A Counter-Critique of Professor Clark's Criticism of Yoshihisa Komori: Never in My Wildest Dreams…

The following is a comment I sent to the NBR Japan Forum. They decided that they would not run it. With NBR's willing consent, I reproduce it here verbatim. A couple of days' reflection leads me to want to rewrite it (as I'm guessing Professor Clark would his), but in the spirit of fairness, there it is. Besides, I don't think there's anything that I did write down that would be a falsehood. I do wish to add that I would prefer to have fought this battle within the Forum itself, and it is here, if nothing else, that I believe Mr. Komori is within the wrong. So, without further delay…

---

"Tibet has always been seen an [as?] Chinese territory (ask the KMT in Taiwan). In 1959 China was reacting to an uprising backed? incited? by India and the CIA. The KMT believes it should have reacted even more strongly."

In the same way that you have always seen Australia as a White Nation?

I'm sorry, Professor Clark, I know I'm not being fair. I know your heart is with the aborigines and, if it were up to you, you would be happy to have your fellow countrymen give up Australia and head right back to where they came from in a snap. But you would be the first to admit that the Tibetans have not been consulted, no?

The breakup of empires after the two World Wars (the second one took a couple of decades because Europe retook its overseas possessions to lord over them after the Axis forces left) left the Han and Russians the two peoples who continued to maintain empires well into the late 20th Century. Isn't it time the Tibetans were consulted as to their destiny, never mind what the KMT has to say about it? (I hasten to add that I have nothing against the KMT. In fact, the people from Taiwan have unfailingly been kind to me whenever I have met them in my professional career.)

Actually, I think sovereignty is overrated. In fact, for most of what we think of as civilization, we humankind have cared more about the amount of tributes, taxes, and other demands that our rulers make on us than the language they speak, or even the gods they worship. Just let us be, and we'll let you proclaim yourself the king of the hill. That kind of reasoning, I assume, is why you, as well as ex-pats everywhere, feel comfortable living in places where you are denied the fundamental political rights of a sovereign in a democracy. I agree. If I were Tibetan, I would be perfectly happy to let China rule over me.

If only.

The real issue is dignity, the right to be your ornery, unscientific-socialsticalfragilisticexpicalidocious self if you so desire. And Tibetans have been denied that right, haven't they? At best, we don't know, because the Chinese authorities have made sure we won't. Kick us if you will, but please keep in mind the Tibetans. (Yes, I think the Dalai Lama looks a little loopy, and Richard Gere may not be the last word on human rights, but I would at least suspend judgment until I actually meet him. DL, that is.)

"Vietnam was a border war fought so half-heartedly as to put to rest the myth of inherent Chinese aggressiveness. "

I'll buy that. But is incompetence an excuse? And you do not touch upon the Spratley Islands and the other nasty spats China has had beyond that war with Vietnam. Too trivial to mention, I suppose.

"India was a war begun by India sending troops to NEFA territory (Thag La ridge) that even its own maps showed as Chinese. The Chinese pushed back the Indian invaders, and instead of advancing to their own claim line in the NEFA withdrew to the Indian claim line and even returned captured Indian weapons. Another sign of latent aggressiveness? (See Neville Maxwell 'India's China War' or my own earlier contribution 'In Fear of China') "

I'll buy this one. Professor Maxwell makes a powerful case. In fact, I'll make a confession here. I'm actually one of those people who believe that China is not a threat. (I may have written something to that effect on my blog. But I digress.) It has behaved itself re Senkaku with almost as much restraint (but not quite) as Japan has as regards Takeshima (or Dokto, if you prefer). It has settled many of its territorial disputes over which they crossed arms with its neighbors. It will be interesting to see how other narratives more favorable to India (they are still around) fare against the good professor.

"As for my point about Japan's bogus abduction claims, if EHK dis believes the several experts who have all testified that DNA testing of charred bones is impossible then he will believe, or disbelieve, anything.. "

Professor Clark, you should have made it clear to us that you were talking about the DNA tests and the DNA tests alone. Everybody on this planet thought you were talking about the abductions themselves (for which, I add, there has by no means been a full accounting). You definitely mislead us, if unintentionally.

