3rd of April
Our interview with Mr Stephen Smith and Mr Takaaki Kojima was a successful culmination to months of frenzied research. The four of us dealt with more than a few nerves on the morning of March 16, mainly because we were determined to do justice to the thought and heart which had been thrown into our preparation. Behind us, though, was a lot of deliberation over the set of questions we were to ask; a process which allowed us to distil the discussion down to the areas which were most important to us and to other young people. Our aim for the forum was to inject a sense of youth and idealism into political discussion - not to stir controversy, but to engage in an earnest, fruitful debate with two important social figures. I hope we achieved this.
In our interview, Mr Smith commented that since becoming Foreign Minister, he has broadened his knowledge of the pillars of our Japan-Australia relationship (“before I became Foreign Minister I would have said, well what in my mind epitomises the relationship between Australia and Japan is a very strong trading relationship. I think what is under-appreciated is that Australia and Japan really have a comprehensive economic strategic and security relationship. That the relationship we have is much more than trade.”) The two learning journeys for us, were an intense period of study and discovery and I, too, now feel more of an appreciation of the complex factors which shape the Japan-Australia relationship. The perceptions our countries hold of each other are multi-layered. The vestiges of war-time hostility which still seem to taint our respective images have been built on by gestures of reconciliation (for example at Cowra). Furthermore, the Commerce Treaty between Japan and Australia signed in 1957, which was widely unpopular at the time, represented a change in attitude between Japan and Australia, and has since done a great deal to move the relationship forward. In the current day, our images are coloured by cultural exports such as Manga and Emily Exhibition. These are just a few examples. As was emphasised by our interviewees, the historical relationship between two countries does not have to be squeaky clean in order for the modern alliance to be mutually respectful and beneficial. (“the strength of the relationship enables you to have these disagreements and it doesn't challenge… the fundamental basis of the relationship.”). Japan and Australia’s wartime, whaling or trade differences by no means undermine our modern relationship. They do, however, have an appreciable impact on the way we see each other and should not be swept under the carpet. More could still be done (by way of information circulation, improvements in textbooks etc.) to shift the perceptions held by the public into a more contemporary context; to root out outdated stereotypes and foster an understanding between modern generations. I hope the partnership between Yuika, Makoto, Tom and I, and our two countries, will continue to develop as projects such as this are symbolic of the profitable Japan-Australia relationship. I definitely have a renewed commitment to my Japanese language study, and can see myself applying my newfound knowledge and interest in Japan-Australia affair in future career or study.Thank you to every party who contributed their time or knowledge to our preparation. It was a privilege to be able to inform our ideas about history, politics and trade directly from sources such as DFAT, government ministers and academics. In this way, TalkBack Classoom struck me as a wonderful manifestation of democracy in Australia; for a country to encourage the probing curiosity of four young students into complex political affairs, is an incredible statement about the values in Australia.
I have said before that TalkBack allows young people unprecedented exposure to political and social figures, but even more importantly, it is a forum where the concerns and hopes of youths can be aired. Throughout the program, I felt conscious of participating in our democracy and I was proud to be a part of such a culturally symbolic event.
