Does Japan have a “strategy”?
　　(A Part of my Book “What is diplomats’ job like?”)　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　
　　　　　　　 　　2005,10
Akio Kawato
People frequently ask whether Japanese diplomacy has a strategy or comment that Japanese diplomacy is dependent on the US. There are times when I too get carried away by my emotions and say things without giving thorough thought. However, is it that simple? Can we really be so sure?

A strategy can also be likened to a mid- to long-term action plan for achieving one’s goals and assuring benefits. Countries with the ability to steer what goes on in their countries and in surrounding areas are able to have a pretty consistent strategy. Countries which lack this ability can only try to keep up with the changes taking place in their countries and in surrounding areas. Even with this wait-and-see policy if countries can at least maintain their independence, this in itself is an outstanding strategy.

As a result of its defeat in the war, the road to political and military expansion of Japan came to a halt. And the policy and indeed a strategy of then Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida—ensure security through the Japan-US Security Treaty and defense capability and focus on economic and social development—to date has continued unbroken with the vast support of the people of Japan. In the economic domain, although Japan at times was squeezed as during the yen’s appreciation after the Plaza Accords in 1985, if we think about how many US companies have gone down due to torrential exports from Japan and, moreover, how the current Japanese society has reached a peak in terms of income levels, freedom, and culture, we can fairly say that Japan’s post-war strategy was a success.

And in terms of diplomacy, Japan has been slowly but steadily taking initiatives which are its own and not guided by the US. Take the example of the “Fukuda Doctrine” that was announced on the occasion of then Prime Minister Takeo Fukuda’s visit to Southeast Asia in 1977 following the anti-Japanese demonstrations. The large official development assistance (ODA) packages and subsequent direct investments from Japan that ensued greatly aided the economic development of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries as well as contributed to the integration of ASEAN and the accession of former Indochina countries into ASEAN including Viet Nam. In August 2004, during her visit to Central Asia, then Minister for Foreign Affairs Yoriko Kawaguchi ascertained Japan’s position to assist Central Asian countries’ efforts to join hands for development. Its underlying strategy was to repeat the successful case of ASEAN in Central Asia.

Difficulty for democratic nations to have a consistent strategy
That said, it is still difficult for a democratic nation to pursue a consistent strategy. The reason is because public opinion on mid- to long-term goals and the method for realizing these goals is rarely united and is constantly going back and forth.

Because Japan has a parliamentary cabinet system and not a presidential system in which leaders are selected directly by the people, it has been thought that the prime minister’s power is relative. However, in August 2005, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi dismissed the Cabinet ministers who opposed his policies, even going so far as to dissolve the Diet. The prime minister can thus exert tremendous power if he is so inclined. The same also goes for diplomacy. Nevertheless, if the prime minister takes the discretion to ignore the voices of opposition and proceed with all outstanding issues ranging from the dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) to Iraq, the bid to win a permanent seat on the United Nations (UN) Security Council, the Northern Territories issue with Russia, the issue of Japanese people abducted by North Korea, to the issue of free trade agreements (FTAs), he will have more people against him and will lose his ability to lead the nation and eventually his rule. That is why many matters must be coordinated and solved at lower levels of the government, below the prime minister. In doing so the result tends to be elusive outcomes and a not so striking “strategy.” If you ask whether we would be much better off changing to a presidential system, the answer is not really; it is only a matter of degree. As long as it is a democratic country, a leader has less and less opportunities to make a discerning decision in a single sweep.

As the economy grows larger, government influence becomes relatively smaller. Whether it be a president or a prime minister, the leader of a developed nation with democracy has no power to decide the interest rate or instruct a corporate merger or the direction of direct investments. In highly-developed societies, labor unions and other interest groups have weakened, and therefore, politicians have no choice but to call on each and every person through the mass media. As a result, an imperfect populism is spreading across the world in which politicians try to gain the support of the people through TV appearances, even through performances without any substance.

