From war to peace - Japanese style

By Ann Wright

I’ve been speaking throughout Japan this month on issues of war and peace and the Japanese constitution. That constitution was imposed by the United States after World War II and mandated the Japanese government and people abandon war. Article 9 of their constitution says:

“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.”

On my last evening in Japan, I spoke in Nago, Okinawa, the southernmost island of Japan and the most U.S.-militarized. After the talk, in contrast to most evening meals, Hisae Ogawa (the organizer of my visit) and I had dinner with five men, all my age, 61 or so, Vietnam veteran age - except they were not Vietnam veterans, nor veterans of any war.

After World War II, Japanese men (and women) have been spared the obligation of serving in any wars. Because their constitution (written by Americans) says war is not the Japanese national doctrine for resolving international disputes or for ensuring their national security, the Japanese people have been given 60 years of peace.

I was struck by the questions of the Japanese men - only one generation removed from their fathers, who fought to expand economic resources for the Japanese emperor and empire in the late 1930s and 1940s.

These men questioned why young men and women of the United States would join the U.S. military when it was fighting a war for economic resources (oil - their words) and a war based on lies (their words.) The Japanese men were amazed by the levels of post-traumatic stress disorder (80%) in Iraq war veterans, and were astounded by the Veterans Administration’s cover up of the number of suicides by veterans (18 per month, or 216 per year, and 12,000 per year attempting suicide). They also questioned why any woman would join the military when statistics reveal one in three women in the military will be raped by fellow service members during their enlistment.

I responded that, despite an unpopular war, some young men and women find the U.S. military their only option for jobs and future education. Military recruiters flood high schools, and there are few other options for many with marginal grades, much less a criminal record.

The Japanese society has moved from one of the most militaristic and warlike in the 1930s and 1940s to, now, a nation at peace despite the Bush administration’s pressure on the Japanese government for military and financial contributions for the war on Iraq and the “war on terror.”

Some will say the reason the Japanese people have not had to go to war is the United States has taken on the role of defending Japan from attack. Yet, most Japanese would ask pointedly, “Attack from whom? From those the United States threatens?” They say, “Let us live in peace and our example will hopefully make the entire world more peaceful.”

I wonder if it will take a series of disastrous events such as what the Japanese people endured when they were led by civilian and military leaders into successive invasions and brutal occupations of other countries (known for rape and torture of local citizens) before Americans will decide aggressive wars of choice, invasions and occupations known for rape and torture of local citizens are not the answer to world problems.

Japanese are very protective of their right to a peaceful country. Will American ever strive for a different world - one of peace, not violence?

Ann Wright is a retired U.S. Army Reserves colonel with 29 years of military service. She also was a U.S. diplomat who served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. She resigned from the U.S. diplomatic corps in March 2003 in opposition to the Bush administration’s decision to invade and occupy Iraq. She is the co-author of “Dissent: Voices of Conscience,” profiles of government insiders who have spoken and acted on their concerns of their governments’ policies.

Truthout.com

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 47 Total Comments Show All

yabits at 11:59 PM JST - 30th May

Loki:

I had to go back and read the article above more closely. Wright says that she received questions from the men she was having dinner with, and one of those men cited the "one in three" statistic in his question on rape. To her discredit, Wright makes no attempt in her article to provide a ratio based more on facts.

But shifting the focus to sheer numbers, which are very difficult in terms of rapes and sexual assaults since many go unreported, runs the risk of losing the spirit of the man's question. "Even if the odds that woman in the service will be sexually assualted or raped are one in ten, why would any woman subject herself to that kind of environment?" is essentially what the man is asking.

Naturally, those defending the military can be accused of their own kind of bias in wanting to play down the numbers, whatever they happen to be. The fact is that LOTS of rapes and assaults do occur.

Finally, there is in this quickness of some people to accuse bias the intent to want to silence anything that isn't pro-military or pro-American-policy. Coming from my perspective, I see lots of middle ground to discuss the problems with US policy and the military today that Wright points out. But I detect very little desire to seek middle ground from those who immediately set out to attack any messenger who doesn't toe THEIR line.
Loki520 at 10:13 AM JST - 31st May

Yabits,

I think you've got it backwards. The pro-military groups are not going around doing anything other than DEFENDING ourselves against this currently quite common "sport" of turning everything into an anti-military and or anti-US, and at times even anti-Bush, rant.