March 12th
In 1942, when Prime Minister Curtin warned of an invasion of Australia by the Japanese he mobilised the entire country. He also laid the basis for an unfounded perception of the Japanese which would be carried into the 21st century and taint the way Australians view Japan. According to Peter Stanley, author of Invading Australia, the notion that Japan intended to continue its expansionist crusade through Asia Pacific into Australia is not at all grounded in fact. If Japan’s military campaign had not been so severely impeded by battles with British and US forces, it may have had the resources, and thus the flexibility to conquer Australia. However by 1942, Japan’s military capabilities had been severely weakened and any fancy of invading Australia was abandoned. A select few Australian leaders held this information after Japanese war codes had been intercepted and cracked. Curtin was unable to divulge this knowledge because it would have alerted the Japanese to Australia’s ability to decipher its codes, and no doubt also because fear of invasion remained a useful tool to elicit nationalism from the Australian people. Significant evidence to support these claims is provided in Stanley’s book. However, whether it is fact or not, the popular view that Japan threatened Australia’s sovereignty, and the fear and contempt which was generated by this threat, is still central to the Australian perception of Japan. Interestingly, while no great effort is made to rectify this historical misconception, the public’s belief in the invasion theory seems to be linked with public sentiment on other issues in the media, such as whaling. Negative sentiment towards Japan is at artificially high levels when there is controversy in the media over Japan’s whaling in the Southern Ocean. Statistics show that more people believe Japan was going to invade Australia than in 1945.War stereotypes of the Japanese – fanaticism and pertinaciousness - also manifest when Australians disagree with Japan’s whaling ventures. In the National War Museum yesterday, we saw an evocative image of a Japanese soldier about to behead an Australian prisoner. It was accompanied by an excerpt from the executioner’s diary in which he expressed his pride in giving such a clean swipe with his sword that day. The image seems to epitomize the fanatical and barbarous war stereotype of the Japanese, but if you know a bit about Japanese Military culture, the executioner was actually (according to Stanley’s insider interpretation) showing respect to the soldier; he was happy to have killed the man in a swift, honourable fashion. We are keen to compare the vastly different Japanese and Australian military codes, which are often the starting point of harmful stereotypes. They show that it is not an intrinsic part of the Japanese character, which has so unfairly pigeon-holed them. Beheading is not killing, but destroying their humanity dehumanizing in the most perverse sense– a head represents a human beingDoes it symbolize a perception of the Japanese which is based on misunderstanding, or does it epitomize/verify it?Stereotypes resurface in whaling – misconceptions (invasion) haven’t disappeared; they are perpetuated/strengthened according to the feeling of the time March 11th Among the swathes of information we received today at Parliament House, there was recurring discussion of the changing relationship between Japan, the USA and Australia. This was viewed in terms of economic/trade cooperation and security interests.There are many elements which link the three countries: the three are connected in a Trilateral Security Dialogue; Japan is one of only three countries (UK, USA, Japan) with whom Australia engages in “2+2” political dialogue (Foreign and Trade Ministers meet to discuss economic initiatives); Japan has 2+2 talks with only the US and Australia; Australia only has bilateral Free Trade Agreements with the USA and Japan. The origin of these relationships extends back to the end of WWII and the dynamics have evolved noticeably since. For example, the USA, as an occupying force in defeated Japan for seven years after the war, had a large influence in shaping the country’s redevelopment. According to Mr. Carl Ungerer (Director National Security Project, Australian Strategic Policy Institute), the USA’s goal was to quickly restore Japan’s economic power while keeping it militarily under control (i.e. to ensure Japan would pose no threat to the USA). During this time the USA, a newly strengthened superpower, effectively acted as a guarantor of security in Japan and thus facilitated the rapid regeneration of Japan’s economy. In these protected circumstances, Japan’s economy was able to develop to such an extent that today it rivals that of the US. Today, as the USA’s domination shows signs of weakening, and China and Japan are poised to assume the position of world superpowers, the tables seem to have turned. We are approaching an era of global hierarchy that the world has never seen before. One in which China and Japan are dominant at the same time. In terms of security, the USA imposed a form of government on Japan post-war which was intended to drastically inhibit its military capacity: Article 9 was imbedded into the constitution and Japan’s defense budget was restricted to 1% of GDP per year. Today, compared with the debilitated economy of 1945, Japan’s enormous GDP has allowed for the growth of a mighty, well-trained and well-equipped Self Defense Force (still funded by 1% GDP). The USA may not have foreseen this. Additionally, and quite ironically, America may not have foreseen that Japan would develop the potential to be a valuable military partner when it helped to imbed pacifism into the Japanese constitution. Modern Japan now seems to have a dichotomous identity whereby its SDF has an enormous latent capability, but the government has a commitment to peace. External pressure may soon cause the nature of Japan’s military to change. March 10thOur discussion about the War, and its impact on modern Japan-Australia relations, was given more depth today. Our learning journeys in Japan and in Canberra have taken us to War Museums in Japan, where we viewed examples of typical Japanese war exhibits, and to the information centre and memorials at Cowra, which added a more personal dimension to our research. We have also garnered the opinions and thoughts of intellectuals, students of both nationalities and the general public.This multi-layered investigation