2007.2,17
Recently I was shocked by the result of the "one-click opinion poll" in my blog (The Japanese version). A majority (about 55%)of the respondents chose "nuclear armament and abrogation of the Japan-US alliance".
It may be because many people clicked the first column which fell into their sight.
However, there are those who are using the nationalist feeling among a part of the pupulation.
So, I wrote a short thesis to caution such an emotional choice.
It deals with the discussion about the "multipolarization of the world",too.

Is Japan heading for a new wave of US-phobia?
February 11, 2007

Akio Kawato

The recent atmosphere in Japan worries me. Many books are published with such titles as “The Downfall of the US” or “Multipolarization of the World” or “The Proposal of Self-defense and Nuclearization.” Regardless of the political spectrum, right or left, voices are being raised expressing dislike or distrust of the United States. Many people are expressing suspicion about whether the US will really ensure Japan’s security in crises with North Korea or China, taking a risk of nuclear attacks on its own territories.

All security alliances are double-edged sword. In peace and prosperity only few murmur a word against it, but in crises junior partners begin to suspect the commitment by the senior partner. The former suddenly notices its subservience to the latter, and out of the feelings of humiliation starts seeking for “independence.”
However, is it really acceptable for us to put ourselves to emotion? If we do so, we might head down a path of suicide.

A question that remains is this: Can Japan alone single-handedly protect the prosperity and freedom of speech that it currently enjoys? We live in a world in which it is possible to export anything to anywhere at any time, and in which it is also possible to import anything that we might consider necessary. This has been the foundation for Japan’s prosperity.
However, such a world—the world of free trade—is not a natural construction. The United States, whose share of the post-war global economy has been between 50% and 20%, committed itself to the free trade system. It was this fact of the US commitment to free trade that served as the foundation for enabling the continuation of the free trade system throughout the 60 years of the post-war period. If free trade were to crumble, it is likely that the world would fall into conflicts similar to the period prior to WWII, when nations fought over resources and markets.

With political stability supported by a US alliance systems that encompass the entire globe, Southeast Asia and China, too, have achieved economic growth through exports to the US. All this caused a huge trade deficit for the US. The US Government, in response to this trade deficit, from time to time seeks to apply political pressure. But the World Trade Organization (WTO), which was established with a strong backing of the US, makes it difficult for the US to impose its own agenda at will.

Ultimately the dollars that exporting countries earned are channeled back to the US in the form of investment on stocks and bonds. It is in this way that the US and exporter countries have created a mutually supportive economy, founded on the principle of free trade. If we were to speak of the world economy in terms of a casino, the US could be said to be both croupier and bouncer.

However, recently all is not well, with the stability of Pax Americana being called into question. Following the September 11th, while the US has been preoccupied with what the American people perceive as a war of self-defense, it has bared a little too much ego for the liking of others, and doubts have emerged concerning whether it is appropriate for the US to act as “organizer” or “class monitor” in terms of global politics and economy. “Old Europe,” led by Germany and France have strengthened their assertiveness in the face of the US, and Russia too, which, feeling humiliated by the US following the demise of the Soviet Union, is now seeking to get its own back. Backed by the oil bonanza, Russia now is a consistent advocate of a “multi-polar” world. (I don’t know then why they still aspire get into WTO)

The US has concentrated all its energies in dealing with Iraq and Iran. This is due to the fact that in addition to its publicly stated stance on the war against terror and nuclear non-proliferation, unless the US maintains a firm grasp on the Middle East and with it the key to energy supplies, it faces the reality of losing its position as global superpower and organizer. If petroleum were to be provided not as a market commodity, but as something to be provided at the whims of leaders of oil producing countries, this would adversely impact and obstruct the principles of free trade and transparency of transactions. This would also be to the disadvantage of Japan, which cannot back its hand with armed force.

However, it is in this context that a mismatch occurs between the recognition of Japan and the US. Japanese people are convinced that whatever happens in the Middle East, if money is proffered it will still be possible to purchase petroleum. Thanks to the free trade structure that has prevailed for 60 years throughout the post-war period, Japanese people have become a nation of natural-born optimists.

So, Japanese interest and concerns lie in Asia. Concerns are primarily focused on the rising dragon that is China, and the nuclear missiles of North Korea. Increasingly there are voices welling up that are urging: “There is no guarantee the US will protect Japan from China’s nuclear arms. Japan should nuclearize!” or “Even if one North Korean missile landed in Japan it would mean the end for the country. Japan should nuclearize!”

The outcome of the Six-Party Talks with North Korea roused weariness of some Japanese, who believed that the US was shelving the nuclear issue in order to free its hands for possible intensification of activity in the Middle East.

For a long time after the war, many intellectuals and young people in Japan were critical and skeptical of their own country and their government. Now the tendency is for the number of people in support of “autonomous defense” to be on the rise. The free and prosperous society that Japan has succeeded in building can therefore be seen to be promoting a consciousness different from before, whereby people wish to protect their own country. The baby-boomers, who from now will be stepping back from the front-lines of society, are beginning to question what 40 years worth of their efforts have been for, and whether they have truly lived their lives in an independent country.

I admit that I as a diplomat had to witness unpleasant occasions where Japan had to act as a junior partner of the US. However, in the post-war period, was it not the Japanese people who first consciously and then unconsciously made the choice to depend on the US for a nuclear umbrella and defense from a large-scale attack, while pushing forward vigorously with economic development? Has the global situation really transformed to the extent that a change to the structure that has prevailed for the last 60 years is necessary? Before we plough forward in a quest for “independence,” I believe that the following issues require discussion.