It is dangerous to use diplomacy in popular politics. Humans are easily swayed by their emotions, and once adverse sentiments are kindled between countries, the situation will lead to war without control. A time when everything moves towards catastrophes no matter what you do or say is prevalent in international relations, or rather in the entire face of this earth. This was the case in World War I. So was the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Paradigm shift
--- Will the framework of “state” disappear?
I have debated diplomacy time after time. But if the framework of state disappears, there will neither be diplomacy nor diplomats. If government standing is declining relatively in today’s democratic societies in developed countries, could states also not disappear at some point in time? If we really think about it, is it not futile for states to go on arguing vehemently and debating about the responsibility of war or trade surplus? Countries like the US, China, Russia and India are multiethnic countries that go beyond the domain of nation states. It appears that Western Europe, the founders of nation states, developed their grouping into a larger configuration by forming the European Union (EU).

It is true that there is not one thing in this world that is unchangeable. Even the partition of Berlin which seemed everlasting when I was working in Bonn had become a thing of the past just seven years later. The enormous bloc, the Soviet Union, also abruptly disappeared in front of my eyes. But nor do I think that states across the world will disappear that easily and thereby form a “world state.” Those in the leadership ranks of a country will not simply hand over their powers to others. Even among the EU, member countries are still pursuing their own separate political and diplomatic agendas. Then there is the language barrier. Even if Japan, for instance, were to unite with the US or China, the union will not work given their language differences. Even if one attempts forcibly to merge two nations together, there is no other way to do this than for one of the two to govern the other.

Perhaps it is best if Japan adopts a two frontal tactic, or more like a one point five frontal tactic, assessing the trends of the powers of governments across the world and at times arming itself with a supranational framework, under the basic premise that the current world structure will continue for the time being. For instance, if Japan can get the US to participate in the “East Asian community,” which is currently the central topic of discussions, this will provide a big window for Japan to maintain its voice at a high level in Asia.

What should we do for the time being?
Aside from various debates on the current situation in Japan and the direction it is headed towards, it appears to me that youths in Japan are energetic and give serious thought into their futures and the future of the country than ever before. Is this because the so-called “lifetime employment at major corporations” lifestyle model collapsed and there is now more room for individuals to make decisions regarding their own lives by thinking for themselves, in their own right and according to their own liking? It may well be that the fact that the baby boom generation is nearing retirement and that the younger generation is going to bear a heavier burden of pension payments is in turn encouraging them take on a more serious attitude towards participation in politics. While on the one hand the youths are enjoying the freedom and high living standards of Japanese society, it also appears that they are increasingly conscious about protecting the positive elements of Japan amid great changes in the balance of powers in Asia.

A strategy exists not for the sake of satisfying the egoism of the elites engaged in international relations. What ought to be our strategy is to maintain for as long as possible a society like the one in Japan today that has achieved a pinnacle in some respects, and at the same time, help other countries enjoy a good living. Then what is it that we must do now in pursuing this strategy?

First, the abilities of diplomats must constantly be enhanced and they must match the needs of the times. Diplomats are still vital. I am sure some people might think that diplomats are not reliable, that these people would do a better job getting foreign countries to understand more about Japan. However, it will probably never be the case that they will smoothly grasp the reality of diplomacy, saying, “Oh yeah, now I understand.” They will be adulating and flattering; as a result no matter how good their explanation may be, the same requests are likely to be made over and over again. We need civil servants who are solely in charge of diplomacy. But we have to continuously be building up their qualifications. For instance, in this day and age, it is a must that Japanese diplomats fulfill at least one post in Asia and master at least one major Asian language. I am not saying that Japanese diplomats must abandon Westernism and shift towards Asia; the youths in Asian countries including Japan have gradually been making Western individualistic and rational sense of values their own.

There were many Japanese diplomats who studied law as they are expected to operate the law strictly in what has been Japan’s diplomatic tradition since the 19th century. But now we should employ more human resources who have the insight to change legal frameworks in response to the needs of the times – although this would be hard to do through the subject areas currently tested in the civil servant exams. Furthermore, diplomats should make more appearances in mass media to explain policies in comprehensible ways, while the taboo on “bureaucrats to identify their names and faces” should be relaxed.