now seems to be being distilled down to an issue of reconciliation:Are modern Japanese people subject to unfair hostility from Australians who are still bitter about the war?Have the poignant gestures of reconciliation such as the Japanese War Cemetery and Japanese Gardens at Cowra, been reciprocated by the Japanese?Are political apologies or education (sufficient acknowledgement of Australian suffering during WWII in Japanese history) more helpful in achieving reconciliation?Our discussion at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade today, would suggest that Australia takes a forgiving and big-picture approach to reconciliation. Unlike China and Korea who continue to put pressure on the Japanese government to apologise for atrocities committed during the war, the Australian government is satisfied with the level of contrition shown by Japan. Australia is prepared to move on in the interests of fruitful political cooperation (trade, security cooperation, defence); after all, it seems unreasonable and unproductive to demand that the Japanese government repeatedly apologise for errors of the past, as successive Japanese Prime Ministers have done since 1993.The generation of Japanese people who were part of the strong post-war commitment to pacifism have passed from the scene and young people wonder why they should bare the politically-restrictive burden of apologising.The war has greatly shaped Japan’s involvement in global politics and conflict since 1945. According to a brochure issued by the Japanese Embassy, “the constitution of Japan, which became effective in 1947 [during post-war reconstruction] is based on three principles: popular sovereignty, respect for fundamental human rights and the renunciation of war. Still today, Japan cannot exercise its UN Charter right to collective defense; a stance which may be seen as an alternative to an apology, or merely an incongruous restriction in the constitution in the modern day. The question was asked as to whether Japan’s refusal to actively engage in conflict according to Article 9 (recently, Japanese army engineers were allowed to be on the ground in Iraq, but only in non-combattant areas; soldiers are only authorised to use weapons in a situation of direct threat) gives Japan less clout or value when forming security partnerships. It is a difficult question. In the future, Japan may come under pressure from its alliances to relax its interpretation of Article 9. And Philip Seaton (Day One Japan Learning Journey), suggested that we shouldn’t underestimate the potential of the JSDF as it is the 5th largest military in the world.This afternoon, as we drove to the Japanese Embassy, I was fascinated by the multicultural village we found ourselves in. Every national embassy exhibits elaborate architecture unique to its country, the result being a fascinating cluster of different cultures in the one place. We were kindly welcomed onto the official territory of the Japanese embassy and allowed to meet with two senior officials. They confirmed the strength of the alliance between Japan-Australia however expressed concern that the relationship is “taken for granted”; there seems to be a certain complacency among the nations and lack of grass-roots awareness in each country of the other. The Embassy therefore prioritises education, language-learning and incentives for young students of Japanese to continue with the language.The TalkBack Classroom project is one such initiative which has allowed us to attain a greater depth of understanding of cultural and political issues between Japan and Australia. It has also given us on-the-ground contact with Japanese people which is a step towards the Embassy’s goal of enhancing the grass-roots relationship between the two countries. March 9thCowra, as the site of the largest military prison breakout in history, seems to exemplify the notorious Japanese “Bushido” spirit; the military code which dictates that a soldier must die before accepting the shame of imprisonment.The prisoners housed at Cowra were captured at a period when Japan was at the “crest of a wave of victory”, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and victory at Singapore, which gave the soldiers an impression of being the first captured, failed military team, and exacerbated their feeling of worthlessness.The soldiers harbored a deep resentment of their situation and, unbeknown to their captors, were determined to escape in order to redeem their pride. So, on August 5th 1944, Japanese soldiers charged at a firing Vickers machine gun and flung themselves over barbed-wire fences in an attempt to reclaim their dignity. In reality, this was purely a desperate ideological quest as there was little chance of reaching their aims. Indeed only 231 of the 1000+ escapees achieved their “victory” in death; the remaining soldiers had to endure the supreme ignominy of a second capture.However, it was explained that some returned Japanese soldiers expressed the having “learnt the difference between life and death” at the Australian Prison camps; their time in the camp, and their encounter with Australian kindness, tempered the fatal fanatical spirit and taught them to place more value on their lives.This, I think, is testament to unique, laudable qualities such as compassion and bravery in the Australian soldiers. These were on show in many ways today.During our interview with former military nurse Coralie d’Elboux, it was clear that she held no resentment towards the Japanese soldiers (she also did not identify any “Bushido” aggression in the patients she treated; only a communication barrier and that they “did not want to die”). Prisoners received the same hospital treatment as Australian soldiers. Coralie recognised that, in war, both the Australians and the Japanese were doing for their country what was expected of them, and “both sides were there to do the same thing”.The Australian Prisoner Camps abided strictly by the Geneva Convention, which protected prisoners from harm and allowed them relative comfort during their incarceration – in fact, the Japanese soldiers were granted meals of rice and fish when these were rations unavailable to the general public. This hospitable treatment ironically increased the feeling of shame in the ranks of the Japanese.The commitment to humanely treating our prisoners as well as the concerted effort to pay respect to the Japanese soldiers post-war, filled me with a sense of pride in the Australian spirit.