THIS article was originally posted by JT, referencing numbers that any 12 year old with a bit of logic could see was flawed. But it was posted anyway. This study has less than 9000 women TOTAL in the military based on some 1 in 3 mythical figure. And EACH sexual assualt is done by FELLOW MILITARY MEMBERS.

Nobody is denying that these things occur. But if YOU, paid code-pink contributors, or JT are going to post obviously stupid commentary and present them as "fact".... all of you need to quite trying to back peddle when someone whips out the logic card.

"Naturally, those defending the military can be accused of their own kind of bias in wanting to play down the numbers, whatever they happen to be. The fact is that LOTS of rapes and assaults do occur."

Horsecrap. Look at it this way. Only 2688 sexual assaults last year. If we were to simply "buy in" to this study, that number becomes 75,000, based on current numbers of 229000 female military members.

All reliable reports say 2688 sexual assualts TOTAL occured (male and female). Your referenced study wants us to believe 1/3 of all females, which is 75,000. And you accuse me of "downplaying" the numbers. I accuse the author of deliberatly misleading everyone, and you for supporting it.

But let's look at the "spirit" of the man's question. If the odds are one in 10, that would be 22,900. Which is, I hasten to point out, almost 10 TIMES the actual reported figure. So, the environment that the women is subjecting herself to ACTUALLY is quite safe.

The spirit that is "lost" is not the mans question, or even the seeking logic that looks for a reliable study. What is lost is the sense of RIGHT and WRONG when it comes to reporting facts or at least being responsible with the numbers. And, to get back to your original point, that is what the pro-military crowd has to face CONSTANTLY with these "commentaries". We have no desire to seek middle ground with those who don't toe TRUTH. I'm happy to meet you half way if your numbers and my numbers aren't fabricated, misrepresented, and simply are presented in the correct way.
USNinJapan2 at 10:20 AM JST - 31st May

yabits

But I detect very little desire to seek middle ground from those who immediately set out to attack any messenger who doesn't toe THEIR line.

LOL. Come on! And this statement of yours isn't equally true about the generally anti-American posters? Look, I don't have any issues with the fact that there are those who post regularly here that have opinions and beliefs that are diametrically opposed to mine because that is precisely what creates healthy (and sometimes unhealthy) discussion. What I do take great issue with though is the fact that the actual articles, commentaries, etc on various American topics (particularly the US military) over which we have these discussions are without fail negative and critical. You never see the anti-US crowd objecting that the content or moderating is biased do you? Do you honestly think that this is because we pro-American posters are all simply unreasonable whiners by nature? Or could it possibly be that the choice of content on Japan Today simply isn't the balanced presentation that is to be expected from objective and unbiased media?
Loki520 at 11:52 AM JST - 31st May

Yabits,

Let me clarify... In rereading my post, it appears that I have made it sound like I am questioning YOUR integrity for using these numbers. My apologies, that wasn't my intent. I was questioning your willingness to simply believe those numbers as reported without questioning the obviously bad math.
netrek at 12:49 PM JST - 31st May

“Attack from whom? From those the United States threatens?”

Oh please. Lets break out the blankets, hold hands and sing Kumbaya!

The author is extremely naive. Yes it's fine to extoll the virtues of peace, and what sane person would not prefer a state of peace to war but she is completely sidestepping the harsh realities we live in.

There are some very fanatical, evil, unyielding people in this world who are not happy to be at peace, they crave conflict, domination over others whether they are coming from religious, economic or political motivations.

Sometimes one is forced into war. It is the lesser of two evils. I agree war should not be entertained lightly but it will come eventually.

The author is lucky to have lived a priveleged comfortable life. Let her go live in North Korea for a while and see if it is right that perpetual "peace" be maintained for another 60 years while millions are chewed up and destroyed by their regime. Let her be a Jew living in Poland or Germany in the 1940s about to have their whole society and culture and very lives be taken from them while the world sits back and Chamberlain chirps "Peace in our time!".

I believe she is well intentioned but she is falling into the simple minded narrative of "The big bad US is the real source of trouble in the war! Stop causing wars you big imperialistic, threatening bullies!"

