Why did President Obama visit Hiroshima?

"We're not bound by genetic code to repeat the mistakes of the past."

Main Menu
The New York Times
Search
SUBSCRIBELOG INAsia Pacific

Japan’s Leader Has Little Use for Hiroshima’s Lessons of Pacifism


The Atomic Bomb Dome in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park on Wednesday.
JOHANNES EISELE / AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE — GETTY IMAGES
By JONATHAN SOBLE
MAY 26, 2016
HIROSHIMA, Japan — Tokyo is Japan’s political and commercial capital. Kyoto is its temple-filled repository of traditional culture. But Hiroshima — obliterated by an American atomic bomb 71 years ago, then rebuilt with a newly peaceful and prosperous country — is in many ways the heart of Japan’s modern national identity.

From a militarist empire whose armies tore across Asia in the first half of the 20th century, Japan, seared by the most horrific consequence of war, embraced democracy and nonbelligerence seemingly overnight. It has not sent a soldier into combat since 1945, a record of pacifism that exceeds even that of its onetime ally Germany.

Yet as President Obama travels to Hiroshima on Friday, bringing renewed attention to the city and its legacy, many worry that the ideals Hiroshima has represented for so long are fading in Japan. The deep aversion to military entanglements is being challenged as never before by an ambitious conservative movement led by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

“Hiroshima is more than just a city,” said Kenzaburo Oe, the Nobel laureate novelist and peace activist who has written extensively about the attack and the subsequent bombing of Nagasaki, which together killed more than 200,000 people. “Hiroshima has been the ultimate expression of the feelings of the Japanese people, though I’m not sure that’s the case anymore.”


Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan visiting the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan, off Yokosuka, south of Tokyo, in October. Seven decades after World War II, Mr. Abe’s governing Liberal Democratic Party says the constraints placed on Japan in the conflict’s aftermath are outdated.
THE ASAHI SHIMBUN, VIA GETTY IMAGES
Mr. Oe added, “The Japanese Constitution is a Hiroshima Constitution, more than a Tokyo Constitution,” referring to the transformative basic law handed down by the United States after Japan’s defeat. The charter renounces war, declares that “land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained,” and rejects “the right of belligerency of the state.”

But the Constitution, and the array of pacifist-tinged laws and policies that flow from it, has come under attack as external dangers loom. The pacifist movement that has long been centered in Hiroshima is struggling to remain relevant to younger people, many born several generations after the war’s end.


“Obama is visiting Hiroshima at a time when the contrast between the city and what’s happening at the national level is getting stronger,” said Tadatoshi Akiba, a former mayor of the city.

Seven decades after World War II, Mr. Abe’s governing Liberal Democratic Party says the constraints placed on Japan in the conflict’s aftermath are outdated and enfeebling, and it has proposed an array of constitutional amendments, including a rollback of the charter’s pacifist clauses.


Members of Japan’s ground forces during a training exercise in Gotemba, Japan, in 2014. The “peace Constitution” has not stopped the country from rebuilding its military, though the postwar version, the Self-Defense Forces, has never gone abroad to fight.
CHRIS MCGRATH / GETTY IMAGES
Mr. Abe argues that change is vital because a more potent and assertive China and a nuclear-armed North Korea have emerged on Japan’s doorstep. And he has offered a brasher alternative to the inward-looking exceptionalism that grew out of Hiroshima, campaigning to transform Japan into a “normal” country, with a freer military and a bigger role in global affairs.

For some, that vision runs counter to the “never again” message inscribed on Hiroshima’s war memorial, and symbolized by the skeletal atomic bomb dome preserved at ground zero nearby.

“Abe’s approach is a kind of ‘military pacifism’ that takes war as a given,” said Motofumi Asai, a former Foreign Ministry official who directed the Hiroshima Peace Institute from 2005 to 2011 and is now a professor at Osaka University of Economics and Law. “If Japanese people embrace this, they are denying their postwar constitutional pacifism.”

Japanese pacifism has always been strewn with contradictions. The “peace Constitution” has not stopped the country from rebuilding its military, though its postwar version, the Self-Defense Forces, has never fought abroad. Japan’s leaders have declined to develop nuclear weapons, but they welcome the nuclear umbrella provided by the United States. And they have endorsed American military interventions around the world, while keeping Japan out of combat.


“Japanese pacifism has been made possible by the fact that Japan is protected by the United States,” said Makoto Iokibe, a professor at Kobe University and former president of the National Defense Academy of Japan. Now, the changes sought by Mr. Abe are forcing Japan to face that paradox, in ways that make many uncomfortable.

“Japan is being asked to play a new role,” Professor Iokibe said, “and that has created a sense of crisis among traditional postwar pacifists.”