I am aware that there is a scientific controversy over the reliability methods that were used to test the charred remains. I am also aware that the Japanese mainstream media has chosen to ignore this. That is disturbing. But you seem to have a command of forensic science that I do not, for you come down firmly on one side of the argument so strongly that you did not feel the need to inform us of what you were talking about.

"More seriously, that someone of his erudition does not realize the way the Yokota Megumi story has been manipulated to create the current abduction hysteria against NK is amazing.."

To repeat, everybody but you thought you were repudiating the validity of the whole issue. Actually, most Japanese do not think about Yokota Megumi and the abductees all the time. And if North Korea had been more forthcoming on that issue and also had not been developing missiles and nuclear weapons that could have little use except in use against Japan, there would be less animosity towards North Korea. I believe Prime Minister Koizumi on his return from his first trip to North Korea decided how to deal with the situation only after he encountered the incredible fury and dismay that erupted over the revelation. (It is here that the comfort women usually come up as an objection. But I digress.) If anything, the situation manipulated the story.

"Than an entire nation can be mobilized so easily over such a bogus issue, without a voice of dissent, is frightening. "

I share some of your concern, actually, over the lack of a voice of dissent, though your characterization of the issue as “bogus” is over the top in itself. I myself put in a modest voice of concern over the utter absorption of public discourse in Japan over this issue to the disadvantage of our concerns over national security issues. (I recently encountered it still floating around in cyberspace.) But the nation was mobilized well before what you call the "bogus" issue (unless you were referring to the abductee issue after all) arose, and North Korea did more than its share to inflame the Japanese public.

"There may or may not be other abductees alive and who want to go to Japan. But for the moment Japan is almost totally fixated on the Yokota Megumi myth. "

Actually, not. It is easy to see that the Japanese government is now far more driven by the national security concerns than the abductees issue. The designation of the cabinet chief as the minister-in-charge and the appointment of a kind-hearted hand-holder is not the equivalent of the appointment of a dedicated minister-in-charge. (The Northern Territories is one other issue that merit similar exaltation, and look how it has influenced the rest of our policy towards Russia.)

Professor Clark, some of the points that you make are quite valid. But if you persist in uncritically adopting every position and interpretation that puts the Japanese mainstream and not-so-mainstream in a bad light, you will lose all hope of bringing the open-minded to your point of view.

"Tibet has always been seen an [as?] Chinese territory (ask the KMT in Taiwan). In 1959 China was reacting to an uprising backed? incited? by India and the CIA. The KMT believes it should have reacted even more strongly."

In the same way that you have always seen Australia as a White Nation?

I'm sorry, Professor Clark, I know I'm not being fair. I know your heart is with the aborigines and, if it were up to you, you would be happy to have your fellow countrymen give up Australia and head right back to where they came from in a snap. But you would be the first to admit that the Tibetans have not been consulted, no?

The breakup of empires after the two World Wars (the second one took a couple of decades because Europe retook its overseas possessions to lord over them after the Axis forces left) left the Han and Russians the two peoples who continued to maintain empires well into the late 20th Century. Isn't it time the Tibetans were consulted as to their destiny, never mind what the KMT has to say about it? (I hasten to add that I have nothing against the KMT. In fact, the people from Taiwan have unfailingly been kind to me whenever I have met them in my professional career.)

Actually, I think sovereignty is overrated. In fact, for most of what we think of as civilization, we humankind have cared more about the amount of tributes, taxes, and other demands that our rulers make on us than the language they speak, or even the gods they worship. Just let us be, and we'll let you proclaim yourself the king of the hill. That kind of reasoning, I assume, is why you, as well as ex-pats everywhere, feel comfortable living in places where you are denied the fundamental political rights of a sovereign in a democracy. I agree. If I were Tibetan, I would be perfectly happy to let China rule over me.

If only.

The real issue is dignity, the right to be your ornery, unscientific-socialsticalfragilisticexpicalidocious self if you so desire. And Tibetans have been denied that right, haven't they? At best, we don't know, because the Chinese authorities have made sure we won't. Kick us if you will, but please keep in mind the Tibetans. (Yes, I think the Dalai Lama looks a little loopy, and Richard Gere may not be the last word on human rights, but I would at least suspend judgment until I actually meet him. DL, that is.)