Secondly, the issues over the Pacific War need to be re-sorted in our own mindsets, as well as between Japan and other Asian countries. Many Japanese are frustrated as they believe that the war was in fact a fight among the world’s colonial imperial powers and yet Japan was made the villain only because it lost the fight. In Asian countries, on the other hand, people are urged to review their entire past in their own light, reflecting the advancement of their political sense underpinned by economic development. This has prompted their attempts to seek apologies from Japan and rehash the issues of compensation, although such issues have already been legally settled.

These issues may lose their significance once 2005 is over, the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II. But wouldn’t we fail to regain our moral backbone unless we put our mindset in order by clearing the notion that still twinges our conscience, that we have been going after money too much, while keeping a lid over the issue of how to evaluate the war?

Next, diplomacy with Asia will grow more important than ever from now on. Yet this does not mean we can put our ties with the US in the second tier while devoting our entire body and soul to “Asia.” The US has a great presence in Asia in every aspect – politics, economy, military and culture. That serves as the greatest block against China taking Asia by storm, or attempt to restore China’s traditional ruling system in which neighboring countries were subordinates of China in return for security and trade.

I have no antagonistic feelings towards China and am truly glad to see Chinese people enjoying a better life. But as an ally I prefer the US because it is more adept as a partner in terms of protecting the freedom and democracy which have taken root in today’s Japanese society.

Although Japan’s diplomacy is criticized as being too obedient to the US, there is great room for Japan to pursue its own initiatives. Rarely in the past has Japan made any proposals or suggestions to the US. As for suggestions related to security issues, the opposition parties at home would be quick to use them as bargaining tools at the Diet. As for economic issues, the Ministry of Finance would shun them as additional fiscal burdens. Thus no proposals could be made even if the government wanted to. Outside Japan it was seen as “a country unable to think for itself.” During my assignment in Boston, I gave a speech and was asked a rude question like, “So Japan wants to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Even if it does, what can it do?”

Now, many opposition parties have turned to more flexible approaches on security issues. This allows Japan to make more suggestions to the US and comment on their policies. If Japan makes such moves public in ways so the US would not lose face, the world’s evaluation of Japan would change gradually. If Japan and the US join hands under the banners of freedom, democracy and economic prosperity, that would generate strong moral attraction in Asia. But a Japan-US alliance based merely on power and lacking in such values would be isolated in Asia, making Japan the target of scorn and hate as America’s sole bridgehead in Asia.

If we allow ourselves to be carried away by our emotions and yell how we do not want to side with either the US or China, that it only humiliates Japan and that Japan will opt for the path of a permanently neutral country, then we should ask ourselves who at all will guarantee this “permanent neutrality” and who will protect Japan once it faces excessive demands from the US or China. Then we realize that there are no god-like guardians on earth who would do this. Another option of “living as the balancer or a mediator between the US and China” does sound beautiful and appear to be possible at a glance. But this would crumble away in a second once the US and China tie up to make demands on Japan.

That poignant Zbigniew Brzezinski amusingly noted in his book entitled “XX” that Japan had no choice but to “opt for independent-defense with nuclear armament.” But he appears to miss a point that if the US loses Japan and the right to use military bases in Japan in particular, the US will see far limited room to exercise its power in Asia. Even if the US could create a troop that can instantly launch campaigns without any need for a base abroad, the troop would still face difficulty in operations in an unfamiliar area.