Mr. Abe has not mustered the political support needed to amend the Constitution, and many specialists say they think he never will. The bar is high: Any changes require the approval of two-thirds of both houses of Parliament and a majority of voters in a national referendum. The document has not been altered since it came into force in 1947.

But the prime minister has chipped away at many of the charter’s byproducts. Since leading the Liberal Democrats back to power in 2012, he has ordered rare increases in defense spending; lifted a decades-long prohibition on weapons exports; and passed security laws that, for the first time, allow the Self-Defense Forces to undertake combat missions overseas.


A protest in July against the Liberal Democratic Party’s security bills.
CHRIS MCGRATH / GETTY IMAGES
The changes have been welcomed by the Obama administration, which is trying to deepen American diplomatic and military investment in the region but needs the help of allies. At the same time, Mr. Abe’s moves have caused unease in many parts of Asia where memories of Japanese conquest and colonization are still raw, especially in China.

Mr. Abe pushed through the new security laws only after his government issued an official “reinterpretation” of the Constitution. Legal scholars and peace groups associated with Hiroshima denounced the move as an illegitimate end run to weaken the charter’s peace clause, Article 9.


In August, on the 70th anniversary of the bombing, leaders of seven groups representing bomb survivors delivered a letter to Mr. Abe demanding that he withdraw the legislation. He declined, and Parliament approved the laws the next month.

Peace groups are preparing to challenge the laws in the judiciary, but the Supreme Court of Japan has generally declined to second guess the government on national security issues.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/world...

Haruko Moritaki, a veteran peace activist in Hiroshima, said she was glad Mr. Obama was coming, though she said she would like him to say that dropping the bomb was a mistake. Her father was partly blinded by the blast, and he was later one of the founders of an antinuclear campaign group, the Japan Congress Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs.

She said her biggest regret was that Mr. Obama had to share the spotlight with Mr. Abe, whose agenda she said was eroding the historical lessons embodied by the city.

“I want to see Obama at the memorial, but I don’t want to see Abe by his side,” Ms. Moritaki said. “I don’t want to see the Hiroshima memorial used.”

Why did President Obama visit Hiroshima?

Why does a selfProfessed BIA 'whiteMan' commentator use a picture at BIA of a 'deceased' African American Woman?

------- “We shall not repeat the evil, of a 'Neanderthal' genetic code of selfMutilation suicide."

OR

President Baraaka Hussein Obama.........Feelings of the bomb...

Terrified. Scared. Upset. Afraid. Worried. Anxious.

I don't think that's it Robert.

Questions about the unpredictable Trump have increasingly trailed Obama when he travels overseas, with world leaders incredulously sizing up a leading presidential candidate who speaks of banning Muslim immigration, starting trade wars and spreading nuclear weapons to Japan and South Korea. Obama has said that Trump now comes up in every one of his foreign meetings, with the president offering reassurances that he doesn't believe Trump will be elected.

http://m.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/...

Presidents of USA

Harry Truman was a DROPPER of Atomic Bombs.

Lyndon Johnson was a DROPPER of Viet Bombs.

Richard Nixon was a DROPPER of Descent male.

Ronald Reagan was a DROPPER of ACTING.

William Clinton was a DROPPER of panties.

George Bush was a DROPPER of Bombs on the Wrong Country and DROPPER of the USA Economy.

Barack Hussein Obama was/is a DROPPER of Great Changes and USA Greatest short Progress

SO

Mr. Donald Trump DROPPER of Acting, Female Beauty Pagents, Wives, Billions, 16 ConservativeRepublican challengers ....and "making America Great White Hope again" ...... should get his Chance for Change.

I wonder what Irma would say.

President Obama holds a press availability
https://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-vide...

Tokyo (CNN)Japan's upper chamber of Parliament early Saturday approved controversial bills allowing the country's military to engage in overseas combat in limited circumstances -- a major shift after seven decades of pacifism.

The 148-90 vote was the final hurdle for the measures, which will go into effect within roughly the next six months. The lower parliamentary chamber passed the bills in July.

The legislation reinterprets Article 9 of the Japan's pacifist post-World War II constitution, which outlaws war as a means of settling international disputes. The reinterpretation will now allow the Japanese military, known as the Self-Defense Forces, to defend its allies in a limited role in conflicts abroad.
Japanese troops operating overseas had previously been limited to humanitarian roles.
Article 9 of Japan's constitution says, in part, "Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes."
Why is Japan expanding its military?

