Newsletter No. 511
News-Analysis
February 8, 2007

 

OZAWA JOINS THE ACT

Kyodo News is reporting comments of Ichiro Ozawa from the 6th in which the main opposition leader joined the debate on the Iraq War. His reported comments were as follows: “I would have told Mr. Bush, 'Don't do such absurd things' if I had been in the position [of prime minister]… It is fine to say 'we will cooperate,' but what I want to say is that you should clearly explain your own thoughts, such as 'we will cooperate because of this and that.' Don't make nonsense quibbles.”

Most of the Japanese opposition parties were opposed the Iraq War, and so in that respect Ozawa’s comments may be understandable. Also, Ozawa seems to be indicating that Tokyo should have made the political and rational basis of its Iraq support clearer, and should have defined some potential limits to that support. This is all very true.

Still, something grates about these latest comments by Ichiro Ozawa. There are about fifty valid criticisms that can be made about the LDP policy in Iraq, and yet Ozawa chooses one of the most intellectually dishonest arguments possible. It is his assertion about “what he would have done” in 2003 had he been prime minister that really rankles.

Ozawa was a major public figure in 2003. Where is his record of strong opposition to the war? Can’t he now document it?

I don’t believe that he can. It’s all good and fine to call the Iraq War “absurd” in 2007 when its failure is manifest, but where was he with these comments in 2003? I’m not aware of any major statement of his at the time when it really mattered. I was in Japan then, and I was giving public lectures opposing the US invasion of Iraq, which I can easily document. Some of my activities at that time were even reported in the local newspapers. Although most of the Japanese public was against any use of force, the political establishment -- minus the tiny SDP and JCP -- were either for the war or believed that they had “no choice” but to follow the American lead. As far as I can recall, Ozawa, like many others, was keeping a very low-profile at that time.

I suppose that it’s inevitable that 2007 will become the “Year of the Ex Post Facto Geniuses” as far as the Iraq War is concerned.

THE WAGES OF SERVITUDE -- FURTHER THOUGHTS ON THE LAPDOG ISSUE

In some of my spare moments, I have been thinking more extensively about Steven Clemons’ new analysis that Tokyo has acted like a “lapdog” to the United States, and I’ve also been thinking about how the US State Department officials were so quick to try to slap down Fumio Kyuma for his criticism of the failed war.

It was not so long ago that Tokyo’s silent obedience to Washington was being praised by the US establishment -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- as the sign that Japan had come of age. As the war began in March 2003, Tokyo beamed when President Bush made a personal phone call to Prime Minister Koizumi and saluted his “courage and friendship.” When the Japanese Diet approved the dispatch of the GSDF to Samawa, a senior US official gushed that, “Japan is emerging as a core player in the international community.” Indeed, it was being loudly proclaimed at that time that the only way for any country to show its “relevance” to the future security architecture of the international community was to participate alongside US troops in the Iraq adventure.

Tokyo bought into that message hook, line, and sinker. Anyone who questioned that message was looked upon -- at best -- as a hopelessly romantic peacenik with their head in the clouds.

Now we have US establishment figures like Clemons calling Japan “a lapdog of US interests.” In a similar vein, there have been comments on NBR’s Japan Forum calling Japan such things as “a pet robot.” Rather than “a core player in the international community,” Japan has gradually emerged as a marginal laughingstock, subjected to calls for total obedience by the Bush Administration, and denigrated as puppets and fools by the new legions of Iraq War critics.

So what went wrong for Tokyo? Basically, as Ozawa was hinting, they sold themselves too cheaply. They allowed their fears about North Korea and China to overwhelm their better judgment, and they were intimidated by the militant rhetoric of the Bush Administration. They also learned the wrong lessons from the Persian Gulf War of 1991, after having been beat on the head with it for a dozen years by US and Japanese conservatives. In essence, Japanese leaders psyched themselves out, and fell into the notion that they had “no choice” but to obey any of Washington’s more insistent demands.