The Cowra cemetery remains the only Japanese military cemetery outside Japan and, according to our guide Mr Lawrence Ryan, the efforts to pay tribute to Japanese soldiers at Cowra, represent the first steps taken by any country after the war to make amends with the Japan. Members of the RSL were behind the creation and maintenance of the Japanese cemetery; a remarkable gesture on the part of men who used to be the enemy of the Japanese.
Like Coralie, it would seem that those who were in closest contact with Japanese militants, and thus have the most reason to hate, are more inclined to show forgiveness and understanding.Thus Cowra has been able to forge a special significance as a place of reconciliation, rather than the dubious title of the only combat fought on Australian soil.This was in sharp contrast to the experience we had with Japanese at the Yushuukan military museum in Tokyo where there was minimal acknowledgement of Australian soldiers killed in Japanese captivity on the Thai-Burma Railway.There seems to be a discrepancy in the amount of reference to and respect paid by Japan and Australia to their war-time enemy, and this is an issue we would like to pursue. Although it is easier for a country to focus on its victimisation during war, tributes to the adversary, such as those in Cowra, serve as important steps toward reconciliation.
Friday 30/01
Final Day… but no let-up on the schedule! Our four interviews today complemented each other quite nicely, however. The question of whether the media hype surrounding Kevin Rudd’s side-step of Japan in his first international trip actually reflected a diplomatic problem was raised with Takahashi Masashi (Principal Deputy Director, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Asian and Oceania Affairs Bureau). His response contained no evidence of hard feelings. Mr Takahashi assured us that it was a logistical decision to pass by Japan, as Mr Rudd knew he would have the opportunity to visit Japan July 2008 for the G8 summit in Hokkaido. Japanese Prime Minister Aso has equal difficulty in making the journey Down Under and our mutually beneficial ‘bilateral relationship cannot be destabilised’ by this incident.
On this subject, though, we heard a different perspective from Mr Susumu Arai, a journalist formerly stationed in Australia. He explained that this was the most important news story during the time of his posting in Australia and that his newspaper was very concerned about the symbolism of Mr Rudd’s trip.
No matter the impact of this singular incident, a firm message of the security of the Japan-Australia relationship was backed up by Mr Andrews of the Australian Embassy, Mr Takahashi, media representatives and others. For several decades, Japan has been Australia’s largest export market and both countries have significant economic dependence on each other. Also, in Takahashi-san’s words, ‘Australia for Japanese people, is a very close, like-minded country…we believe we can trust the Australian people.’ So, there is a certain irony to the media coverage of Japan-Australia relations: most people interpret the apparent lack of information in the media as a stagnant, unimportant relationship. Instead, according to Mr Susumu Arai, the lack of front-page, controversial news stories reflects the maturity and stability of the relationship.
Finally, we revisited our discussion about the impact of WWII on relations between Japan and Australia, with Mr Shigeki Chiba, a director whose award-winning WWII film The Railroad of Love was presented from a strikingly Australian point of view. Mr Chiba's filmis one of few independent films accessible to the Japanese public about the Second World War and he worried about the stereotypes which are perpetuated by commercial, Hollywood films. Our vox-pops on Thursday seemed to confirm this: the only two people with any knowledge of Australians on the Thai-Burma Railway had taken this knowledge from a popular movie.
To celebrate a successful week, the four of us shared a Yakiniku dinner in a lively underground restaurant in Asakusa. There were very few meat options on the menu which didn’t bare an ‘Australian Beef’ label – evidence that more than 90% of Japan’s beef needs are satisfied by Australia.
TalkBack classroom in Tokyo has been a fantastic learning experience. It is not often that young students are given the opportunity and the trust to debate issues such as whaling, war and diplomatic relations with prominent international decision-makers. This week, we have had an insight into elements of the Japanese culture which are often invisible to foreigners and, with a new understanding of the Japanese perspective in these issues, I am starting to appreciate the underlying aim of international diplomacy: to find ways to respect and transcend cultural differences in order to carry out fruitful business, trade and dialogue.
We’re now looking forward towards the next forum in Canberra where our close-knit group will be reunited, and where this week’s discussions will be translated into probing questions for Australia’s Foreign Minister.
