After March 11 crippled nuclear power plant accidents in Fukushima, there have been many social movements against nuclear power plants. On September 19, about 50000 people gathered in Tokyo for antinuclear demonstration. It was the largest demonstration since the 1960’s when the students’ activities against Anpo (Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan) occurred. Not only this demonstration, there are many movements of farmers who had big damage on their products, and mothers who live around crippled nuclear power plant who are afraid of the effect of radiation on their children. However, it seems that these demonstrations attract little attention, and have little effect on government’s policies so far. Why have these demonstration not been successful enough to change the Japanese society which heavily relies on nuclear energy and is facing a crucial moment to think about our energy policy in the future?

Some people argue that Japanese society has less characteristic which try to change society with demonstration. Basically people leave their decision to upper class people such as politicians and obey them. There is little initiative that trying to change the society compared to other country such as U.S and European countries. Is it true? Yes, actually Japanese people tend to rely on decision of politicians and obey it. But, after the massive earthquake and tsunami which caused serious nuclear accident, and under the situation which we are facing fears of radiation from nuclear power and government unable to progress policies on compensations for victims and new energy policy, lots of Japanese people feel the neediness of some kinds of big change in our society.

I think the first reason why these social movements have not been successful in Japanese society is these movements fail to involve people who live far away from crippled nuclear power plant. Around the nuclear power plant such as Fukushima, Ibaraki, antinuclear power plant is growing because they live with some fear of radiation every day. However, we cannot see such movements in Osaka, Kyoto, and Kagoshima where is more than 1000 kilometers away from Fukushima. Since we do not have nuclear power plants close to our town, we do not care about radiation so much. Maybe most Japanese people who live away from Fukushima think like that. Furthermore there is some ironical fact. Although farmers around Fukushima nuclear power plant had big damage on their products, farmers far away from Fukushima such as Kyushu area had some advantage, because they had more demand for their products after the nuclear power plants accidents in Fukushima. Therefore, even people around Fukushima make demonstration for stopping nuclear power plants, they will attract little attention from people who do not have to care about radiation so seriously now. Of course, even if people who do not live around Fukushima, this accident is very crucial for them. We do have lots of nuclear power plants all over the Japan, and also there is possibility that we have big earthquake which can cause serious accident like Fukushima nuclear power plant. Nuclear power plant does matter for all of Japanese people. So, people who are taking part in antinuclear demonstrations have to take some actions not only in Tokyo but also in Osaka, Kagoshima where people less fear about radiation. For instance, they can hold some lectures on how nuclear accident had changed their life and what we need to in our society. It will be necessary that social movement makes all people concerned and aware that this accident is very crucial for all of us and have to take some actions.

In addition to the lack of involvement of people, I also think the goal of these demonstrations is vague. Though lots of people are taking part in demonstrations for expressing their anger caused from nuclear accidents, their goal is diversified so far. Farmers are demonstrating against Tepco for compensating its damage from radiation. Residents who had lived around nuclear power plant are demonstrating against government for guaranteeing their shelter. Currently many people are holding demonstration in a different ways based on their interests. However, to make demonstration successful, they have to corporate with each other and they have to make clear one goal of the demonstration. If people make one big demonstration which people who have different interests gather together and have a clear goal for them, it is more probable that antinuclear demonstration will be successful.

The key thing to make the social movement successful is to involve all people concerned and make clear one goal for them. If we can achieve it, antinuclear movement will be successful and be able to change our society.

by Shunsuke Ochi

It is said that in some parts of America, people got to recognize Muslim people as a habitant having evil and dangerous trait after 9/11. Then many Muslim people still hold unclear feeling due to this America’s ‘change’.

However, there are also some conscious men who are against this current situation. According to the first article, one Muslim American rapper (23), who “went through their adolescence and early adulthood post-9/11”, “speaks about his personal struggles and the political and social issues that resonate in him the most.” He tries to change people’s wrong recognition of Muslims through hip-hop music, which history was also shaped in confronting racial, social and political injustice.

‘Capital D’ is a Chicago rapper who criticizes America with the modern capitalism and the war in Iraq. He said that recently American Muslims has been taking hip-hop music into their culture, and that ‘Islam hip-hop’ is very young in its process. However as he says, I think this movement will be expanding more.

Today, many Muslim rappers succeeded in surviving through the game of hip-hop, and the number of them has been increasing. Lupe Fiasco is one of them.

Lupe (Wasalu Muhammad Jaco), a conscious rapper from Chi-town, is very explicit to proclaim that he is Muslim and talks lots of things how he thinks about Islam. In his song“Words I Never Said” (2011), he emphasizes “Murdering is not Islam!” to make people change their conception about Islam. He also criticizes (Muslim?) people who don’t take their voice out to say the truth, saying;

Now you can say it ain’t our fault if we never heard it.
But if we know better than we probably deserve it.

Since his debut in 2006, Lupe has cemented his position in hip-hop with his incredible lyrical skill. Now, he became the representative of Muslim in America and hip-hop, and became the voice of them. I’m sure we can say that hip-hop, to some extent, made it possible for American Muslims to state their social and political intentions.

This culture called hip-hop seems to have a very unique religious perspective. It has a root in Gospel, at the same time; it had a great influence of Nation of Islam and also had important support by Jewish people to become economically independent. I think this trait made it possible for Muslim people to fight the situation through hip-hop. The main thesis of hip-hop, I guess, is to do the right thing. This means to tell people the truth, removing all the inconsistency, with positive vibration.
Reading each report, I feel that Muslim are fighting their situation in America through hip-hop.

by Yuki Atsusaka

References

Madeline, D. (2010, August 17). Muslim American rapper growing up in post-9/11 America. Common Ground News Service.
Retrieved November 30, 2011, from
http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=28315&lan=en&sp=0

n.d. (2005, November 24). Muslim rappers combine beliefs with hip-hop. Associated Press.
Retrieved November 30, 2011, from
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/6576281/ns/today-entertainment/t/muslim-rappers-combine-beliefs-hip-hop/

n.d. (n.d.). 10 Most Successful Muslim Rappers. Islamoblog.
Retrieved November 30, 2011, from
http://islamoblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/10-most-successful-muslim-rappers.html

On December 11, COP 17 (the 17th Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change), which was held in Durban, South Africa ended with little outcome. Since Kyoto Protocol which requires developed nations to cut green house gas emissions will be expired by 2012, it was supposed to be made new framework to reduce green house gas emissions in this conference. (Actually, COP started negotiating new framework from several years ago, but it failed to settle in one conclusion.) However, they concluded that they will extend the Kyoto protocol with several revisions, and they will start a new framework which involves the U.S and China by 2020.

The most controversial issue among negotiating new framework was whether developing countries should have the responsibility to reduce emissions (Of course the involvement of the U.S was also controversial). Under the Kyoto protocol, the developing countries have no obligation to reduce emissions. However, since climate change, which probably caused by GHG emissions, has getting more visible and the necessity of cutting GHG has been growing, it is required to involve big developing countries such as China, India which do not have obligation so far but emitting many GHG. Responding to such requirement, China and India opposed to the new framework by saying that it would slow their economic growth. They also argued that since developed countries deteriorated worldwide environment, it is their responsibility to reduce it. So how can we make one solution?

To tell the truth, the amount of GHG emissions of countries, which have obligation under the Kyoto protocol, is only 26% of all emissions in the world. That means the much of GHG is emitted from other countries. Considering this situation, we cannot overlook the country which are emitting large amount of GHG without any obligation. But it is also true that a lot of developing nations are facing more severe environmental impact which is caused by GHG emissions. Developed nations have degraded the environment to grow its economy, and ironically developing nations have been facing more severe environmental damage than developed nations. We can stay without thinking about environmental effect from GHG emissions so much, however, some developing country are suffering from more environmental degradation such as sea water rising, which is threatening some whole nation, and sever climate change, which is spoiling its agriculture. Developing country is more vulnerable to environmental impact because of its weak economy and weak political system to tackle with. Therefore, we need to support them so that they can overcome these severe situations by offering knowledge and technologies, and of course we should have more responsibility to reduce GHG emissions to ease environmental degradation.

When the new framework is negotiated by 2020, the situation of world economy will be different from now days. It is possible that more developing countries will be a big economic country and have more impact on environmental degradation by emitting more GHG. It will be inevitable that such new big economical countries have obligation to reduce GHG emissions, however, developed country should have more obligation not just reducing more GHG but also supporting developing country by offering knowledge and technology so that we can create environmentally friendly country world widely.

by Shunsuke Ochi

Ernest Gellner (1983) defined nationalism as follows. “”Nationalism is primarily a political principle that holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent”. He argues nation or nationalism was invented merely because of a sociological necessity created by the birth of industrialisation. Since industrial economies continually make and put into practice technical and organizational innovations, rulers need homogeneous workers who share the same culture acquired by uniform education.

Likewise, Benedict Anderson (2006) argues nationalism or the sense of belonging to nation is just imagined. Nation is merely an imagined community, where people can feel the sense of unity with someone whom they will never meet. Nation was imagined as the movement to abolish the ideas of divine rule and monarchy, as well as the emergence of the printing press under a system of capitalism.

I apologise if I misled their arguments or my English above doesn’t really make sense, but I could find those books only in Japanese. Anyways, the important thing here is to recognise that nation or nationality is a modern creation (invention, imagination), thus it is not universal at all. I totally agree with those arguments. In Edo period of Japan, for example, no one would have recognised themselves as Japanese.

Nation or nationalism has been under severe criticism for a long time, since it has created horrible conflict between nations. Scholars tend to regarded nationalism as an inclusion of the people of the same culture, at the same time, an exclusion of the “different” people. For me, nationalism is not the best idea to represent a diverse range of people living within “nations”. However, liberal form of nationalism is necessary to maintain our democratic states (especially the welfare states). David Miller (1995) criticises both what he calls “conservative nationalism” and “radical multi-culturalism” and insists on the necessity of liberal nationalism. He argues that nation is a community comprised of people who wish to be self-determined politically. Individual identity is plural. For instance, I can call myself a Japanese person, but at the same time I am an Asian, a male, a baseball fan, a beer lover or whatever I wish to be. Nation is only one of those plural identities. What makes nation different from the other sources of identity is its political will to be self-determined. I agree with him in that without nation and nationalism, it will be much harder to achieve social justice (mainly redistribution of wealth) and individual liberty and the base of rights. Who would be willing to share the burden without common sense of unity?

In conclusion, we don’t have to blindly admire nation or nationalism, since it is a modern creation, invention or imagination. However, I think it is necessary to maintain liberal form of nationalism to some extent for our own sake. Probably.

by Yuki Sugiyama