The US is not interested in Empire building, if we were this could have easily been the United States continent instead of North America.

There is a price to liberty and the freedoms we take for granted. It has been paid for by the blood and service of many who came before us and although regretable and painful there will be times when war will again be necessary to stop evil in the world.
netrek at 01:03 PM JST - 31st May

rjd_jr contrast postwar Germany's actions regarding the people they victimized with that of Japan's. The Japanese govt. refuses to acknowledge large parts of agreed upon history (by just about every reputable historian in the war whos studies WWII), they are publishing textbooks which deliberately are revisionistic and distort history, they even go so far as to blame the victims (Chinese, Korean, Philippinos, etc) and claim the Japanese Imperial Army did them all a great favor by liberating and helping them (vis a vis mass rape, torture, genocide, and general mayhem and destruction), Japan refuses to compensate a single Comfort Woman, they still claim they were "forced" into cowardly attacking Pearl Habor and killing over 3,000 US soldiers while they slept in bed and before a state of war was announced, they refuse to rigrously and sincerely apologize for their atrocious behavior against so many groups of people, look at the amount of education in Germany that ensures EVERY German child knows exactly what evil their country effected, look at how much money Germany has spent on memorial, museums, compensation to victims' families, etc. Japan is in total denial about how much harm it did. I have personally interviewed relatives who fought in the Pacific Theatre and all personally knew friends tortured (and not Abu Ghraib level "torture" I'm talking INTENSE torture that mutilates them for life if it didn't kill them!) and murdered while PRISONERS OF WAR by Japan. Japan also refuses to fully acknowledge the Bhatan Death March, crimes against humanity in China where they did the most heinous experiments on Chinese people (disecting them while they were still alive, infecting them with deadly diseases, and other stuff to horrible to even type), genocide in China and Korea and other places and one could go on and on. Japanese may love peace now but their grandfathers sure knew how to cause living Hell for millions of innocent people. And Japanese leaders still pay homage at the Yasukuni war shrine where Class A war criminals like Tojo are buried.
Rekishika at 05:53 PM JST - 31st May

It seems like a strong debate has flared up about the defense policy in Japan this week. Let's say it first that the choice how to deal with that is the Japanese choice to make, for better or worse. It may help though to have an outside view of the circumstances that interact with this decision. As far as I can tell, there are three circumstances that are just there. 1) North Korea. We are talking about a very oppressive regime that lets it's own people starve and is likely to be capable of doing anything to stay in power, without so much as a second thought for their own people. With a military budget of only $6 billion in 2004 (http://borgenproject.org/Defense_Spending.html), and probably about the same in the following years, their ground and naval forces shouldn't be too much of a threat, even small countries like The Netherlands ($10 billion) shouldn't have too much trouble fending off a land or naval attack. But that regime does have ballistic missiles and a nuclear capability, perhaps not the most comforting sight to have next door. 2) Taiwan. The problem here is that China claims this country as a province. Should they act out on that, then for better or worse, Japan is the closest country remotely capable of doing anything about it, at the very least buy some time for other friends of Taiwan to arrive on the scene. People will generally look to what Japan is doing in such an eventuality, and governments will look in that way even before that happens. To a certain extent, Taiwan is under the massive military umbrella ($522 billion in 2004, or almost half the spending of the world), but what when their economy finally collapses under their enormous military burden (something economists are expecting to happen sooner or later)? 3) UN missions. UN missions allow for chances and risks alike. It has everything to do with helping other people and public relations. If one country helps other people, and they generally do it right (you know the story, fighting the bad guys, protecting the innocent, spreading justice, showing respect to other cultures, and so on and so forth and such like), that creates goodwill, people generally will tend to want to be your friends. How important goodwill can be is shown by Britain, where a very big part of their position in the world is caused directly by their large network of friends around the world. Goodwill, for Japan, is a scarce thing. Alright, in the western countries, people on average 'kinda' think that Japan is OK, but they're not entirely convinced. In the Asia-Pacific region, most people on average think Japan sucks (just ask the Chinese, the Koreans, the Thai, the Burmese, the Indonesians and so on). And what reasons should they have to think differently anyway, at least for now? In the rest of the world, it's more like: Japan who? We know of a country with that name, but we don't really see them. These are averages of course, people wildly enthousiastic about Japan in APAC or hating Japan in the west don't have to feel left out. These are the main factors you have to deal with. Any decision will affect all three of them one way or the other. There's no absolutely right way, there's no completely stupid way. But I would like to give one more thought into consideration. There's a lot of focus on the weapons as the cause of all the things that went wrong in WWII. But it sometimes looks like other factors, that are in many ways more important, are a bit overlooked. And I think it's important to especially look to fear or hate of other people, and also to unequal treatment (treating other people in ways that you would simply hate to happen to yourself, or finding it OK to do so). If you want to see those at work today, look to the United States, and you'll find more than enough examples. Half the world's defense money, anyone? Ever went into the country? Two fingerprints? Why not ten? There goes your $500 laptop, when do you get it back? Don't ask difficult questions or you'll end up in Guantanamo bay! Anyone a little coloured doing something unexpected? Send a small army to round him up (Bruce Schneier collects these examples on his blog, his collection of "the war on the unexpected" is great reading). Arabic sounding names? No way they're going to fly! There's someone with a gun, throw a bomb at him. O dear, it was a kid with a toy gun... See here what fear for anything different does... I think any way is a good way, as long as it's based on what I see here in this forum, that other people are your friends until (person by person) they prove otherwise.
yabits at 08:20 PM JST - 31st May