Thursday 29/01
Day 4. I’ll recount our day starting from the second half. We travelled into the relative countryside of Japan to arrive at Makoto’s school where we enjoyed a relaxed and elucidating discussion with about 8 English-speaking students. Apart from the studio lights and film camera rolling, this interview felt the most comfortable of our interviews so far and, therefore, was one of the most interesting. We were able to delve into a broad range of issues without the obstacles of political correctness and vested interests getting in the way; everyone was young, open-minded and willing to critically reflect on their own culture.
Anyway, one particular observation from a student, Kasumi, struck a chord with me and with the study we’ve been doing about the Second World War. She commented that a traditional Japanese warrior fights like a Cherry Blossom flower: it is striking and beautiful when in bloom, and then quickly but spectacularly falls to the ground and disappears. Conversely, the combat of a British soldier can be likened to the life of a rose: it retains its beauty for a long time, but wilts slowly and shamefully.
Many Australians came away from their experiences in WWII with a stereotype of the Japanese as die-hard, war-mongering men who considered anything other than dying for their country in the war shameful. Over the last couple of days we have stirred the dust on this image and uncovered that Japanese soldiers and Kamikaze fighters shared the same human fear and vulnerability in war as our Australians. Roger Pulvers (from Day 1) commented that the day the Emperor announced Japan’s surrender, many Japanese citizens threw down their weapons in happy resignation and immediately adopted a commitment to peace in the future (a commitment which has characterized Japan’s modern international dealings). We have also been told that aeroplane radios recorded the last words of many Kamikaze soldiers as cries of “Mother” and “I don’t want to die”. The principles of self-sacrifice and fanaticism were fed down from the Emperor and it would seem that very few Japanese soldiers acted sacrificially by individual choice.
So there are indeed many misconceptions surrounding the war and many of these are born of Nationalism and political interest. Today at the controversial Yasukuni Shrine, we observed a notably biased wartime history. Our group was personally astounded to note that an exhibit of a steam train which carried goods on the Thai-Burma railway had no acknowledgement of the Prisoners of War who had built the Line. For every kilometre of railway constructed, 64 workers perished. This is a harrowing part of Australia’s history and, while it is understandable that a government-funded museum may not wish to condemn its own actions, we thought it a symbolic omission of fact.
Having said that, in Australian schools, I think we are guilty of promoting a very simplistic view of the war. In the minds of most Australians, the trigger of the Pacific War can be pinpointed at the bombing of Pearl Harbour and America resorted to devastating atomic bombs because “it had to finish the war somehow”. Why was the use of this “war-ending” last resort at the discretion of the Americans? We don’t recognise the colonisation struggles, trade embargoes and ultimatums imposed on Japan by the USA in the lead up to Pearl Harbour.
Despite the dubious historical records contained in this Museum, an overwhelming sense of history, peace and poignancy emanated from the Yasukuni Shrine. There is a very fine line between heroism and criminality in the context of war. I question whether the sacrifices of thousands of other fallen soldiers whose remains lie at Yasukuni should be undermined by a handful of war criminals buried in their company. Perhaps my detachment, as a young person, from the horror of war makes it easy for me to overlook the harrowing actions of war criminals; however, as a symbol of reconciliation, why can’t foreign governments who condemned Japanese Prime Ministers for attending the Shrine, acknowledge the similarity between all Nations’ pursuits in war and respect the National pride which is invested in a country’s war history?
Wednesday 28/01
Mikka me. This morning’s trip to Tokyo National Museum gave us an opportunity to explore the historical culture of Japan. To many foreigners, Japan’s traditional Edo-style art and clothes, Samurai and elaborate temples characterise Japan, and tourism campaigns tend to be dominated by images of sushi, Sumo and Geisha. The extensive cultural items on display in the National Museum reflect this classic element of Japan which provides a sharp contrast to today’s colourful Japanese cities. Today’s experience therefore helped us on our quest to unpack the fascinating dichotomy of the old and the new in Japan.
Upon arrival, the Talkback team was treated to an informative presentation about the contents of the Museum, which gave us a sense of context for the exhibits, and helped us to appreciate their historical significance. Of interest, there has been considerable international influence in Japanese art and religion, particularly from China and Korea. Japan seems to have assumed its own unique artistic and cultural identity in around the 1300s. Yuika and I have resolved to memorise the Eras in Japan so we can make more authoritative assessments of these transitional phases.