Why is Japan expanding its military? 02:38
The bills, championed by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, sparked fierce and vocal opposition, with massive demonstrations in Tokyo streets in recent months and physical altercations in parliament this week.
A scuffle broke out Thursday as opposition lawmakers in a special committee of the Upper House attempted to delay a vote. But the bill ultimately passed the committee, setting the stage for Saturday's vote.
The argument for the bills
Supporters of the legislation, including top U.S. officials, say Japan needs to expand the role of the SDF to counter potential threats from nations such as China and North Korea. Both continue to develop their military and nuclear weapons programs.
Earlier this month, China staged its largest military parade ever to celebrate 70 years since Japan's World War II defeat. Beijing remains locked in territorial disputes with multiple Asian neighbors in the East and South China seas.
On Tuesday, North Korea warned the United States and its allies that it is ready to use nuclear weapons "at any time" and is expected to launch a new satellite using a long-range rocket sometime in the coming weeks.
Tokyo has faced growing international pressure to expand the role of its military, including deployment, to defend the interests of its key allies, including the United States. America is bound by treaty to defend Japan, an agreement that has been in place since 1960.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/18/asia/japan-m...

(CNN)Donald Trump on Saturday reiterated his belief that Japan should arm itself to deter a threat from North Korea rather than have the U.S. military protect the longtime ally against the rogue nuclear nation.

Meanwhile, Trump throughout the day maintained that the U.S. should pressure NATO member states to begin "paying their fair share."

"I would rather have them not arm, but I'm not going to continue to lose this tremendous amount of money. And frankly, the case could be made that let them protect themselves against North Korea. They'd probably wipe them out pretty quick," Trump said at a campaign event in Wasau, Wisconsin, Saturday afternoon.
The GOP front-runner added, "If they fight, you know what, that'd be a terrible thing. Terrible. ... But if they do, they do."
Earlier this week, Trump raised eyebrows and startled Japan and South Korea, two of America's strongest allies, with the suggestion that the U.S. military should be withdrawn from their shores, with nuclear weapons replacing them.
There are currently 54,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan and 28,500 in South Korea.
"Japan is better if it protects itself against this maniac of North Korea," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper on Tuesday. "We are better off frankly if South Korea is going to start protecting itself ... they have to protect themselves or they have to pay us."
Concerned about the statement, Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe responded publicly to the statement, saying, "whoever will become the next president of the United States, the Japan-U.S. alliance is the cornerstone of Japan's diplomacy."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/02/politics/don...

Sounds like Trump and Abe are in agreement.

80 U.S. scholars urge Obama to shut down U.S. bases in Okinawa
KYODO

MAY 29, 2016

ARTICLE HISTORY
WASHINGTON About 80 prominent scholars and activists are calling on the U.S. government to close its military bases in Okinawa Prefecture over a base worker’s alleged involvement in the death of a local woman.

The scholars and activists include Peter Kuznick, an American University professor who is a staunch advocate of abolishing nuclear weapons, and cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky.

In a recently released statement, the activists encouraged the administration of President Barack Obama to discuss with Okinawa Gov. Takeshi Onaga the crimes committed by U.S. servicemen and the possibility of shutting the U.S. military bases there. Onaga requested a meeting with Obama during his G-7 visit but was rebuffed by the Abe administration.

“We are horrified by the recent rape and murder of a young woman from Okinawa by a former U.S. Marine,” it said. “Many of us have been to Okinawa, and stand with the peace-loving people there in demanding the complete withdrawal of U.S. military bases from that beautiful island.”

The arrest last week of Kenneth Franklin Shinzato, 32, a former marine who works at the U.S. Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, reignited anti-American sentiment in the prefecture, which has a heavy U.S. military presence.

Investigative sources have said the suspect admitted to killing the 20-year-old victim after s*xually assaulting her.



http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/05/2...

Japan–United States relations (日米関係 Nichibeikankei?) are the relations between the United States and Japan. Relations began in the late 18th and early 19th century, with the diplomatic but force-backed missions of U.S. ship captains James Glynn and Matthew C. Perry to the Tokugawa Shogunate being of particular importance. The countries maintained relatively cordial relations after that, and Japanese immigration to the United States was prominent until the 20th century, in the period before World War II, when disputes over trade imbalances led to the Pearl Harbor attack and the countries' roles as enemies during that conflict. The United States' use of atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war and led to a military occupation of Japan by the United States; but due to the American rebuilding process and willingness to share technology with postwar Japan, the countries' relationship prospered again, and an exchange of technology and culture produced a strong alliance. The countries' trade relationship has particularly prospered since then, with Japanese automobiles and consumer electronics highly regarded in some parts of the United States.

