Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, 2016. Mcs1 Jay M. Chu Zuma Press/PA Images. All rights reserved.When US president Donald Trump issued his executive order on 27 January, halting the admission of refugees for 120 days and banning the entry of nationals from seven Muslim countries, it sparked protests and boycotts across the country. A number of heads of states came forward to condemn the action, including the chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel, the Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau, and even the British prime minister Theresa May who initially refused to denounce the ban.
One of the notable exceptions was Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe who, when questioned on the subject in the National Diet on 30 January, answered: “I’m not in the position to comment, but the international community should cooperate in dealing with the issue of refugees”. The lacklustre statement was a stark reminder not only of Japan’s stance towards refugees (or absence of it), but also of the country’s peculiar sense of indifference and withdrawal from any and all issues purportedly requiring “international effort”.
We live in a world where forced migration has become a defining feature. The number of the forcibly displaced reached 6.53 million at the end of 2015: one in every 113 people is now a forced migrant. But Japan’s presence in the realm of human rights, particularly in relation to forced migration, is meagre. In 2016, Japan received 10,901 asylum applications. Only 28 of these were accepted — 97 were given permission to stay on “humanitarian grounds”. The country often attempts to compensate for its lack of action through financial contributions, as seen in Abe’s pledge to provide emergency aid worth 1.5 billion USD for refugees (announced at the UN General Assembly in September 2015); it was not too long ago that Japan was accused of “chequebook diplomacy” during the Gulf War. Even in the realm of immigration, Japan’s stance is mired in hypocrisy. For example, the Japanese government continues to insist that it is accepting “foreign workers”, not “immigrants”. It is adamant that accepting “foreign workers” does not constitute an immigration policy.