Loki:

Horsecrap. Look at it this way. Only 2688 sexual assaults last year. If we were to simply "buy in" to this study, that number becomes 75,000, based on current numbers of 229000 female military members. All reliable reports say 2688 sexual assualts TOTAL occured (male and female).

Not quite. You are confusing "occured" with "reported." In a 2004 interview, David Chu, the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel had this to say: "Chu said those figures probably represent a small fraction of the number of assaults that actually occurred, because soldiers are often afraid or unwilling to report it to their chain of command." A small fraction. His words. (Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/07/national/main659704.shtml) Yes, I am aware that he is basing his statement on a ridiculously low number reported in 2002 and 2003, but that only led to revelations of serious problems in the military's reporting procedures.

When interviews are conducted with female officers and enlisted we hear things like the following:

What happened to Griffiths and other female veterans that Kroft talked to are typical of the complaints leveled against the military for more than a decade. "There’s a survey that found that 30 percent of female veterans said that they had either been victims of rape or attempted rape. Do you think the problem is that prevalent," asks Kroft. The group responded: "Definitely. Absolutely, if not more."

source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/17/60minutes/main674791.shtml

I am ex-military and understand how the culture often reacts when a charge is brought against someone and it's just "your word against the other person's." There is plenty of evidence showing how the military establishments have wanted to sweep this problem under the rug, often by treating the accusers as criminals or traitors in the ranks.
yabits at 08:33 PM JST - 31st May

USNinJapan:

You never see the anti-US crowd objecting that the content or moderating is biased do you?

I think it is terribly inaccurate to refer to those who are against US policies when they are heavy-handed and quick to threaten military force as being "anti-US." We've got a candidate running this year who thought it was really cute and funny to sing about bombing Iran.

What I am "anti" is not the United States, but anti-trigger-happy and anti-"taking war as some kind of joke." I can live with the fact that people who genuinely look for peaceful resolutions to conflicts will be called appeasers, but let's not try to give moral equivalency to those who have led us into avoidable wars of complete choice.
sailwind at 12:04 AM JST - 1st June

I am ex-military and understand how the culture often reacts when a charge is brought against someone and it's just "your word against the other person's."

If you are really ex-military then you know all about the SAVI program and the SAVI rep that is attached to every major command. Could you tell us how they are in-effective by your post?
sailwind at 12:08 AM JST - 1st June

Yabits,

Here are the links as to how serious the Military takes this by the way.

http://www.cnrsw.navy.mil/fsc/savi.asp
yabits at 04:50 AM JST - 1st June

Sailwind:

If you are really ex-military then you know all about the SAVI program...

LOL!!! Are you actually serious in suggesting that every veteran discharged in the 1970s, as I was, would know about this program, which came into being in 2004??!! I've been a civilian for over 30 years now; the Navy does not send out updates to civilians on its regulations and programs.

