Newsletter No. 1425
News-Analysis
July 31, 2009

 

THE RETURN OF THE HATOYAMA FOLLIES

The most likely result of the general elections that are coming in exactly a month’s time is that Yukio Hatoyama, the new president of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), will become the next prime minister of Japan. Not so long ago, it had appeared that this honor would descend upon DPJ strongman Ichiro Ozawa, but a still-murky campaign finance scandal ripped away what was likely to be Ozawa’s last chance to hold the highest office.

The gap between a Prime Minister Ozawa and a Prime Minister Hatoyama is not a small one, and the difference should be appreciated. The fundamental difference is that Ozawa is strong and cunning, while Hatoyama is weak and indecisive. Over the past few days, we may have gained a glimpse of some serious problems to come.

Under the leadership of Ichiro Ozawa from April 2006 to May 2009, the congenitally factious DPJ was showing unexpected signs of unity and common purpose. With the exception of Seiji Maehara and his colleagues who dislike Ozawa for personal reasons, both left and right of the DPJ seemed comfortable with the Ozawa dictatorship. In part, this seems to be because the policies adopted by Ozawa gave each party constituency something that it wanted. The left was given the open demand for independence from Washington and the prospect of a new Japanese foreign policy based on the United Nations. The right was given hope that Japan may become more assertive in the deployment of military forces—so long as these missions were explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council. For the most part, Ozawa’s foreign policy formula seemed to work as far as maintaining party unity was concerned.

Yukio Hatoyama, however, does not have the same skillful touch as his predecessor, and he is already in danger of taking the DPJ back to the bad old days before Ozawa had whipped the party into shape.

The recent double-reversal on the MSDF Indian Ocean mission is case in point. For several years the DPJ, under Ichiro Ozawa’s firm leadership, made the case that this military mission—because it was not explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council—was unconstitutional and must be ended immediately. In August 2007, Ozawa went toe-to-toe with US Ambassador Thomas Schieffer on this very issue, greatly annoying many American government officials with his frontal attacks on US policy.

Yukio Hatoyama, however, decided in recent weeks that this long-held position should be quietly scrapped and that the DPJ should effectively embrace the position held by the current government. Not only did Hatoyama stop calling for the immediate withdrawal of the MSDF mission, but hints were dropped that the mission might even be extended beyond its current January deadline. In part, this change related to the fact that Barack Obama is a less objectionable US leader than George W. Bush; it also related to the concern among DPJ conservatives that their party’s position on the Indian Ocean mission is not “realistic” and would only serve to antagonize Washington. No doubt, US officials have also been quietly advancing this view in their discussions with DPJ leaders.

While the political rationale behind Hatoyama’s shift in favor of the status quo was comprehensible, he seems to have miscalculated the response from the left—to which his new position essentially offered nothing at all. The most vocal response came from Social Democratic Party (SDP) leader Mizuho Fukushima, who is expected to be an important DPJ coalition member in the next administration, but it is easy to imagine that liberals within the DPJ itself were also unhappy to the shift toward an entirely conservative foreign policy line.

Buffeted by critics from the left, Hatoyama quickly retreated, telling Fukushima as early as the morning of the 28th that his prospective administration would, in fact, phase out the MSDF Indian Ocean mission in the latter half of this year.

Problem is, Hatoyama seems to have utterly failed to coordinate this policy retreat with the DPJ conservatives who had originally recommended the turn to “realism.” Now it is they who are left grumbling and dissatisfied about the quick turnabout in party policy and the supposedly-malign influence of the tiny SDP.

It would be easier to dismiss Hatoyama’s ham-handed leadership in this matter were it not for the fact that he has a track record of this exact same kind of behavior.

It just so happens that Yukio Hatoyama was the leader of the DPJ at the time of the September 11 attacks in 2001. Then, too, he acted schizophrenically and ineptly as he tried to maneuver between the DPJ’s left and right. Hatoyama at first declared his opposition to the Special Measures against Terrorism bill, which authorized the MSDF mission to the Indian Ocean. However, after that bill became law, he then turned around and provided support to the government’s MSDF mission plan, arguing, “The dispatch of the SDF this time does not violate Article Nine of the Constitution… Our Constitution stipulates that Japan will not wage wars of aggression, but can maintain forces for wars of self-defense… We will not stand in the front lines, but lending support to those who do is provided for within the limits of the Constitution.” The twenty-eight members of the DPJ who opposed Hatoyama’s conservative line in a Diet vote were punished by the party leadership. Then-DPJ Vice-President Takahiro Yokomichi, the leader of the party’s liberal element, was among the rebels, and he was suspended from his leadership post.

