Spare a thought for Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, watching the pomp and circumstance of last week’s state funeral for Queen Elizabeth II.
Kishida’s plan to hold a ceremonial farewell for Shinzo Abe, Japan’s longest-serving prime minister who was assassinated on the campaign trail just two days before upper house elections in July, was likely intended to be a similarly uniting moment for the country. Instead, it has deepened partisan divides, collapsed Kishida’s polling numbers and is threatening to turn him into Japan’s latest short-term leader.
State funerals are, admittedly, an uncommon sight in Japan. Only a handful have taken place in the post-war period,and only once before for a prime minister — that of Shigeru Yoshida, the man who began to rebuild Japan after World War II. Other officials, such as the great Cold War-era prime minister Yasuhiro Nakasone have been given ceremonies one level below, with costs split between the ruling party and the government.
The idea behind yesterday’s state funeral was to give Abe a greater send-off in a mark of respect to his status as the longest-serving prime minister in Japan’s history, his international renown and in recognition of the tragic circumstances of his death. Instead, it instead stirred an unedifying debate that has embarrassed Japan on the world stage.
While majorities backed the idea of the funeral in polls shortly after Abe was killed, latest surveys show that about 60 percent opposed it. Opponents lodged complaints over everything from the cost to the legal basis for holding the ceremony. Emotions ran so high that one man set himself on fire in protest.
However, at its simplest, opposition to the funeral can be explained by partisanship — a chance for Abe’s political opponents to score points on the former prime minister in death, having failed to take him down in life.
For a man who won three straight elections and whose death inspired national days of mourning in places as far afield as India and Brazil, it seems odd that an event to mark his passing should trigger such hatred in his home country. Other nations see little issue with marking even divisive leaders; the British taxpayer spent £3.6 million (US$3.9 million) to send off former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, who was so unpopular in some parts that her passing triggered street parties.
Abe had a singular ability to drive his critics around the bend. In life, he was unfairly accused of everything from attempting to remilitarize Japan to being single-handedly responsible for widening the gap between rich and poor. For all the talk of Japan’s supposedly compliant press, the latter half of his term in office was dominated by media stirrings of cronyism allegations.
Kishida had certainly mismanaged the situation. He first dithered on the decision, then moved too hastily. The funeral date was scheduled too far after Abe’s passing, allowing the issue to dominate the airwaves. When complaints over the cost first surfaced, the government allowed it to linger in the news cycle by initially low-balling the estimate.
However, the incumbent was nonetheless right to go ahead with this event. Japan should be proud of Abe’s achievements on the world stage — or at least recognize that he boosted the country’s standing. He is likely the only Japanese leader of the 21st century that many outside the country could name; he looms large over policies that helped lend new life to a country that teetered on the economic edge, and made Japan a key foreign policy player in Asia and beyond.
Concerns about expense are difficult to take in good faith. Foreign relations, like any friendships, have intangible costs and benefits. It is indisputably a good thing for Japan’s standing on the world stage to be hosting foreign dignitaries in a celebration of the life of one of the country’s greatest diplomats. A one-time use of the state jet is estimated at around ¥200 million (US$1.4 million), yet few complain that Japan’s emperor attended the funeral of another hereditary, non-elected head of state when the queen’s own farewell was held. If there are issues with money being spent, it should be on the police protection that failed to do its job in Nara in July.
Abe was no saint; few who get to the top of the political world are. Yet concerns over his supposed “nationalistic” tendencies were always overblown. At the heart of democracy is an appreciation that political opponents are worthy of respect even if we disagree on policy. Should they achieve a mandate for power, as Abe did longer than anyone, even one’s opponents have earned a right to rule. Even Abe’s staunchest detractors must accept that he loved his country and worked for it throughout his entire career right up until the very day he was gunned down.
In some ways, the debate highlights how Japan will struggle without him. There are few operators who can unite the factional Liberal Democratic Party and use the levers of power in the way Abe could. A strong leader is needed in a political system that gravitates toward inaction.
It might not be fair that Abe was granted this honor while others are not; yet there was nothing fair about Abe’s death. It was not the time for scoring political points and settling old grievances; it was a moment to recognize a great leader’s achievements — or at the very least, allow others to do so.
Gearoid Reidy is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Japan and the Koreas. He previously led the breaking news team in North Asia and was the Tokyo deputy bureau chief.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
The bird flu outbreak at US dairy farms keeps finding alarming new ways to surprise scientists. Last week, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) confirmed that H5N1 is spreading not just from birds to herds, but among cows. Meanwhile, media reports say that an unknown number of cows are asymptomatic. Although the risk to humans is still low, it is clear that far more work needs to be done to get a handle on the reach of the virus and how it is being transmitted. That would require the USDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to get
For the incoming Administration of President-elect William Lai (賴清德), successfully deterring a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attack or invasion of democratic Taiwan over his four-year term would be a clear victory. But it could also be a curse, because during those four years the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will grow far stronger. As such, increased vigilance in Washington and Taipei will be needed to ensure that already multiplying CCP threat trends don’t overwhelm Taiwan, the United States, and their democratic allies. One CCP attempt to overwhelm was announced on April 19, 2024, namely that the PLA had erred in combining major missions
On April 11, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida delivered a speech at a joint meeting of the US Congress in Washington, in which he said that “China’s current external stance and military actions present an unprecedented and the greatest strategic challenge … to the peace and stability of the international community.” Kishida emphasized Japan’s role as “the US’ closest ally.” “The international order that the US worked for generations to build is facing new challenges,” Kishida said. “I understand it is a heavy burden to carry such hopes on your shoulders,” he said. “Japan is already standing shoulder to shoulder
Former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) used to push for reforms to protect Taiwan by adopting the “three noes” policy as well as “Taiwanization.” Later, then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) wished to save the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) by pushing for the party’s “localization,” hoping to compete with homegrown political parties as a pro-Taiwan KMT. However, the present-day members of the KMT do not know what they are talking about, and do not heed the two former presidents’ words, so the party has suffered a third consecutive defeat in the January presidential election. Soon after gaining power with the help of the KMT’s