The striking buildings which house the National Museum command as much awe and interest as the artefacts within. Apparently, as with Kyoto and Nara, this area was strategically avoided by the USA as a nuclear target in order to preserve its historical beauty.
Our day finished with a bang with a particularly professional interview with the Japan Whaling Association. The association was very generous and detailed in its responses to a group of four earnest young people which allowed us to develop an understanding of the often-condemned Japanese point of view about whaling. The secretariat insisted that the whaling fleet makes no profit from their scientific expeditions and that they follow pre-determined routes which distinguish Scientific Whaling from commercial whaling.
As much of the whale meat as possible is then prepared sale. This may be perceived as a convenient by-product of scientific whaling by the cynic but, if any country deserves to derive secondary benefits from scientific whaling (which the JWA explain began is strongly encouragedby the IWC) it is surely Japan. Whaling has been an integral part of Japanese culture for centuries (since the Jomon era) and, in a changing global environment - the JWA argue – if Japan has to find an alternative means to uphold its tradition, it can perhaps be forgiven. I have hardly been converted into a proponent of whaling in one evening, but I think, if only more information from the JWA could be circulated around the world, cynicism about Japan’s whaling practices would diminish. However, the secretariat lamented that Japan’s point of view doesn’t arouse interest in the western media, and feared that the media is largely influenced by ardent anti-whaling groups.
Tuesday 27/01
Day 2. We stepped into a little slice of Australia when we passed through the security check point to the Australian Embassy. We introduced our Japanese counterparts to the charm of Mem Fox’s Koala Lou which sat on the coffee table at reception. Outside, a singular Gum Tree rose into the sky from a beautifully landscaped Japanese garden – the token arbre Australian was slightly incongruous but reminded us of home nonetheless.
Inside, we were presented with a unique opportunity to meet with advisor to the Australian Ambassador Richard Andrews, and a lesson in diplomatic relations.
The tone of this discussion was rather formal and as we broached subjects such as whaling, trade and multiculturalism, I felt as though Mr Andrews’ responses were measured and deliberate. Despite our earnest intentions to be sensitive to Australia’s point of view, we inevitably felt as if we were challenging the interviewee. It is difficult to conduct a profound analytical discussion when the official views and policies of the Australian government are under scrutiny. While we’re here our goal is to develop a balanced view on these issues which addresses the contentious aspects but which is sympathetic to both the Japanese and Australian perspectives.
In our discussions, we have tackled the perception of Japan as economically and culturally insular. Mr Andrews provided a lot of evidence to suggest that Japan is moving away from this stereotype. The Japanese government increasingly acknowledges the importance of diversity and foreign investment if Japan is to be competitive globally. Through travel, international business ventures and education abroad, Nihon is indeed taking on a more cosmopolitan identity. The ‘gaijin’ phenomenon which may have previously indicated an isolation from the rest of the world is gradually being broken down.
This echoed Roger Pulvers’views from yesterday. He believes that Japanese people have changed their view of their culture as exclusive and no longer gasp in surprise to see a foreigner capably manipulate chopsticks or speak fluent Japanese.
As our lively group travels around, singing medleys of Grease on the Subway, we seem to have developed our own method of gauging Japanese reactions to crazy foreigners!
Monday 26/01
Today we were straight down to business. No time for fretting over our interview techniques or dwelling on the impressive credentials of our interviewees; from 11 am we launched straight into questioning. Our background research positioned us surprisingly well to sustain a discussion with the ABC’s Japan correspondent Mark Willacy which focused on the types of issues in Japan which warrant media coverage in Australia (and, in turn, generate the image of Japan held by Australians). Of particular note, Mark Willacy’s assistant expressed a feeling of being “forgotten” in the media in the shadow of China who receives significant world attention as an emerging economic power-house. Japanese exports have been hit hard by the economic crisis and unemployment is becoming of significant concern. As a product of this, Japan may be losing clout it has previously held in diplomatic relations as the world’s second largest economy. My notebook received quite a work out today but I’m glad to have a written document of the wide-ranging and comprehensive information which Professors Richard Pulvers and Philip Seaton proffered to us. These interviews had a focus on Japan’s evolution since the Second World War and the impression of Japan as a fanatical, war-monger population which has lingered in the world. From here, I’m hoping to be able to synthesise the impressive quantity of information and opinion we encountered today in order to add depth to our questioning and piece together a credible patchwork of ideas about images of Japan in Australia and Australia in Japan.
