Response to:

Direct quotes: "Former British prisoners of war were expected to mark the Emperor’s visit here on Tuesday with a demonstration to demand a full apology for their imprisonment in Japanese camps.

"However there has been almost no mention of an apology by Britain for the darker episodes of its colonial rule."

The article pretty much continues in this vein, concentrating on how Britain has been able to avoid any major acrimony for its actions. It relates many well known incidents studied by British students, such as the Amritsar massacre in 1919 and the Opium War of 1840-42, together with the apology to the Irish people for the Irish Potato Famine of the 19th Century, where devastating famine was not countered by its protectors. All previously well researched, and sometimes re-publicised incidents of history.

In this style it ignores the truths it is telling.

These soldiers have a direct complaint against the Government of Japan, which, under the Emperor has maintained itself withou direct reference to them.

The article directly implies that this should be conditioned by an acceptance of British past transgressions. Why? Does a crime against a man’s country imply a diminished right to impose responsibility on that man or indeed that country later? These people have a right to seek redress by the means and techniques available to them in a free country.

Secondly consider the mechanism for blocking that. The writer of this article implies therein that we should, on behalf of a friendly government impose sanctions on our citizens, to restrict and remove their basic rights, in order to preserve our relationship with that country. [This writers opinion: this should be resisted at all times in all places as a factor in a democratic society, obviously.]

Thirdly it implies that our government is involved. Why do I say so? Well otherwise why would these details, irrelevant to the actual case be addressed. It implies that our nation is a dictatorship where we do not allow individuals to act alone and thereby should take full responsibility for the actions to seek redress by individuals: as may be noted by omission from the article the British government takes no part in the actions of those referred to here, and thereby its only role to suppress such opinion could be as protector of the peace: which hardly seems affected by this case

So quite simply the article directly implies that the Japanese government has no responsibility to respect the rights of men who come from an evil country and that Britain is such a country. Any other conclusion as to the logic of this piece can only lead us to believe it is an illogigal, lazy, self-seeking, piece tabloid journalism seeking to incite..

The article notes with apparent surprise British success in its relations with other countries and especially many ex-colonies despite the "massacres and avoidable tragedies," visited upon them by British rule. um. Yes. Surely this is true. So why do we succeed in this (sometimes). Quite simply because we have not made the mistake of identifying our country at all times and in all places as a factor in our direct present relations with those countries. By changing and admitting the changes in the territories that were once under our dominion we have enabled both them and ourselves, though we know we neither are without flaw.

Yet the Japanese newspapers act as if an action by British individuals against crimes of state is a national outrage, and are supported by powerful government elements in this stance, it would seem.

The only fair conclusion one could draw from this article is that the writer would choose to rule their country in like manner, and is frustrated that it cannot be done. They would like to selectively choose Britain’s history for her. ( Though the articles include evidence that the countries involved have not held it as a barrier to relations). But note they make no reference to the most (only?) relevant section, Britain and Japan’s bilateral history. Why? For if they were to consider the balance there could they but come up wanting? Of course we gained from Japan the impetus to discard our empire; but the betrayal of the links that ran deeply back to the links with Satsuma prior to modern Japan, the cruel murder and torture of our people in a war where the oldest, most used battleships still had Britain written through their hulls.