“Independent-defense with nuclear armament” would not be a perfect answer for Japan either. The SDF, that represent Japan’s current armed capability would be short of protecting Japan’s mainland over the long term. We can pour money into boosting the force at the risk of empowering the military authorities as in the pre-war past. Yet the problem of nuclear weapons would remain. Even if we were to take the bold step and resort to nuclear armament, we, in our small land, would still remain more vulnerable to nuclear attacks than large countries. France and the UK try to make up for their smallness by possessing nuclear missiles that can be launched from submarines. But both countries basically rely on the overwhelming nuclear power of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which essentially is the nuclear power of the US. Even if the missile defense system that would allow the interception of enemies’ missiles is completed, that would not be the trump card for Japan’s “independent-defense” because that technology is being developed jointly by Japan and the US. Moreover, a single failure of attack by such missiles would cause devastating damage.

Japan can contribute more to the construction of the world
Today, international conflicts are said to be centered around ideologies such as capitalism, democracy, Islam or Christianity. But isn’t it the most basic human sentiments such as greed and jealousy that lie at the bottom of these conflicts? Anti-US sentiments are said to be roaring in Muslim countries. But it could be assumed that these moves may be fanned by elites of these countries, who call for the protection of their tradition, for fear that the foundation of their power and interests will be eroded by democratization that is promoted by the US. It also appears that the general public of these countries actually like the US but repel it as they believe that the US takes all the fortune while giving no regard to help them. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who became President of Iran in 2005, said in his book entitled “XX” that he could not forgive the US that kept its wealth only to itself and made no attempt to help others. The nationalistic movements in these countries can be seen as representing their hurt pride being taken out on the US for its wealth–although the aftermath of the hurricane in New Orleans shows that life in the US is not that easy–and the nationalism [in the Islamic sphere] would not lead to any dangerous direction once their living condition improved.

The same can be observed in the former Soviet bloc. There, people are still bound to the old habit of seeking a better life by sharing what they have at hand instead of aiming for development. Those who seek wealth by means of investment are exposed to critical eyes of their neighbors and authorities. It is also difficult to seek growth in the manufacturing sector, as the market has already been seized by the technology, marketing and brand powers of Western companies. Seeing no growth in the private economy sector, people turn to the government for security. Then the government turns to companies to exploit the needed funds. All that hampers the transition to a market economy, while people tend to fall in the zero-sum belief that if some get rich, others get poor, and so that the wealth of the rich should be shared by all.

If we go east of Europe to the Eurasian Continent, there spreads an area that can be dubbed a “vicious cycle of greed.” The area is dominated by jealousy, envy, conspiracies and scrambles for wealth, making it hard to enlarge the scale of the overall economy. If we exaggerate we can say that the world appears to have split into countries that produce and those that share. The borderline between the two is nearly identical to the line dividing the Islamic and Christian spheres, and also the one dividing capitalism and communism. In these contexts, religious fundamentalism functions as the vehicle to transfer income from the rich to the poor, as Marxism once did.

Japanese people do not have a strong sense of affiliation with any particular religion. This enables Japan to pacify Christianity and Islam that set out from the same trunk of the tree and yet have fallen in unnecessary antagonism against each other. And Japan is a country that grew out of the feudal system only some 150 years ago and has since then attained democracy and market economy rooted in itself. The country knows too well that some time is required until the Western style democracy takes root in society. Therefore, the country can work as a mediator while Western countries expect hasty transitions to democracy and market economy in Islamic countries and former Soviet blocs. Japan can seek to prevent these moves from threatening the political stability of these countries and from further inviting civil wars, ultimately ending up in delaying the reforms.

On top of this, Japan is a country that can help these countries develop economically and achieve better living on their own. We could arrange a system to send construction engineers, under convoy if necessary, to countries that unfortunately underwent conflicts or those facing extreme poverty. These engineers would build roads and other basic infrastructure free-of-charge, employing local workforce, then move on to the phase of constructing power stations and other facilities. When recipient countries are financially capable, this type of aid would be switched to yen loans. In this way, Japan would be able to contribute to the world in line with the country’s pacifism, without necessarily dispatching many SDFs. In Asia, Japan would maintain the banners of freedom, democracy and prosperity, while in the world it would make a strong impression as a fair and disinterested contributor. These initiatives would be transformed into major assets of Japan’s diplomacy.