "barracading" high schools and universities. Two memorable incidents still occupy a place in Japanese pop culture. One occured when a group of militant young people took over Shinjuku station, the largest train station in Tokyo, and staged an all out war with riot police. The second occured when right wing author Yukio Mishima committed seppuku on national television, shortly after calling for the restoration of the Emperor.
Okay. So I can hear you now, John Mccain. You say, that was a nice history lesson, but this is the year 2008 and there are no issues with the occupation now. WRONG.
Tensions have remained in Okinawa for years, even after the full return of Japan governance in the 70's. Most of this revolves around clashes between citizens and servicemen or crimes committed by or blamed on servicemen. Some of you may remember a case in the 1990'S in which a group of marines and navy gang raped a 12 year old girl. I can tell you for a fact, that people here still remember this. There is not a lot of popular support for US presence here and this has led to increased schizophrenia among Japanese politicians who exploit the issue by using these kind of incidents as a tool to ratchet up vague fears of dangerous "foreigners" and throw a complete hissy fit any time someone talks about removing US troops. As of now, the only people in Japan who are in support of the continuing security pact are the Japanese government who are paranoid about North Korea. When the US talked about shifting troops out Japan after 9/11 to fight in Iraq, the Japanese parliament went crazy. This seems counter-intuitive to people like my wife who always assumed it was the Americans who insisted on a continued presence. She and I have had many arguments on this issue.
And now,worst of all, this year, hell this past month, American servicemen are back in the headlines in droves. First there was another accused of rape in Okinawa.
Then another navy member confessedto stabbing a taxi driver with a kitchen knife.
There was another case I remember of a soldier confessing to kidnapping and murdering his neighbor's daughter, but I can't find the link. I may be remembering the details incorrectly and it may not have been a serviceman at all. Even in the other cases, there will be many who argue that the military is being fingered unfairly. This is not the point. The point is that tensions exist even now, and they have been on the rise since Iraq. I had a man confront me on a train the other day for no reason other than that I was obviously American. Never mind that I'm not military. It doesn't matter. My wife had to stay silent in her office while a superior referred to American soldiers as "smelly pigs." I don't think the guy knew she was married, let alone to a foreigner, but still. If these sorts of tensions continue in a country like Japan after 50 years, a country where almost noone owns a weapon, police or otherwise, than imagine the future of a continued occupation of Iraq, where armed civilians and militias are the norm. Where tribal, ethnic, and religious allegiance trumps loyalty to the nation itself. Can America afford such a strategy?
How about it John Mccain? You got anything to say?