The war is not in distant Afghanistan or Iraq.
It happens right here in Japan.
written inwritten in 2004
@ |
The war has begun. Bush, Rumsfeld, and others have called this war "a whole new war". In "The Inner Clash of Civilizations", written just after 9/11, i.e., in the midst of the U.S. attack on Afghanistan, OSAWA Masachi analyzed as follows. (In the first place, there was much debate as to whether the U.S. counterattack against terrorists or the Taliban could be called a war. However,) Why is there such a big division of opinion as to whether it is or isn't war? The reason is clear. Because in this battle, the army is acting as the police. Normally, war is a battle between sovereign states. But in the "war" that the 9/11 attacks provoked, the criminal groups (the terrorists) were the real targets, not the Taliban regime (a kind of sovereign state) which is considered the immediate enemy. If the main friction is between state power and the "criminal groups" who resist it, it should be a civil war. In other words, this "war" is hard to discern as either an external war or a civil war. Or perhaps we should think of this as a civil war fought outside the country. Osawa argues that "this aspect of the war is a direct consequence of the inability to discern whether the enemy belongs to the outside or the inside". Since the "enemy" this time is not a sovereign nation but an international network of terrorists, its members would pose as American citizens and penetrate deep into American society, to cause, for example, the "anthrax attacks". The hostility [that the U.S. considers its "enemy" in this "war"] is quite different from the hostility assumed by territorial states or that of the Cold War. This is because the enemies of the territorial state were sharply distinguished, far across the border. The enemy in Afghanistan, an almost forgotten frontier, can be said to be more distantly separated from us than our Cold War enemies. From the perspective of the U.S., that would be the furthest place from the U.S. psychologically. On the other hand, however, there is a sense that this supposedly infinitely distant enemy has penetrated deeply into "our" community (the U.S. domestic), a sense that the enemy is very close at hand. The sense that "the enemy is both external and internal at the same time" leads to "all-out civil war". In other words, "unprecedented strengthening and frontalization of police authority". Even military activities outside the country are police-like, I just stated. And the police authority to expose and restrain "domestic bin Laden" (terrorists and their supporters) will be strengthened as much as possible until the "bin Laden" is wiped out. Osawa says, "The most striking change brought about by the 9/11 attacks is the unprecedented increase in security considerations". Not only are they actually fighting foreign enemies such as the Taliban and al-Qaeda, but "surveillance of all aspects of life, including online communications, has been intensified, even freedom of speech has been effectively suspended, and U.S. troops are being sent like police into territory under the sovereignty of other countries". Here we are forced to realize that a tremendous political shift is beginning. Originally, the need for security was stated to protect freedom and democracy (of the United States from terrorist attacks). But if the level of security is thoroughly increased, security will corrupt freedom and democracy themselves. In short, when we try to ensure security for freedom and democracy, we lose the crucial freedom and democracy. I have quoted Osawa's analysis at length because it accurately describes the nature of the "whole new war" now underway. Although they may not think like Osawa, Bush and Rumsfeld themselves, who are directing the war, are well aware that this war is " whole new" and different from previous wars (As mentioned at the beginning of this article, the phrase "a whole new war" itself was uttered by them in the first place). However, the "anti-war movement" developed by those who oppose this war is dominated by the same old sensibilities and logic as those of the Cold War era. They oppose this war in the same words and style that they once opposed the Vietnam War. Isn't what is truly needed today a "whole new anti-war movement" in response to a "whole new war"? First of all, when did this war start? Indeed, 9/11 was a decisive turning point. It would be fair to say that "a whole new war" began that day. However, in light of Osawa's analysis above, we realize that, at least in Japan, this had already begun long before 9/11. Of course I am referring to the Tokyo subway sarin attack on March 20, 1995. After that day, Japanese society changed decisively. We should be allowed to say, "The most striking change brought about by the Tokyo subway sarin attack is the unprecedented increase in security considerations". It happened at a time when many Japanese were beginning to realize that nothing decisive would ever happen again, and that the peaceful but boring "endless daily life" would just go on and on. Suddenly, we realized that a large number of "unidentifiable and dangerous people" had somehow emerged inside our seemingly peaceful society. It's not only the Aum cult. There are North Korean agents, foreign criminals, stalkers, "unemployed men in their 20s", children who are too short-tempered, children who are too long-tempered (Hikikomori; social withdrawal), parents who abuse their own children, and a young man who kept a girl locked in his home for seven years. If you think about it, everyone is suspicious. Finally, you begin to feel that even those who don't properly sort their garbage or smoke cigarettes while walking downtown are creepy potential criminals. Something must be done. We must unite and defend our community of "decent citizens". However, the " enemies" are seemingly ordinary citizens, somehow slipping inside our community. Whenever an unusual crime is exposed, the people around the perpetrator always say, "He didn't seem like the kind of person who would do such a big thing". We must sharpen our vigilance so that we do not miss any signs, no matter how insignificant. There must be signs. We must keep a watchful eye on the suspicious, the creepy, the weird, the dangerous, in short, those who are unfamiliar or difficult to understand in light of our "common sense". They will surely do "something". Before that happens, in other words, before they do "something", they must be promptly exposed and removed. To do so, laws must be developed. The "signs" stage, that is, misdemeanor-level illegal activities that would have been tolerated in the past, must not be tolerated in the future. Not only that, but new laws must be enacted so that various unpleasant "nuisances" that were not even misdemeanors in the past can be subject to prosecution. Thus begins the "unprecedented strengthening and frontalization of police authority". What Japanese anti-war groups overlook is that the war is not being waged in far-off Afghanistan or Iraq, but in Japan. On the contrary, those who oppose the deployment of Japanese troops overseas are themselves feminists who push for legislation to punish stalking and domestic violence, ecologists who rage against lazy people who can't be bothered to sort their garbage, and tobacco control ordinances that ban walking cigarettes. In fact, in most cases, they are "hawks" who are actively promoting this "whole new war". It should also be recalled that it was feminists outraged by sexual crimes who were the first in Japan to call out loudly for the "human rights of crime victims" and demand harsh punishment for the perpetrators. What on earth is going on? The fact that proponents and opponents of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are actually working together to form a major force promoting a "whole new war" in Japan. The composition of the dispute between the two sides ultimately serves to distract attention from the real war at home. We must face this reality. This is because we are the very "suspicious, creepy, weird, dangerous, or in short, those who are unfamiliar or difficult to understand in light of their "common sense"", in other words, we are their true enemies. They are waging a war against us, not the other way around. In this situation, we are given only two options. It is either surrender or fight back. Surrender, of course, means joining them as a "decent citizen" and cooperating in their war against us, at which point he/she ceases to be one of "us". There can be no neutral position in this war. Because they will not admit it. Sensible citizens are keenly aware of the need to thoroughly identify and remove the unidentifiable, creepy, and dangerous elements, and those who hesitate to hunt them are, for them, the "unidentifiable, creepy, and dangerous enemies". In the end, we have no choice but to fight back. It is of no use to cry anti-war. Whether we fight back or not, they are relentless and never let up in their attacks. We have to fight or else we will be exposed and removed (Simply put, we will be imprisoned as criminals. We will never be treated as "political prisoners" but simply as "common criminals" who are dishonorable). Again, we have no choice but to fight back. And that is the only form of "a whole new anti-war movement" that can respond to this "whole new war". |