"Vietnam was a border war fought so half-heartedly as to put to rest the myth of inherent Chinese aggressiveness. "

I'll buy that. But is incompetence an excuse? And you do not touch upon the Spratley Islands and the other nasty spats China has had beyond that war with Vietnam. Too trivial to mention, I suppose.

"India was a war begun by India sending troops to NEFA territory (Thag La ridge) that even its own maps showed as Chinese. The Chinese pushed back the Indian invaders, and instead of advancing to their own claim line in the NEFA withdrew to the Indian claim line and even returned captured Indian weapons. Another sign of latent aggressiveness? (See Neville Maxwell 'India's China War' or my own earlier contribution 'In Fear of China') "

I'll buy this one. Professor Maxwell makes a powerful case. In fact, I'll make a confession here. I'm actually one of those people who believe that China is not a threat. (I may have written something to that effect on my blog. But I digress.) It has behaved itself re Senkaku with almost as much restraint (but not quite) as Japan has as regards Takeshima (or Dokto, if you prefer). It has settled many of its territorial disputes over which they crossed arms with its neighbors. It will be interesting to see how other narratives more favorable to India (they are still around) fare against the good professor.

"As for my point about Japan's bogus abduction claims, if EHK dis believes the several experts who have all testified that DNA testing of charred bones is impossible then he will believe, or disbelieve, anything.. "

Professor Clark, you should have made it clear to us that you were talking about the DNA tests and the DNA tests alone. Everybody on this planet thought you were talking about the abductions themselves (for which, I add, there has by no means been a full accounting). You definitely misled us, if unintentionally.

I am aware that there is a scientific controversy over the reliability methods that were used to test the charred remains. I am also aware that the Japanese mainstream media has chosen to ignore this. That is disturbing. But you seem to have a command of forensic science that I do not, for you come down firmly on one side of the argument so strongly that you did not feel the need to inform us of what you were talking about.

"More seriously, that someone of his erudition does not realize the way the Yokota Megumi story has been manipulated to create the current abduction hysteria against NK is amazing.."

To repeat, everybody but you thought you were repudiating the validity of the whole issue. Actually, most Japanese do not think about Yokota Megumi and the abductees all the time. And if North Korea had been more forthcoming on that issue and also had not been developing missiles and nuclear weapons that could have little use except in use against Japan, there would be less animosity towards North Korea. I believe Prime Minister Koizumi on his return from his first trip to North Korea decided how to deal with the situation only after he encountered the incredible fury and dismay that erupted over the revelation. (It is here that the comfort women usually come up as an objection. But I digress.) If anything, the situation manipulated the story.

"Than (sic) an entire nation can be mobilized so easily over such a bogus issue, without a voice of dissent, is frightening. "

I share some of your concern, actually, over the lack of a voice of dissent, though your characterization of the issue as “bogus” is over the top in itself. I myself put in a modest voice of concern over the utter absorption of public discourse in Japan over this issue to the disadvantage of our concerns over national security issues. (I recently encountered it still floating around in cyberspace.) But the nation was mobilized well before what you call the “bogus” issue (unless you were referring to the abductee issue after all) arose, and North Korea did more than its share to inflame the Japanese public.

"There may or may not be other abductees alive and who want to go to Japan. But for the moment Japan is almost totally fixated on the Yokota Megumi myth. "

Actually, not. It is easy to see that the Japanese government is now far more driven by the national security concerns than the abductees issue. The designation of the cabinet chief as the minister-in-charge and the appointment of a kind-hearted hand-holder is not the equivalent of the appointment of a dedicated minister-in-charge. (The Northern Territories is one other issue that merit similar exaltation, and look how it has influenced the rest of our policy towards Russia.)

Professor Clark, some of the points that you make are quite valid. But if you persist in uncritically adopting every position and interpretation that puts the Japanese mainstream and not-so-mainstream in a bad light, you will lose all hope of bringing the open-minded to your point of view.