Denying the Rape of Nanjing

As many people in the world are gradually becoming to know, the Rape of Nanjing has never happened. There are some different perspectives, but they clearly show that the Rape of Nanjing has never happened.

First:
China claims that 300,000 people were killed by Japan, but Japan claims that there were only 200,000 people in Nanjing at the time. Well, some people may ask "Which is telling a lie?" That's right. However, there's such a controversial issue, and the data of population in Nanjing at the era can be hardly found. If you search, using like Google, you can just find some description of the Rape of Nanjing from Japan's or China's point of view. Now, I want to refuse to discuss about this population problem. This means that none of both countries cannot argue, claiming the population issue, but it's enough to deny the Rape of Nanjing. There's no evidence which country is saying the truth. Thus, China's claim is not reliable.

Second:
The famous Chinese previous leader and the father of modern China, Mao Zedong has never talked about the Rape of Nanjing in his statement or speech. To tell the history of China, Mao promoted anti-Japan and anti-US policies. If China says that Japan committed the Rape of Nanjing, why didn't Mao talk about it? Imagine, if you were Mao and want to do anti-Japan politics, don't you use the fact of the Rape of Nanjing to oppose Japan? Don't you want to say that because Japan killed 300,000 Chinese people, Japan is the enemy of China? After Mao's era, China suddenly started saying about the Rape of Nanjing. China is creating its history in the way of China.

Third:
At the time when the Rape of Nanjing is claimed to have happened, Japan did not have a lot of resources, and Japan was clearly stronger than China. Then, why has Japan wasted its military labor and weapons? It didn't need to. As history tells, because of scarce of resources, especially oil, Japan contributed to the Second World War. How many soldiers and weapons do you imagine were spent to kill 300,000 people in just seven weeks? Why do you think Japan wanted to waste its resources? It does not make sense that Japan did the Rape of Nanjing.

Fourth:
Well, there are two perspectives for the fourth evidence. The first one is that Nanjing at the time was an international city where embassies of many countries were built and where many foreigners lived. My question   is: if Nanjing was such an international city, why is it only China that says that the Rape of Nanjing was true? Why didn't other countries report the incident? Because of the establishment of Manchukuo, Japan did not have a good relationship with other countries, such as the US. Then, why did the US not report? The second one for the fourth evidence is that there was no foreign reporter in Nanjing at the time. The last reporter was British, but he left just before the Rape of Nanjing (if it really happened). He left, and there was no foreign reporter who could tell what has happened in Nanjing. This relates to the fifth evidence.

Fifth:
China submitted 130-150 pattern pictures to Japan as the evidence as the evidence of the Rape of Nanjing. Think about it. Who took the pictures? The fourth evidence tells you that there was no reporter who could tell the incident, or there were too many other countries for Japan to commit the Rape of Nanjing.Why does China have the pictures? If Japan really did the Rape of Nanjing, why did Japan allow Chinese people to take pictures? Japan must have never wanted to allow because the pictures could be later used by China to claim the Japan's action. Then, if Chinese people did not take the pictures, and Japanese took the pictures, how did Chine get the pictures? From where? From who? Like I said, if Japan really committed the Rape of Nanjing, Japan must have tried to let nobody but Japan have the pictures.

Sixth:
In addition to the fifth evidence, the pictures that China has shown as the evidence were strange. For example, there are four men in the picture, and shadows of two of them are lying in different directions. How could it happen? Were there two suns in China? Wait, if there were two suns, there must have been two shadows for each man. Otherwise, did somebody put something to light each man? For what? Thus, China has created 'evidence' pictures, by using, say, photoshop or something. I don't know how China made the pictures, but if you search 'the Rape of Nanjing,' many pictures appear. Then, watch the pictures carefully. You'll find something strange in the pictures.

As a person who believes that the Rape of Nanjing did NOT happen, I would like to support Japan's claim. However, once China make the problem even more complicated than ever, by providing fictional histories, this problem would be controversial unless somebody invents time machine or something. As studied by many historians in many countries, the fact of the Rape of Nanjing is becoming to be stated as 'fiction' that China has made. As you study more and more, you know which country is saying the truth, Japan or China. Thus, for six reasons, I deny the Rape of Nanjing.

