It is a given fact that history cannot be rewritten. It would be an act of treason for a government to enter into a non-beneficial diplomatic, economic or any agreement with a former enemy. However, it would be impractical to ignore the economic benefits of a diplomatic agreement, particularly if it significantly impacts the countrys economy and its future. A governments action or decision must be weighed according to its costs or benefits, advantages or disadvantages. Thus when a nation enters into a diplomatic or military deal, one must consider the following question Are we not giving up our sovereignty or independence to a signatory nation
Every issue has its pros and cons. In regard to Australias controversial security pact with Japan, the following two articles present the pros and cons of this particular issue Pact With Japan Must be Welcomed published by the Courier Mail (2007 36) and For Some, Wounds Will Never Heal written by a former prisoner of war, Max Venables (2007 42). These two contrasting article argue whether Prime Minister Howard made a mistake in signing a security pact with the Japanese government. In order to weigh the pros and cons of this issue and to critique the contents and arguments of the two articles, it is important to apply Aristotles three rhetorical proofs ethos, pathos, and logos (Garver 1994).
Ethos
The first rhetorical proof first introduced by Aristotle is Ethos, an ethical appeal that establishes the authors or writers credibility or good character (Hyde 2004). Venables, the author of the article entitled For Some, Wounds Will Never Heal, was a former prisoner of war at Changi in Singapore. One interesting point about Venables credibility or good character is that he was not part of Australias circle of intellectuals when he wrote his article he was simply sharing his personal thoughts regarding the security pact between Australia and Japan by virtue of his reputation as a well-respected war veteran.
The title of Venables article itself states nothing could ever make him forget his first hand experiences in the hands of his Japanese captors during the Second World War that claimed the lives of his fellow combatants. Venables said that Australias Prime Minister Howards signing of the security agreement revived old memories. He stated that the Japanese soldiers who ran the Changi POW camp took his health, his dignity and his youth. He also spoke about his painful experiences as a former prisoner of war.
Venables was against the military agreement for several reasons. First, he argued that more than 60 years ago, the Japanese were enemies of Australia. He said that despite the normalization of Japan more than half a century since the Second World War, he could still see, hear, and smell a different Japan, a country that he couldnt trust. Venables banked on his credibility as a former Australian combatant who suffered in the hands of the Japanese soldiers. He described how his captors treated them as slaves for months. As prisoners of wars, Venables and his fellow prisoners worked on Singapore Islands at various jobs. They were forced to build the Changi airport and dig foxholes. At the age 21, he nearly died of starvation and sickness. He also mentioned that in 1943, 3500 men were on the brink of death due to famine and slave labor.
Venables message is that veterans like him who lived during the war and who suffered in the hands of their cruel Japanese captors were not yet ready to see their country dealing with a former enemy. This is the reason why veterans in Australia wanted an apology from Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in 2007 over Japanese war crimes (Taylor 2007).
The other article entitled Pact With Japan Must Be Welcomed was published by the Courier Mail (2007 36), one of the leading newspapers in Australia. The article seems to display a veneer of authority and relevance since it was written and published by a giant Australian newspaper company. Unlike Venables personal account, this article presents the position of a news organization that favored Australias signing of the controversial security deal with Japan. As an organization, Courier Mail detailed its arguments favoring the deal. It states that while the Australia-Japan security agreement could be discomforting for many Australias veterans, it should however be welcomed because it was just another step in the long normalization of Canberra-Tokyo relations.
There was nothing to fear, resist or resent, the Courier Mail claimed. To justify its position, it argued that the security deal was no more radical a step than the creation of mutual embassies in the early 1950s. It argued that the pact must be welcomed because it was simply like the Basic Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation established in 1976, or the Australian-Japan Partnership signed in 1995. It also spoke on the point of view of a news organization that Australia must be open to mutual agreements with other nations for the sake of economic cooperation and diplomatic relations.
Pathos
Another type of rhetorical proof is Pathos, which is used to persuade readers or listeners by appealing to their emotions (Rorty 1996 79). One of the most effective ways to convince or persuade other people is to appeal to their emotions (Rozakis 2004 166). In his article, Venables merely spoke about his first hand experiences as a former prisoner of war at Changi. His thoughts and views regarding the Australia-Japan military pact were confined to his painful memories as a Japanese captive more than fifty years ago.
Venables appeal to emotion is very obvious and dramatic. He was against the security agreement because he believed Australia was dealing with a former enemy that killed and enslaved his fellow World Ward II combatants. To appeal to his readers emotions, Venables recounted how the Japanese soldiers treated them. He mentioned about the cruelty, callousness and indifference he and his fellow combatants suffered in the hands of their Japanese captors.
We were starved, bashed, and very sick, Venables said. This, in essence, describes the vicious treatment they received from the Japanese soldiers. He also recounted how the more than 3,000 Australian combatants starved to death and how a Japanese soldier, who told him that if Singapore were invaded they would simply shoot them in the slit trench, ruthlessly treated him.
However, it would be unfair to accuse Venables of intentionally appealing to his readers emotions by simply recounting his painful experiences during the war. In fact, many Australian veterans shared their unforgettable stories about how the Japanese armies viciously treated their prisoners (Dodd and Richmond 1999 813 Logan, Logan and Reeves 2009112-113).