As they should have foreseen, however, once they submitted themselves to this slave-psychology, there was no easy way out. Washington started to become used to the idea of automatic obedience from Tokyo, and so its list of demands gradually grew longer. This may not have been Washington’s initial intention, but since Tokyo was imposing no obvious price for its services, it simply became politically expedient to load up more and more demands. For their part, as each fresh demand was delivered, Japanese leaders once again nervously discussed the state of the US alliance, and convinced themselves anew that they had “no choice” but to submit again.

Washington wants us to “show the flag”? We have no choice but to send the Aegis.
Washington wants “boots on the ground”? We have no choice but to send the SDF to Samawa.
Washington wants us to extend the SDF mission? We have no choice but to do so.
Washington wants us to cut our links with Iran? We have no choice but to abandon Azadegan.

There has been no escape for Tokyo when once they first convinced themselves that America was all-powerful, and that they were virtually powerless. One of the world’s truly great powers has adopted the mentality of a banana republic.

If Tokyo is ever to put its house back in order, what is necessary is for Japanese leaders to take a more comprehensive look at their own national interests, and bring a new balance back to their foreign policies. Once they have completed that process, they need to articulate their positions clearly in Washington, and defend themselves and their interests like a sovereign nation should.

No one respects a sissy: Tokyo’s abject servitude has only invited increasing contempt -- even from those they have served so loyally.

---

Here is an interesting editorial that appeared in the Asahi Shinbun today:

CRITICISM OF IRAQ WAR

Foreign Minister Taro Aso has joined Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma in criticizing the George W. Bush administration's Iraq policy. Kyuma led off the attack late last month when he questioned the U.S. decision to invade Iraq in March 2003. "The United States went to war against Iraq on the assumption that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction," he said. "But that decision was wrong."

Then came Aso, who commented Saturday on Washington's Iraq occupation policy after the completion of major combat operations: "Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld executed the attack in no time, but its (occupation) operation was extremely naive."

Both remarks were made during public talks given by the ministers. While their tact may be debatable, we basically agree with what they said. We also believe the same feelings are felt not only in Japan, but also in many other nations. Even in the United States, criticism against Bush's Iraq war has become stronger. This became manifest in the midterm elections last November that gave the Democrats control of Congress.

In December, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group co-chaired by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Representative Lee H. Hamilton recommended a radical shift in Washington's Iraq policy, including troop withdrawal and greater diplomatic efforts. But Bush ignored the recommendations and announced a dispatch of more troops, causing his approval ratings to plunge to record lows.

European countries were critical of the Iraq war from the start. Massimo D'Alema, the Italian foreign minister and vice prime minister who was recently in Japan, voiced his nation's unequivocal disapproval of the war. Unlike the preceding administration that supported the war and sent Italian troops to Iraq, the current administration of Romano Prodi is anti-war to begin with. Although Italy remains an ally of the United States, Rome is pulling no punches in denouncing Bush's Iraq policy.

But what about Japan? Tokyo has been so preoccupied with justifying the dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces to Iraq in support of the Bush administration that it has continued to ignore the reality that Iraq is effectively in a state of civil war. By comparison, Kyuma and Aso are far more "frank." We might say that at least these ministers have finally responded to what many Japanese citizens have always felt.

The question, though, is how Prime Minister Shinzo Abe views the continued violence and bloodshed in Iraq. With his ministers of defense and foreign affairs now questioning U.S. policy, Abe owes the public an explanation of what he is thinking. We believe other Cabinet ministers should present their views on the Iraq war during Lower House Budget Committee deliberations. If they are ready to admit that the Iraq war was a mistake, the Cabinet should obviously reconsider its support for Bush's Iraq policy.

A special law to justify the dispatch of the SDF to Iraq will expire at the end of July. The government intends to take steps to extend this law during the current Diet session, but there is no point in debating this issue if the government is not even sure about its basic stance.

If Kyuma and Aso truly believe that the administration is on the wrong track, they ought to say so officially and start debating how Japan can help to end the Iraq war. But if they keep their remarks unofficial, Washington would naturally want to know what is really going on. U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney is scheduled to arrive in Japan on Feb. 20. We suggest that Kyuma and Aso speak their minds directly to Cheney.