I strongly hope that China stops its anti-Japan campaign and admits the Rape of Nanjing as a fiction.

Yoshi
写真ブログもよろしくお願いします。
Please come to my Photo Blog as well.

TPP: What Can Japan Really Do?

TPP = Trans-Pacific Partnership.

I want to ask, "what does Japan really want to do?"

I think Prime Minister of Japan, Mr. Noda is taking TPP as an opportunity to start negotiating with countries where Japan does not have EPA and FTA with. He says that he will protect what Japan is proud of and what has to be protected. However, TPP is basically an alliance of multiple countries aiming zero-tariff and free-trade, including workers as well as imported and exported products.

I somehow agree with Mr. Noda because he sounds like he is going to protect Japan's important products and will not eliminate all the tariffs. If he can do that, there would be no problem. And, maybe, only some good EPA and FTA will be left.

However, the problem is how strongly TPP can work to Japan. TPP consists of multiple member countries. Do the members have any power to influence Japan? Can Japan neglect if it is offered to eliminate tariffs of the products that Japan wants to protect with tariffs?

I think Mr. Noda's strategy itself is good, but it does not seem to be realistic. Can Japan REALLY do that? Is it possible?

I need to do more research to examine this problem.

The other point is TPP as a treaty preventing China's powerful growth. China cannot or may not be able to join TPP as long as it does not change its policy. I don't know much about China, but because China's economy is more like socialist kind of system, it does not fit the pact that seeks free trades: capitalism thought. Therefore, one perspective is that TPP makes a great large market on pacific area, pressuring China. Many countries are suffered from China's recent growth.

Again, I need to do more research on this. I should not write what I am not sure. But, this is what I'm thinking recently.

TPP: Trans-Pacific Partnership

TPP stands for Trans-Pacific Partnership. I think, this TPP is the current largest issue in Japan. TPP does not do anything to Japan yet, but the discussion for it is involving a lot of issues. On November 11, 2011, Mr. Noda, Prime Minister of Japan, said that Japan is joining the negotiations of TPP. However, there are supporters as well as protesters, claiming many problems that would occur if Japan joins TPP. TPP is a treaty among member states and is aiming a free trade market. TPP aims 'no tariffs.' How does it sound to you? Good? Bad?

If you are a consumer who works at a general company to earn money and spend the money to purchase food to eat, you may be happy because no tariff means that cheaper imported goods will be in the market. For example, you can buy imported rice which is very cheap, instead of domestic rice. Rice isn't a good example if you are Japanese because, I personally believe, Japanese rice is the best rice in the world for Japanese....anyway, yes, if you are such a consumer, you can pay less to purchase the same amount of products. Are you happy with that?

How about if you are a farmer who is producing vegetable, fruits, and whatever. Do you think you are happy with TPP that allow more goods to be imported from other countries? Obviously, Japanese products are more expensive than those in other TPP member states. If there is no tariffs, such cheap products will be imported more and traded in the market. That means that you need to compete with more cheaper-goods. You may have to reduce price...maybe you can. You may need to reduce costs of your production...maybe you can. But, do you think you can win the cheapness of products imported from less-developed countries? I DON'T THINK SO.

Now, imported rice is levied with 777.7% tariff. This means that rice whose price in the original country is $100 will be at least $877.7 (100 + 777.7% of $100 as tariff).....sorry if my calculation is wrong.....'at least' because importers definitely put more price to benefit.

Japanese domestic rice is protected under such extremely high tariff. In other words, such thigh tariff is needed to protect Japanese rice. The tariff is high in order to protect Japanese rice. What happens if this tariff becomes 0%? Importers can import rice with the same price as the local market. Who wants to buy rice which is 8 times expensive as foreign rice? Maybe me, I love Japanese rice, so I would love to buy it, but not everyone. That means Japanese rice will be bought less, by hurting rice farmers. This is not only in the case of rice, but all other agricultural products.

Also, another problem is that even though deflation is a big problem in Japan, TPP would accelerate it. That cheaper goods are purchased more means that there will be more cheap goods and less expensive goods. Gradually, the cheap goods dominate the market, causing prices to decrease: deflation. Companies want to sell their products with higher price and benefit more. The problem of deflation is that they cannot productively benefit. They have to sell more and more to benefit in deflation.