Here's an actual quote from a Navy site on SAVI: "Sexual assault is the most under-reported crime in our society AND in the military." [emphasis added]

Source: http://www.nascc.navy.mil/ffscAssault.htm

Programs are fine in intent and theory, and SAVI may be having a very positive impact in the Navy. The only way to judge how effective the program is would be to ask the population that represents the overwhelming majority of victims of sexual assualt. What data do you have from women leaving the Navy since the program went into effect? What data is there that shows an increase in victims reporting sexual assaults under the program?

Also, I'll bet if you look hard enough, you'll find a portion of the male military culture that is highly critical of SAVI.
KenjiYamamoto at 05:24 AM JST - 1st June

asians are inherently in denial. it's a cultural flaw.
supposedly harmonious, but not quite. at work in japan or at home everyone is acting out the 'perfect' person scenario.

this tends to break loose into a raging animal outside of japan. we say we can't help it, but that's what happens to a tight-knit society.
sailwind at 10:25 AM JST - 1st June

Yabits,

Ask and you shall recieve.

Your questions, would know about this program, which came into being in 2004??!!

The only way to judge how effective the program is would be to ask the population that represents the overwhelming majority of victims of sexual assualt. What data do you have from women leaving the Navy since the program went into effect?

The answers

SAVI started in the early 90's the Navy was one of the first organizations in both private and the public sector to tackle the problem head-on. Excerpt from a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the program effectiveness.

Program Effectiveness: SAVI is a vital and active program within FFSCs. In FY- 02, FFSCs reported over 107,000 SAVI-related contacts including awareness and prevention education activities, command consultation, victim assistance and advocacy, information and referral, GMT, and command leadership training.
In a 2002 survey of SAVI patrons who received prevention training/GMT or advocacy services, there were no negative program ratings with respect to user satisfaction. Outcomes for those who received advocacy services were particularly striking. Over 95% of respondents indicated that SAVI showed concern for sailors and their families, while the program contributed to their overall quality of life and their readiness for 88% and 78%, respectively. All respondents who received advocacy services indicated that SAVI helped them cope at least somewhat with the sexual assault and 88% indicated that it helped quite a lot or more.
Finally, I would like to mention that SAVI has been recognized for its efforts by several agencies outside of the Department of Defense. In 1996, the National Organization of Victim Assistance presented SAVI with a Distinguished Service to Victims of Crime Award. SAVI received a Certificate of Appreciation from the Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime in 1999, in recognition of the program's dedication to victims' rights.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/testimony/personnel/rau040225.txt

Your last question.

What data is there that shows an increase in victims reporting sexual assaults under the program?

In 2005 the program was modified to make it even easier for a victim to report an assault or sexual harrasment.

In an effort to improve the reporting rate for crimes of sexual assault, the Department of Defense has instituted changes in the reporting process, including implementing "restricted reporting."

Under the new, restricted reporting option, the chain of command will be informed of the assault and provided as much information as possible without identifying the individuals involved. This will give a more complete picture of the actual prominence of violent crimes in a given area, while still protecting the confidentiality of the victim.

“The Department of Defense is committed to forming policy that will provide a confidential reporting process for sexual assault victims,” said Dr. David Chu, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel Readiness. “We want to create a different climate, where our people feel comfortable coming forward. If you offer confidentiality, you increase the reporting rate.”

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=18839

The reporting rate has gone up since 2005 a direct result of the change. The Media pounced on the higher reporting rate as some sort or rampant cover-up prior to this change, instead on the Navy being pro-active to get at the root of the entire problem to get the ones responsible identified and punished.

As a recent Vet, I honor your service though I have to point out the Navy today is not the same Navy you were in thirty years ago. It takes this very seriously and I'm glad that they do at all levels of the Navy chain of Command.
yabits at 11:16 AM JST - 1st June

Well, I certainly do not have any criticism of the SAVI program, especially since the Navy instituted the restricted reporting option. I do not know why the other branches aren't following the Navy's lead in programs of this type.

I'm a member of AFCEA and we have monthly meetings at the local Army base. At our next get-together, I'll have to ask my Army friends about similar programs that they are aware of.

Moderator: Back on topic please.