Today the United States and Japan have firm and very active political, economic and military relationships. The United States considers Japan to be one of its closest allies and partners.[1][2] Japan is one of the most pro-American nations in the world, with 85% of Japanese people viewing the U.S. and 87% viewing Americans favorably in 2011, 73% of Japanese people viewing Americans favorably and 69% of Japanese people viewing the U.S. favorably in 2013, going down somewhat to 66% in 2014.[3] And most Americans generally perceive Japan positively, with 81% viewing Japan favorably in 2013, the most favorable perception of Japan in the world, after Indonesia.[4]

Edit

Early American expeditions to Japan Edit

The USS Columbus of James Biddle, and an American crewman in Edo Bay in 1846.
In 1791, two American ships commanded by the American explorer John Kendrick stopped for 11 days on Kii Oshima island, south of the Kii Peninsula. He is the first American known to have visited Japan. He apparently planted an American flag and claimed the islands, but there is no Japanese account of his visit.[7]
In 1846, Commander James Biddle, sent by the United States Government to open trade, anchored himself in Tokyo Bay with two ships, one of which was armed with seventy-two cannons. Regardless, his demands for a trade agreement remained unsuccessful.[8]
In 1848, Captain James Glynn sailed to Nagasaki, which led to the first successful negotiation by an American with sakoku Japan. Upon his return to North America, Glynn recommended to the Congress that any negotiations to open up Japan should be backed up by a demonstration of force; this paved the way for the later expedition of Commodore and lieutenant Matthew Perry.[9]
Commodore Perry Edit

Commodore Perry's fleet for his second visit to Japan in 1854.
In 1852, American Commodore Matthew C. Perry embarked from Norfolk, Virginia, for Japan, in command of a squadron that would negotiate a Japanese trade treaty. Aboard a black-hulled steam frigate, he ported Mississippi, Plymouth, Saratoga, and Susquehanna at Uraga Harbor near Edo (present-day Tokyo) on July 8, 1853, and he was met by representatives of the Tokugawa Shogunate. They told him to proceed to Nagasaki, where the sakoku laws allowed limited trade by the Dutch. Perry refused to leave, and he demanded permission to present a letter from President Millard Fillmore, threatening force if he was denied. Japan had shunned modern technology for centuries, and the Japanese military wouldn't be able to resist Perry's ships; these "Black Ships" would later become a symbol of threatening Western technology in Japan.[10] Perry returned in March 1854 with twice as many ships, finding that the delegates had prepared a treaty embodying virtually all the demands in Fillmore's letter; Perry signed the U.S.- Japan Treaty of Peace and Amity on March 31, 1854, and departed.[11]

Edit

Japanese embassy to the United States Edit
Main article: Japanese Embassy to the United States (1860)

Kanrin Maru, Japan's first screw-driven steam warship, transported 1860s delegation to San Francisco.

Members of the Japanese Embassy to the United States (1860). Sailors of the Kanrin Maru. Fukuzawa Yukichi sits on the right.

The Japanese Embassy to the United States (1860).
Seven years later, the Shogun sent Kanrin Maru on a mission to the United States, intending to display Japan's mastery of Western navigation techniques and naval engineering. On January 19, 1860, Kanrin Maru left the Uraga Channel for San Francisco. The delegation included Katsu Kaishu as ship captain, Nakahama Manjirō and Fukuzawa Yukichi. From San Francisco, the embassy continued to Washington via Panama on American vessels.

Japan's official objective with this mission was to send its first embassy to the United States and to ratify the new Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation between the two governments. The Kanrin Maru delegates also tried to revise some of the unequal clauses in Perry's treaties; they were unsuccessful.

The United States' first ambassador was Townsend Harris, who was present in Japan from 1856 until 1862 but was denied permission to present his credentials to the Shogun until 1858.[12] He was succeeded by Robert H. Pruyn, a New York politician who was a close friend and ally of Secretary of State William Henry Seward. Pruyn served from 1862 to 1865[13] and oversaw successful negotiations following the Shimonoseki bombardment.[14]

From 1865 to 1914 Edit
In the late 19th century the opening of sugar plantations in the Kingdom of Hawaii led to the immigration of large numbers of Japanese. Hawaii became part of the U.S. in 1898, and the Japanese were the largest element of the population then, and have been the largest element ever since.

There was some friction over control of Hawaii and the Philippines. The two nations cooperated with the European powers in suppressing the Boxer Rebellion in China in 1900, but the U.S. was increasingly troubled about Japan's denial of the Open Door Policy that would ensure that all nations could do business with China on an equal basis. President Theodore Roosevelt played a major role in negotiating an end to the war between Russia and Japan in 1905-6.