There are still more problems with Japan joining TPP, but I cannot list all of them. I am not understanding all of them. I am just a college student who studied little about economics and can guess what is going to happen if Japan joins TPP. I don't know what the prime minister of Japan is thinking. As you may know, I am one of the protestants against TPP and am not just a consumer who simply seeks cheaper goods. I do not think that expected increase in exports will benefit more than supporters believe. Joining TPP, Japan will lose what it will never be able to regain. I am sad about the prime minister deciding without enough consideration and explanations to the public.

This is my summary of this event published by New York Times.

11/11/11 Premier Says Japan Will Join Pacific Free Trade Talks (New York Times)

Premier Says Japan Will Join Pacific Free Trade Talks

By HIROKO TABUCHI

Published: November 11, 2011

Prime Minister of Japan, Yoshihiko Noda said that Japan is going to join the talks of the pacific free trade called TPP, which stands for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Joining TPP is concerned to be encouraging exporters who seek new markets but to endanger farmers: the farmers are very angry about this.

The Asia-Pacific economic summit meeting will be held this weekend in Hawaii, and President Obama is going to promote the far-reaching TPP regional trade agreement. The aim of the agreement is to cut import tariffs to zero. Nine governments are joining the discussion.

Mr. Noda strongly claimed that global competition eventually makes a domestic economy, including a more competitive agricultural sector, stronger.

The United States has been buying more from Japan than it has been selling to Japan. Therefore, the United States has pushed for better access to Japanese markets. One concern for the US is that Tokyo's participation may complicate talks if Japanese government is unable, or unwilling, to commit to slashing some tariffs.


The pact for Japan means lower tariffs that encourage some imports and exports. Of course, the effect reaches to highly protected domestic sectors like farming.


Japan is now just entered the negotiations, but there is already protesting campaign.


Japan's farmers have been protected under very high tariffs, such as 777.7 percent levy on imported rice. Those farmers are protesting the government against the pact.


The protesting campaign is supported by the public, while free trade proponents argue that consumers benefit from cheaper imports, such as of food.


Even members in Noda's Domestic Party strongly oppose Noda's policy, and the party split, dooming his government.


Exporters claim that without the pact, Japan risks being left behind in the world economy. They believe that joining the pact create a better condition for Japan against regional rivals like South Korea.


South Korea already has a free trade agreement with European Union and the United States, whereas Japan doesn't.


Calls for free trade has been discussed at a very high pitch.


Yoko Ishikura, a professor of global business at Keio University in Tokyo, said at a recent economic forum that the government had:

"not done a great hob of explaining the benefits, and the debate has become emotionally charged."

and she added,

"we need to ask, 'what if Japan doesn't join?' That could be the bigger risk."

Thus, there are many supporters for the pact as well as many protesters against the pact. One problem claimed in Japan is that the government is not providing enough information to the public. Many people do not know what would happen if Japan joins the pact. Another problem is that Mr. Noda very quickly decided to join the pact. Whether Japan joins the pact has long been discussed for several years, but a large earthquake happened in March this year, and the government suspended the discussion for a while in order to focus on the damage of the earthquake.  

---------------------

The Governments Attending: 9 + Japan = 10 governments.

• Australia (20 November 2008)
• Brunei (28 May 2006)
• Chile (28 May 2008)
• Japan (11 November 2011)
• Malaysia (October 2010)
• New Zealand (28 May 2006)
• Peru (November 2008)
• Singapore (28 May 2006)
• United States (February 2008)
• Vietnam (November 2008)

Source: Wikipedia "Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership"


You may find more details here, Office of the United States Trade Representative, Trans Pacific Partners

Here's my reaction.

11/10/11 UN Member States elect judges to serve on International Court of Justice (UN News Centre)

UN Member States elect judges to serve on International Court of Justice

On November 10th, four judges to serve ICJ were elected by the General Assembly and the Security Council. ICJ stands for International Court of Justice.

The judges are Giorgio Gaja (Italy), Hisashi Owada (Japan), Peter Tomka (Slovakia), and Xue Hanqin (China). The judges are elected based on their qualifications. Although nationality must not be concerned, there must more than two same nationalities.

They start nine-year-term serving from Feburuary 5th of the next year.