The primary purpose of my visit to Japan was originally to give the major speech at today's peace-and-justice conference in Osaka. After the initial discussion, I was invited to visit for eight days, to meet with activists in several cities; then the invitation was extended to eleven days as more meetings and events were added to the schedule.

The Osaka conference was impressive in many respects: The number of organizations and range of issues represented; the sophisticated level of knowledge among the activists; the impressive parade of people to whom I was introduced in a makeshift reception room outside of the main hall; and the inclusion of cultural performances and skits as well as speeches.

The day was not without its uncomfortable moments for me. While I was onstage as part of a panel, a skit was presented in which the United States was placed on trial for terrorism. The first "witness" was the father of a victim of the September 11 attacks; the next "witness" was Nicaragua, testifying that the U.S. support of the contras amounted to terrorism. While I agree with that point, the presentation made me squirm for several reasons. I took the criticism a bit personally: Much as the performers didn't intended it that way, I am, after all, an American, and it feels very different to hear the criticism from people outside of my country. Second, it felt dismissive of the terrible nature of the September 11 attacks. I have no doubt that the people of Nicaragua suffered mightily, many died cruelly, and they continue to suffer today from the U.S. usurpation of their democratic choice of government. However, I cannot bring myself to equate the Reagan-era policies with the attacks of last September. This is not to say one or the other is more or less evil, but perhaps they are of a qualitatively different sort, and it may be inapt to lump them together.

Of course, not speaking Japanese, I have only the barest understanding of the skit. I've requested a copy of the script so that I may have it translated into English.

Another difficult moment came at the dinner following the conference. A Muslim activist who was selling books about the U.S. use of depleted uranium weapons during the Iraq war spoke at some length about her understanding of the treatment of Al Qaida captives at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Her perspective seemed to be unquestioningly pro-Muslim/anti-U.S., and some of the claims she made about torture of the captives and other matters seem pretty unlikely to be true. I felt it necessary to respond publicly to the impromptu speech she gave at the dinner, struggling to dispute some of her statements without being rude, in a country where disagreements must often be voiced in the most diplomatic of terms. As one who cannot be relied upon to hew to an America's-always-wrong line or to draw my politics primarily from anger, perhaps some will say I'm not the most appropriate representative of "the People's Republic of Berkeley," but there you have it.