Vituperative anti-Japanese sentiment (especially on the West Coast) soured relations in the 1907-24 era.[15] Washington did not want to anger Japan by passing legislation to bar Japanese immigration to the U.S. as had been done for Chinese immigration. Instead there was an informal "Gentlemen's Agreement" (1907-8) between the U.S. and Japan whereby Japan made sure there was very little or no movement to the U.S. The agreements were made by Secretary of State Elihu Root and Japan's Foreign Minister Tadasu Hayashi. The Agreement banned emigration of Japanese laborers to the U.S. or Hawaii and rescinded the segregation order of the San Francisco School Board in California, which had humiliated and angered the Japanese. The agreements remained effect until 1924 when Congress forbade all immigration from Japan.[16][17]

Charles Neu concludes that Roosevelt's policies were a success:

By the close of his presidency it was a largely successful policy based upon political realities at home and in the Far East and upon a firm belief that friendship with Japan was essential to preserve American interests in the Pacific.... Roosevelt's diplomacy during the Japanese-American crisis of 1906-1909 was shrewd, skillful, and responsible.[18]
In 1912, the people of Japan sent 3,020 cherry trees to the United States as a gift of friendship. First Lady of the United States, Mrs. Helen Herron Taft, and the Viscountess Chinda, wife of the Japanese Ambassador, planted the first two cherry trees on the northern bank of the Tidal Basin. These two original trees are still standing today at the south end of 17th Street. Workmen planted the remainder of the trees around the Tidal Basin and East Potomac Park.[19]

American Protestant missionaries were very active in Japan, even though they made relatively few converts. However they did set up organizations such as universities and civic groups. Historian John Davidann argues that the evangelical American YMCA missionaries linked Protestantism with nationalism, even suggesting that Americans were God's chosen people. They wanted converts to choose "Jesus over Japan." The Christians in Japan, although small minority, held a strong connection to the ancient "bushido" tradition of warrior ethics that undergirded Japanese nationalism.[20]

World War I and 1920s Edit
Both the U.S. and Japan fought on the Allied side. Japan's military took control of German bases in China and the Pacific, and in 1919 with U.S. approval was given a League of Nations mandate over the German islands north of the equator, with Australia getting the rest. The U.S. did not want any mandates.[21]

However, there was a sharp conflict between Japan on the one hand and China, Britain and the U.S. over Japan's Twenty-One Demands made on China in 1915. These demands forced China to acknowledge Japanese possession of the former German holdings and its economic dominance of Manchuria, and had the potential of turning China into a puppet state. Washington expressed strongly negative reactions to Japan's rejection of the Open Door Policy. In the Bryan Note issued by Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan on March 13, 1915, the U.S., while affirming Japan's "special interests" in Manchuria, Mongolia and Shandong, expressed concern over further encroachments to Chinese sovereignty.[22]

President Wilson fought vigorously against Japan's demands at Paris in 1919, but he lost because Britain and France supported Japan.[23] In China there was outrage and Anti-Japanese sentiment escalated. The May Fourth Movement emerged as a student demand for China's honor.[24] In 1922 the U.S. brokered a solution of the Shandong Problem. China was awarded nominal sovereignty over all of Shandong, including the former German holdings, while in practice Japan's economic dominance continued.[25]

Japan and the U.S. agreed on terms of naval limitations at the Washington Conference of 1921, with a ratio of naval force to be 5-5-3 for the U.S., Britain and Japan. Tensions arose with the 1924 American immigration law that prohibited further immigration from Japan.[26]

By the 1920s, Japanese intellectuals were underscoring the apparent decline of Europe as a world power, and increasingly saw Japan as the natural leader for all of East Asia. However, they identified a long-term threat from the colonial powers, especially Britain, the United States, the Netherlands and France, as deliberately blocking Japan's aspirations, especially regarding control of China. The goal became "Asia for the Asians" as Japan began mobilizing anti-colonial sentiment in India and Southeast Asia. Japan took control of Manchuria in 1931 over the strong objections of the League of Nations, Britain and especially the United States. In 1937, it seized control of the main cities on the East Coast of China, over strong American protests. Japanese leaders thought their deeply Asian civilization gave it a natural right to this control and refused to negotiate Western demands that it withdraw from China.[27]

Relations between Japan and the United States became increasingly tense after the Manchurian/Mukden Incident and subsequent Japanese military seizure of much of China in 1937-39. American outrage focused on the Japanese attack on the US gunboat Panay in Chinese waters in late 1937 (Japan apologized), and the atrocities of the Nanking Massacre at the same time. The United States had a powerful navy in the Pacific, and it was working closely with the British and the Dutch governments. When Japan seized Indochina (now Vietnam) in 1940-41, the United States, along with Australia, Britain and the Dutch government in exile, boycotted Japan via a trade embargo. They cut off 90% of Japan's oil supply, and Japan had to either withdraw from China or go to war with the US and Britain as well as China to get the oil.

Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, Japanese American relations had been constricted for years, due to the belief that Western powers were hostile to Japan—the Japanese believed they were looked at as inferior. The relationship was also strained because the US opposed Japanese expansion and Japan’s demands were not being achieved by diplomacy. "... the Americans believe they are better than us. We are unable to keep a steady relationship with them as long as they hold these opinions. ... The Americans are not complying with our demands... For these reasons our relationship is constricted, shall remain that way and will not be able to grow." translated Masakazu Nanba 5 March 1938. These situations within their relationship all contributed to the attack on Pearl Harbor. The attack on Pearl Harbor was seen from a public eye as a surprise, however in analyzing Japanese-American relations over the years leading to the attack, one can see an erosion in communications between the two countries. Japan being an energy scarce country, expansion was seen as the only viable source of securing their energy needs. The attack can only be seen as a culmination point in regards to Japanese-American interests in the Pacific region. Under the Washington Naval treaty and the London Naval treaty, the American navy was to be equal to the Japanese army by a ratio of 10:7.[28] However, as of 1934, the Japanese ended their disarmament policies and enabled rearmament policy with no limitations.[28] The government in Tokyo was well informed of its military weakness in the Pacific in regards to the American fleet. The foremost important factor in realigning their military policies was the need by Japan to move away from U.S oil dependence, securing new oil and energy sources.[29]

Through the 1930s, Japan's oil consumption was dependent at 90% on imports, 80% of it coming from the United States.[29] Furthermore, the vast majority of this oil import was oriented towards the Navy and the military.[30] America opposed Tokyo's expansionist policies in China, the East Indies and the Pacific Islands. On July 26, 1940 the U.S. government passed the Export Control Act, cutting oil, iron and steel exports to Japan.[29] This containment policy was seen by Washington as a warning to Japan that any further military expansion would result in further sanctions. However, Tokyo saw it as a blockade to counter Japanese military and economic strength. Accordingly, by the time the United States enforced the Export Act, Japan had stockpiled around 54 million barrels of oil.[31] America exported oil to Japan until 1940, long after the invasion of Manchuria. Sanctions were too weak and not focused enough to stop the Japanese military at an early stage of expansion. By 1940, the American share of export of oil on the Japanese market dropped to 60%.[32]

These various actions taken by Washington were nothing compared to the full embargo imposed on Japan in July 1941.[31] All oil shipments were held back and Japanese assets in the United States were to be frozen. Since only 4.5 million barrels of oil were coming in from the Dutch East Indies, Japan's reaction was to organize an attack of the United States on the Pacific front.[29] The attacks on Pearl Harbor were strongly influenced by the energy insecurity which the embargo created.

Japan attacked the American navy base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941. In response, the United States declared war on Japan, starting a four-year war between the United States and Japan. Japan's Axis allies, including Nazi Germany, declared war on the United States shortly after the attack, bringing the United States into World War II.

Why did President Obama visit Hiroshima?

Why does a selfProfessed BIA 'whiteMan' commentator use a picture at BIA of a 'deceased' African American Woman?

------- “We shall not repeat the evil, of a 'Neanderthal' genetic code of selfMutilation suicide."

OR

President Baraaka Hussein Obama.........Feelings of the bomb...

Terrified. Scared. Upset. Afraid. Worried. Anxious.

Monday, May 30th 2016 at 9:05AM
robert powell | delete

I don't think that's it Robert.
Monday, May 30th 2016 at 10:05AM
Steve Williams

**************************************************

The Greatest USA President of ALL TIME, wanted to Respect the Human Being.....

How MONSTROUS to use a weapon on a people that will KILL for 10,000 YEARS....

and Our President wants to Assure All that he is NOT a part of that racistlyIgnorant American past....

I don't think that's the President's job. He is however doing the job with Japan that many President's before him have done, and many after him will. You'd never know that from the media coverage though.

The aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attack led to the largest naval conflict in history as part of the United States entry into World War II, with massive fleets of then-modern aircraft carriers, battleships and smaller craft as well as numerous naval aircraft battling for military control of the Pacific Ocean. Epic battles like Midway were fought throughout the Pacific theater.

The conflict was a bitter one, marked by atrocities and human rights violations on both sides such as the torture of American prisoners of war by the Imperial Japanese Army and the mass internment of Japanese Americans by the United States government. Superior American military production supported a campaign of island-hopping in the Pacific and heavy bombardment of cities in Okinawa and the Japanese mainland. This war of attrition was broadly successful for the Allied powers, who gradually occupied territories held by Japan and its own allies and puppet states, but Japanese resistance remained fierce. The Pacific War lasted until August 15, 1945, when Japan surrendered in response to the American atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – among the most controversial acts in military history – and the Soviet entry into the Asian theater of war following the surrender of Germany.