But Venables was not merely appealing to his readers emotions to make them understand how the veterans suffered in the hands of the Japanese soldiers, but to Prime Minister Howard as well. He said that he was not in favor of the idea of giving his country to anyone. He appealed to the Prime Minister, saying Australia can be a friend to any country without giving its heart away.
The author effectively made his case against the Australia-Japan security pact by appealing to his readers emotions. Who would not feel for the suffering of the families and the people who lost their loved ones in the Second World War As a former prisoner of war, Venables reminded the young Australians of the painful memories more than fifty years ago, and he did this by means of telling his personal story.
On the other hand, Courier Mails article did not appeal to the readers emotions in order to make a point. Instead this news organization used the power of reasoning to construct its own argument in favor of the Canberra-Tokyo deal.
This journalistic treatment by Courier Mail of the issue is understandable because the security deal is both political and diplomatic issue. The primary question this news organization addressed is the following Is it economically beneficial for Australia to enter into a security deal with Japan Hence, Courier Mail mainly argued the practicality of the agreement, which was beneficial to Australias economy and national security.
Logos
The third rhetorical proof is Logos, which appeals to objectivity, logic, math, and statistics to construct an argument (Kaufer and Butler 1996 83). Venables article mainly appeals to his readers emotions and not to logic, math, statistics, and objectivity to establish his opposition to the security deal.
This is the fundamental weakness of Venables argument, as he failed to support his disagreement with the Australia-Japan deal by employing a logical approach or argumentation instead of appealing to fear, pity and compassion. However, it is safe and fair to assume that the primary literary goal of Venables in writing his article is to remind Australia and Prime Minister Howard of the war crimes of Japan over half a century ago.
Furthermore, Venables neither used inductive nor deductive reasoning to validate his opposition to the bilateral security agreement. By employing either inductive reasoning (Nisbett 1993 70), which uses examples, and deductive reasoning (Schaeken 20001), which uses generally accepted propositions, to draw his conclusions, Venables would have been able to explain why there was a need for Australia to reject the deal. But this is not the case, as his built his entire argument around his first-hand experiences as a prisoner of war.
Meanwhile, Courier Mail used inductive reasoning by presenting historical examples, statistics, logic, and objectivity order to derive its conclusion that Australia must welcome the security agreement with Japan. While Courier Mail sympathized with the veterans, it held that the agreement would benefit Australia in the long run. It then mentioned historical examples in order to prove that the agreement was not a radical step that would surrender Australias sovereignty or nationhood to another country.
These historical examples include the creation of mutual embassies more than 50 years ago, the landmark Agreement on Commerce it signed with Japan, the Basic Treaty of Friendship, and the Australian-Japan Partnership it signed more than a decade ago. Courier Mail also argued that these diplomatic steps had greatly contributed to the development of Australia-Japan multi-layered diplomatic partnership centered on economic trade and cultural exchanges.
Courier Mail also gave mathematical and statistical examples in order to support its claim that the security deal would benefit Australia economically. It stated that Japan is the largest importer of Australian products. For example, Japan imported about 20 percent of all Australian products, which amounted to over 35 billion, in 2006 alone. It also reasoned out that Australias trading relationship with Japan is worth 54 billion annually. Thus this means that for more than 50 years since the Second World War, Japan played an important role in Australias economy.
Another logical and objective reason adduced by the Courier Mail was the need to maintain its peacekeeping efforts with Japan, which is a key Asian ally in the global fight against transnational terrorism. Most importantly, it explained that the real enemy in the last world war was not racial but ideological. It is true that the last global conflict was primarily motivated by differing ideologies. This is because ideology became the key component feeding the clashing nations and causing eternal hostilities (Kaldor 2000 53).
The fundamental message of the Courier Mail in favoring the security pact is for Australia to move forward. It argued that more than half a century since the last global conflict, both Australia and Japan have come to share common western values tolerance, pluralism, democracy and freedom.
Critique
History has it that the Empire of Japan was one of the key players in the last world war (Finger 2002 99 Reiber and Spencer 2008 173). However, history also has it that Japan lost two of its main citiesHiroshima and Nagasakiafter the United States decided to use its secret weapon atomic bomb (Kort 2007 199 Large 1998 141). Also after the war, Japan paid for its war crimes in terms of massive reparations and peace treaties (Li 2003 16). Hence, there is a need to understand that the last world war was ideological, which was clearly pointed out by Courier Mail.
The fundamental flaw of Venables reasoning is that he regarded the last global conflict as something that was primarily motivated by race, and this is the reason why he still considered Japan as Australias enemy. But this was clearly addressed by the article of Courier Mail, which argued that the war was motivated by an evil ideology. After it was defeated, along with Germany and Italy, Japan paid dearly for its war crimes and learned how to cooperate and deal with other nations like Australia. Both Australia and Japan became economic allies from 1952 up to the present, and this relationship was bolstered by the signing of the security deal in 2007 (Rix 1999 99 Medeiros 2008 44).
Courier Mails article substantially provided logical reasoning to its claim that there was a need to embrace the Australia-Japan security agreement. On the other hand, Venables simply relied on emotional appeal to persuade his readers that Australia should not deal with a former enemy. There is no doubt that Venables had the credibility to speak about the atrocities of the Japanese Empire, but logic tells us the Japanese people of today should not be blamed for the mistakes and crimes of their ancestors.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment