Newsletter No. 1432
News-Analysis
August 4, 2009

 

DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLEDGES TO THINK FOR ITSELF

Speaking to the media yesterday, DPJ Secretary-General Katsuya Okada stated that Japan’s foreign policy has been based on “obedience to Washington” and that his party thinks that it is time for change. Okada observed, “It’s like Japan hasn’t had its own diplomacy, or its own opinions… There were large changes in US policy positions, but it was as if Japan was saying ‘either way is fine.’” In a similar vein, party leader Yukio Hatoyama recently told the Mainichi Shinbun: “The DPJ places top priority on the Japan-US alliance. In line with this policy, we need to promote diplomacy so that Japan won’t just rely on the United States.” In short, DPJ leaders are returning to former leader Ichiro Ozawa’s demand that the US-Japan alliance must be a partnership of equals. Put yet another way, the DPJ is pledging that if they take control of the government at the end of this month, they will think for themselves.

Kiichi Fujiwara, a professor at the University of Tokyo and a prominent liberal commentator, seems to be welcoming the expected arrival of the DPJ. He tells the Mainichi that he expects the DPJ to move forward with a more Asia-friendly diplomacy: “I think there are few people in the DPJ who want to become involved in historical problems, but rather than doing something after being accused by China or South Korea, taking the initiative can earn trust, and will result in Japan having a concrete framework placing emphasis on Asia.”

Fujiwara also notes: “Since the end of the war, diplomacy has been about Japan-US relations and East Asia, and there has been only extremely narrow debate. As a world power, Japan has a responsibility to create international order. Japan can’t say, ‘The Middle East? That’s nothing to do with us.’”

Ready or Not

There’s plenty of evidence, however, that American policymakers aren’t really prepared for a Japanese government that might talk back at them. They much prefer to tell the Japanese what their “responsibilities” consist of, and then “expect” them to follow through.

I was very annoyed by an essay I read in the latest issue of The Oriental Economist, a monthly subscription newsletter on Japanese politics and economy, written by “alliance manager” Michael Green. According to Green, the DPJ manifestoes of 2005 and 2007 were written “to appease the left wing of the party” and signify little more than political noise. Green declares that the DPJ will continue to pursue “reluctant realism” (his favorite phrase) and will come to understand the limitless wisdom of US policy once they confront the hard realities of actual governing. He asserts that should the DPJ have the temerity to demand revisions of the agreements on the basing of US troops in Japan or bring about end the MSDF Indian Ocean mission, this “would provoke a bilateral crisis if implemented.”

Among the “alliance managers” in Washington, there is very clearly an attitude that says, “We don’t care who the Japanese people elect, just don’t bother us with your problems—shut up and accept your alliance responsibilities (as we define them).” Michael Green’s essay in The Oriental Economist is quite typical of this attitude.

What Must Be Done

Although Michael Green’s imperial condescension drives me up the wall, there is one point about which he is probably correct: There is a reasonably strong chance that—the latest DPJ declarations notwithstanding—the expected Hatoyama administration may indeed return to a more conservative line some months after it takes power. Indeed, we’ve already seen this movement happening in recent weeks—although the left was able to beat it back for now.

Read again what Katsuya Okada said in the first paragraph of this Newsletter—that Japan hasn’t even had its own opinions on foreign policy for decades. Fujiwara talks about an “extremely narrow debate” obsessed only with the United States and East Asia, and without any sense of responsibility toward the global order or the rest of the world. Of course, these comments are somewhat exaggerated, but we have observed in many contexts in the Shingetsu Newsletter that these criticisms are substantially true; Japan has been a genuine global power, but with a backwards and immature political psychology.

Why on earth should the idea that the Japanese government think for itself sound so revolutionary? This is—literally—a No Brainer!

So while I certainly welcome the DPJ leaders’ proclamations that they will henceforth make their own policies and will not be content to play the role of a cipher for Washington, I’m also concerned that there is no institutional basis for this change of policy.

Earlier this year, I had an opportunity to sit down with a DPJ lawmaker who is part of their foreign policy team. I asked him what institutional resources—other than MOFA—his party would draw on in order to formulate their foreign policies, should they win the general elections. His answer was very clear: None at all. He declared, “The Foreign Ministry is the best think tank,” and said that the DPJ would have use for no other. Frankly, I was shocked by his response. He went on to explain that the quality of Japan’s bureaucracy was very high and that the DPJ would have no trouble at all in setting out a new foreign policy direction. He believed that if the political leaders made their own independent decisions and gave firm orders to the bureaucrats, then they would cheerfully carry out the orders of their new masters. I was skeptical then—and now—about his sanguine view of this matter. Those who supply (or withhold) information are exercising a real form of power.

It seems to me that unless the new DPJ policy direction is institutionalized in some way, then it is not destined to last for very long, and the path of least resistance will again become the order of the day.