The official Instrument of Surrender was signed on September 2, and the United States subsequently occupied Japan in its entirety.

"....I don't think that's the President's job. He is however doing the job with Japan that many President's before him have done, and many after him will. "

Thursday, June 2nd 2016 at 7:00AM
Steve Williams
*************************************************************

NO, 'whiteMan' steveAdam.......MEDIA did not UNDERSTAND the ..... "CHANGE you can Believe IN"

President Baraaka Hussein Obama IS the NEW AMERICAN PRESIDENT standard........

President Baraaka Hussein Obama IS the NEW AMERICAN CITIZEN standard........

Internet is the Media Now.......the Change You can Believe in..........................

Social Media Now..................the Change You can Believe in..........................

Edit
Main article: Occupation of Japan
At the end of the Second World War, Japan was occupied by the Allied Powers, led by the United States with contributions from Australia, India, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. This was the first time since the unification of Japan that the island nation had been occupied by a foreign power. The San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed on September 8, 1951, marked the end of the Allied occupation, and when it went into effect on April 28, 1952, Japan was once again an independent state, and an ally of the United States.

1950s: After the occupation Edit
Main articles: Treaty of San Francisco and United States Forces Japan
In the years after World War II, Japan's relations with the United States were placed on an equal footing for the first time at the end of the occupation by the Allied forces in April 1952. This equality, the legal basis of which was laid down in the peace treaty signed by forty-eight Allied nations and Japan, was initially largely nominal. A favorable Japanese balance of payments with the United States was achieved in 1954, mainly as a result of United States military and aid spending in Japan.[33]

The Japanese people's feeling of dependence lessened gradually as the disastrous results of World War II subsided into the background and trade with the United States expanded. Self-confidence grew as the country applied its resources and organizational skill to regaining economic health. This situation gave rise to a general desire for greater independence from United States influence. During the 1950s and 1960s, this feeling was especially evident in the Japanese attitude toward United States military bases on the four main islands of Japan and in Okinawa Prefecture, occupying the southern two-thirds of the Ryukyu Islands.

The government had to balance left-wing pressure advocating dissociation from the United States allegedly 'against the realities' of the need for military protection. Recognizing the popular desire for the return of the Ryukyu Islands and the Bonin Islands (also known as the Ogasawara Islands), the United States as early as 1953 relinquished its control of the Amami group of islands at the northern end of the Ryukyu Islands. But the United States made no commitment to return Okinawa, which was then under United States military administration for an indefinite period as provided in Article 3 of the peace treaty. Popular agitation culminated in a unanimous resolution adopted by the Diet in June 1956, calling for a return of Okinawa to Japan.

Bilateral talks on revising the 1952 security pact began in 1959, and the new Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security was signed in Washington on January 19, 1960. When the pact was submitted to the Diet for ratification on February 5, it became the subject of bitter debate over the Japan–United States relationship and the occasion for violence in an all-out effort by the leftist opposition to prevent its passage. It was finally approved by the House of Representatives on May 20. Japan Socialist Party deputies boycotted the lower house session and tried to prevent the LDP deputies from entering the chamber; they were forcibly removed by the police. Massive demonstrations and rioting by students and trade unions followed. These outbursts prevented a scheduled visit to Japan by President Dwight D. Eisenhower and precipitated the resignation of Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke, but not before the treaty was passed by default on June 19, when the House of Councillors failed to vote on the issue within the required thirty days after lower house approval.[34]

Under the treaty, both parties assumed an obligation to assist each other in case of armed attack on territories under Japanese administration. (It was understood, however, that Japan could not come to the defense of the United States because it was constitutionally forbidden to send armed forces overseas (Article 9). In particular, the constitution forbids the maintenance of "land, sea, and air forces." It also expresses the Japanese people's renunciation of "the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes". Accordingly, the Japanese find it difficult to send their "self-defense" forces overseas, even for peace-keeping purposes.) The scope of the new treaty did not extend to the Ryukyu Islands, but an appended minute made clear that in case of an armed attack on the islands, both governments would consult and take appropriate action. Notes accompanying the treaty provided for prior consultation between the two governments before any major change occurred in the deployment of United States troops or equipment in Japan. Unlike the 1952 security pact, the new treaty provided for a ten-year term, after which it could be revoked upon one year's notice by either party. The treaty included general provisions on the further development of international cooperation and on improved future economic cooperation.

