Behind the 'Abe Bashing' in The New York Times

In its March 2 editorial entitled, “Mr. Abe’s Dangerous Revisionism,” an article that caused a vociferous hue and cry from Japan, it was wrongly stated that the prime minister had categorically denied the historical validity of the Nanking Massacre and that he had said that he would renounce the Kono statement vis-à-vis the issue of comfort women.

Not surprisingly, the newspaper soon announced that it would retract the parts related to the latter issue. However, on the issue of whether Japan should unshackle itself from the chains of war by renouncing Article 9 of the constitution, The New York Times is adamant as ever in its anti-Japan stance, calling it a restoration of militarism. This breathes new life into the idea of collective defense, which the Obama administration fully supports.

It is known across the Pacific that media houses such as The New York Times have seldom, if ever, been known to publish articles unfavorable to Japan or engage Japanese scholars with particular ideological affiliations. Last October, The New York Times announced the appointment of Mr. Masaru Tamamoto to its editorial board. He had subscribed to the publication for a few years and is currently an official member of the editorial board.

His reputation as a well-known left-wing scholar holds true only within the realm of Japan-U.S. relations. In fact, in August 2006, this column took him up in a piece entitled, “Public Anti-Japan Essays from Japan.” Back in those days, at the Japan Institute of International Affairs, a think tank under the umbrella of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he was tasked with dispatching reports on Japan to the world. However, it turned out that he was sending out his own slanted personal views, describing in an assertive tone the past administration’s as well as the majority’s views as “foolish and obstreperous” and “militaristic hawks.”

In a series of English-language editorials, Mr. Tamamoto has criticized the practice of visiting Yasukuni Shrine as “Yasukuni Cult,” calling to mind the image of an evil heresy. He has also said that although the abduction issue involving North Korea is already resolved, Japan is using it as an excuse to flex its diplomatic muscles on the international stage.

Since the Times’ editorials are anonymous, we have no way of knowing who wrote what. However, there are 18 members on the editorial board, including the chairman, three of whom are in charge of international affairs. Out of those three, two are experts on Europe and Russia. So, it stands to reason that Tamamoto is the only expert on Japan there.

According to the Times’ Deputy Editorial Page Editor Terry Tang, he is currently stationed in Yokohama. Previously, he was a senior research fellow at the World Policy Institute, a liberal institute in New York. In Japan, in addition to his stint at the Japan Institute of International Affairs, he was also an associate professor at Rikyo University.

Naturally enough, freedom of speech permits American newspapers and Japanese scholars to criticize the government of Japan and the prevailing attitude among the people.

By the same token, it is within the framework of freedom of speech to curb Mr. Tamamoto’s claims that Japan is schizophrenic in its relations with China and historical understanding, that only through mimicry of other nations can Japan evolve and that the idea that Japan could [ever] be in the wrong during a conflict of opinion with China is “anti-Japan.”

My piece, which I referred to just a couple of paragraphs ago, where I picked apart Tamamoto’s claims, caused billows of attacks from his left-wing supporters from Japan and America alike, saying that what I said there amounted to an oppression of freedom of speech. They will attack opinions incompatible with their ideology with a vengeance, with language bordering on vulgarity. However, whenever they are attacked from within their own ranks from the right, they will just try to ignore their own fallacies with the almost trite “oppression of freedom of speech” card.　

By way of conclusion, I will stress beforehand that this is in no way an attack against The New York Times’ right to exercise its freedom of speech in unveiling the machinations behind the latest spate of “Abe bashing.”