- Is the US really facing ruin? Will the world really become multi-polar? While Europe and Russia may seem to be confronting the US, is it not always the case that at the last minute they usually fall back into line?
If the world is truly becoming “multi-polar,” then a wholesale revision of international organizations like the United Nations, International Monetary Fund (IMF), WTO, not to mention each country’s foreign and economic policies would be required.
However, the only developed nation in the world whose population is projected to continue to grow is that of the US. Add to that the consideration that nothing has changed from the reality that many countries of the world, including those of Europe, are in a relationship of economic mutual coexistence with the US.
The Iraq war is, for the US, its “own war,” following on from the War of Independence and the Pacific theater in WWII. It is therefore easy for ego to run wild. The time will undoubtedly come when the US remembers its role as “organizer” of global prosperity and stability as well as the fact that such a role is also of benefit to the US itself.

- Do US forces stationed in Asia really no longer act as a deterrent? China places priority on economic development and would not benefit from stoking bitter feelings among its neighbors or with the US. In the face of North Korea’s nuclear weapons, aren’t the nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, and the fighter jets possessed by the US 7th Fleet actually more than sufficient a deterrent?
At the beginning of the 1980s, following a fierce and protracted debate, West Germany approved the deployment on its territory of Pershing II intermediate-range nuclear missiles, under the management of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This was a retaliatory response to the intermediate-range SS20 missiles that the Soviet Union had deployed and aimed at Europe. In 1987 both sides concluded a disarmament treaty that provided for the total removal of intermediate-rage nuclear missiles by both sides. This is an option that is open to Japan.

- If Japan were to tell the US to leave, the US would do so. This is a sheer difference with the case of Russia, which still holds on to Japanese four tiny islands occupied by the Soviet forces after the war. However, the day after the US Forces had left Japan, could it not be possible that the US and China would conclude an alliance in the face of the “Japanese threat”? Since the time of Commodore Perry, China has been foremost in US thinking, with Japan as a variable in the equation.

- Would autonomous defense be possible without the Japan-US alliance?

- “Japan’s nuclearization” is easy to say, but the fact is that if Japan were to start enrichment of uranium for nuclear weapons, its supply of uranium would be cut off (this is one of the provisions of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT)) and this would result in the stoppage of Japan’s nuclear-powered energy generation capacity on which Japan depends for 40% of its energy requirements. Yet even if Japan were to not engage in uranium enrichment and instead develop nuclear weapons using plutonium of which it already possesses large amounts, such weapons would require testing and there is the issue of whether there is anywhere that could be used as a test site.

- In the event that Japan were to choose autonomous defense and nuclearization, would this not lead to the loss of the very things Japan seeks to protect, namely prosperity and freedom of speech? Would it also not cave in to numerous political demands under pressure from neighboring countries, thereby losing rather than gaining independence?
Once a direction is decided, the cohesive power of Japanese public opinion is tremendous. It would be pointless to resist. Watching the recent film by Clint Eastwood “Letters from Iwo Jima” I was struck by the fascist side of the pre-war Japanese society. In the film, call-up papers bearing a cheap postage stamp attached arrive at the home of a young couple who own a bakery in Saitama Prefecture. The wife who is nursing a baby breaks down in tears. The husband bites his lips. Then some members of the “Association of Patriotic Wives” come cheerfully to the door. The members are women from the neighborhood and are traditionally clad in garments that were typical of the day, saying, “Congratulations. At last your household has been called on to be of use to the nation.” As the wife cries out in anguish “My husband is irreplaceable! I won’t let him go!” the other women repeat what they have said, seeming to enjoy the suffering of the young and pretty woman, “Yours is the only house left in the town without someone who has gone to war. It is for our country that we do what we do…”

Soldiers in those days had to die in battle, being told he is “doing it for your family,” and “for your country.” He is mobilized by a government that was unable to prevent or quell unilateral actions by mid-ranking officers that brought about the Manchurian Incident and the war with China. While it is undeniable that Japan had been on the receiving end of pressure from colonial powers, it did not necessarily mean that Japan itself should transform into a colonial power. If Japan had not pressed China, which sought assistance from Japan after the devastation of the civil war in 1910s, into accepting the 21 Demands, and had instead raised the flag of “emancipation for Asia,” history may have turned out considerably differently.

Like the pre-war situation, modern Japanese society faces a reality in which the opinions of an extremist minority and emotion of the masses can easily prevail. The principle of supremacy of politicians over bureaucrats coupled with “bureaucrat bashing” for their privilege has resulted in emotional wavering in policy. Although the number of scholars involved in policy making has increased, they are not subject to the same kind of scrutiny bureaucrats face from the National Diet. The mass media place ultimate priority on increasing audience share or readership. Leading the public opinion from right to left or left to right the media weaves its own news agenda, taking no responsibility. More and more bureaucrats are departing their posts at a young age, and those that remain have lost guts needed to propose policies which might go against populist needs of the times. The Japanese government is thus losing consistency and drifting according to the currents of populism.

I do not feel that Japan is currently so cornered as to have to consider nuclearization and autonomous defense. There are many things we need to do before entering into such considerations.
Japanese society, which by global standards is still remarkably equal and free from disparity, is in the process of nurturing a form of democracy that is unique in the world. But the structures and mechanisms for such democracy are still insufficient. Rather than being drawn in by other Asian nations and regressing back to a situation resembling that of warring nation states in the 19th century, would it not now be far more useful to our security to develop our own form of democracy, that draws along other Asian nations in a cooperative trajectory?

The United States is not going to fall into ruin so easily. The other big powers have to deal with far more serious factors for instability than the US does.