Both countries worked closely to fulfill the United States promise, under Article 3 of the peace treaty, to return all Japanese territories acquired by the United States in war. In June 1968, the United States returned the Bonin Islands (including Iwo Jima) to Japanese administration control. In 1969, the Okinawa reversion issue and Japan's security ties with the United States became the focal points of partisan political campaigns. The situation calmed considerably when Prime Minister Sato Eisaku visited Washington in November 1969, and in a joint communiqué signed by him and President Richard M. Nixon, announced the United States agreement to return Okinawa to Japan in 1972. In June 1971, after eighteen months of negotiations, the two countries signed an agreement providing for the return of Okinawa to Japan in 1972.[35][36]

The Japanese government's firm and voluntary endorsement of the security treaty and the settlement of the Okinawa reversion question meant that two major political issues in Japan–United States relations were eliminated. But new issues arose. In July 1971, the Japanese government was surprised by Nixon's dramatic announcement of his forthcoming visit to the People's Republic of China. Many Japanese were chagrined by the failure of the United States to consult in advance with Japan before making such a fundamental change in foreign policy. The following month, the government was again surprised to learn that, without prior consultation, the United States had imposed a 10 percent surcharge on imports, a decision certain to hinder Japan's exports to the United States. Relations between Tokyo and Washington were further strained by the monetary crisis involving the December 1971 revaluation of the Japanese yen.

These events of 1971 marked the beginning of a new stage in relations, a period of adjustment to a changing world situation that was not without episodes of strain in both political and economic spheres, although the basic relationship remained close. The political issues between the two countries were essentially security-related and derived from efforts by the United States to induce Japan to contribute more to its own defense and to regional security. The economic issues tended to stem from the ever-widening United States trade and payments deficits with Japan, which began in 1965 when Japan reversed its imbalance in trade with the United States and, for the first time, achieved an export surplus.[37]

Heavy American military spending in the Korean War (1950–53) and the Vietnam War (1965–73) provided a major stimulus to the Japanese economy.[38]

Heavy American military spending in the Korean War (1950–53) and the Vietnam War (1965–73) provided a major stimulus to the Japanese economy.[38]

Friday, June 3rd 2016 at 7:38AM
Steve Williams

STOP IT ...... Defender and DNA rep of 'whiteSupremacy'

..........Americans NO LONGER are mesmerized by 'whiteSupremist' Literature........

Leave BIA, an African American Family site......

Here's some African-Asian literature then.

http://hermes-ir.lib.hit-u.ac.jp/rs/bitstr...

I still don't know what the President meant, "we're not bound by genetic code to repeat the mistakes of the past". Sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

Why did President Obama visit Hiroshima?

SUBJECT

the BIA DNA of the selfProfessed 'whiteMan' Asks OR Inguires.......

"we're not bound by genetic code to repeat the mistakes of the past". Sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo..."

Friday, June 3rd 2016 at 11:33AM
Steve Williams

*****************************************************

we are not REQUIRED to use the DNA of the euroNEANDERTHAL of atomicBOMBING thinking........

------ atomicBOMBING at the time was done by RACISTLY IGNORANT euroTHOUGHT...minus SCIENCE/BIOLOGY

atomic radiation LASTS 1000s of YEARS......

------ to drop a bomb is hurting self and 1000 s of years for Millions in the Future..... dumbGENETICS

The President's apology tour is almost at an end.

Why did President Obama visit Hiroshima?

SUBJECT

yet DNA..... dumbGENETICS.... or the selfProfessed bia"whiteMan"...... LIES NEVER end...

"......The President's apology tour is almost at an end...."

Saturday, July 23rd 2016 at 9:25PM
Steve Williams

*******************************************************

hey steveAdam or STEVEN as the 'blackHebrewIsraelites' say....there NEVER has been in the kingJames English any

APOLOGY by GREATEST USA President Baaraaka Hussein Obama.......

Whatever you want to call it, it's at an end.

Why did President Obama visit Hiroshima?

SUBJECT

yet DNA..... dumbGENETICS....the selfProfessed bia"whiteMan"...... Misconception NEVER ends...

"........Whatever you want to call it, it's at an end. ...."

Sunday, July 24th 2016 at 12:52PM
Steve Williams

***********************************************************

I didn't call it an APOLOGY or the END......your RACISTLY IGNORANT .... roosterDung Mind did.......

---- Who KNOWS, Mr. Donald Trump may appoint President Baaraaka Hussein Obama....his CHIEF OF STAFF

---- Who KNOWS, Mrs.Hillary Clinton may appoint President Baaraaka Hussein Obama...Supreme Court Justice

NEVER an END to the GREATEST!