It was precisely this kind of ineptitude that led to Yukio Hatoyama’s resignation as DPJ leader in December 2002. That is why it is doubly troubling to see how Hatoyama is behaving at the current juncture. Has he learned anything at all from his past mistakes? Is this the kind of thing that we should expect to see from a Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama after the August 30 elections? If so, DPJ rule could turn out to be much shorter than expected.

THE YOMIURI’S CRITIQUE FROM THE RIGHT

I have been offering a critique of the DPJ from the left. You may compare and contrast it with the Yomiuri Shinbun’s critique from the right.

DPJ's Troubling Stand on Refueling Mission
Yomiuri Shinbun
July 31, 2009

How should the nation deal with the threats posed by North Korea's nuclear weapons and missiles as well as acts of international terrorism? How can Japan's national interests be protected while this nation works in tandem with international society? We hope political parties will hold animated discussions on what course Japan's diplomatic and security policies should take, during their campaigns for the upcoming House of Representatives election.

At the moment, the topic on many observers' lips is the Self-Defense Forces' refueling mission in the Indian Ocean. In a recent moderation of its foreign and security policy, the main opposition Democratic Party of Japan announced a plan to continue, for the time being, the refueling mission, which the party once decried as violating the Constitution. However, DPJ leader Yukio Hatoyama said Wednesday his party would not extend the mission once the new Antiterrorism Law expires in January. We find the party's fickle response to this important mission hard to fathom.

Why did the DPJ decide to continue the operation for the time being if it believes it violates the Constitution? If the party withdraws the Maritime Self-Defense Force from the Indian Ocean, just what does it plan to contribute to the international fight against terrorism? Does it plan to do nothing at all? The DPJ has a responsibility to provide clear answers to these questions.

Afghanistan Proposal Weak

In 2007, the party submitted to the Diet a counterproposal to the ruling bloc's antiterrorism bill. The DPJ's alternative plan called for providing humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan after a formal ceasefire has been reached in the war-torn country. The grim reality, however, is that there is absolutely no prospect of such an accord being signed. The upshot is that the DPJ proposal practically means that Japan would sit on its hands and offer nothing to the international fight against terrorism. Given that, the proposal is unlikely to be warmly supported in foreign capitals.

The DPJ proposed in its manifesto that Japan will share roles with the United States and proactively fulfill its responsibilities to build an "equal Japan-U.S. relationship." The expression "equal relationship" suggests the DPJ intends to back away from the path trodden by the Liberal Democratic Party and New Komeito, which it claims have been content to follow the lead of the United States. The DPJ manifesto says the party plans to propose to the United States that the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement be revised and the realignment of U.S. forces stationed in Japan be reviewed.

But if the DPJ is serious about bringing these pledges to fruition, it must explain what international responsibilities it plans to fulfill. Failure to do so will sink any hopes the party has of building an "equal relationship" with the United States.

Adapting to the Real World

On the other hand, the party offered forward-looking pledges on the antipiracy mission off Somalia and cargo inspections that form part of the international sanctions imposed on North Korea. These steps indicate the DPJ is open to taking a more realistic approach to foreign and security policy matters.

But we have some niggling doubts, not least the party's plan to form a coalition government with the Social Democratic Party, which opposes the dispatch of SDF personnel on overseas missions. Will the DPJ be able to continue the MSDF antipiracy mission despite the SDP's objections?

The right to collective self-defense is another key issue. The LDP plans to incorporate this subject in its election pledges. We welcome this move.

The LDP's election pledge will be based on a proposal by a panel of experts led by former Ambassador to the United States Shunji Yanai. The pledge is expected to state that the government will review its interpretation of the right to collective self-defense, which, according to the government, the nation possesses but is prohibited from exercising under the Constitution.

The threats posed by North Korea amplify the need to strengthen the Japan-U.S. alliance. Exercising the nation's right to collective self-defense will be an important step to achieving this goal.