Interaction between ideology and real life

　International relations of any country are determined by the interaction between government, society and media. In Japan and in most countries an ideological thought is not a direct moving force in a political decision, unless one ideology becomes very popular in the society or unless one particular force like the army totally monopolizes the power. In Japan political decisions are made on the basis of coordination and battle within the ruling party and the government. Philosophy is not a decisive force; it is rather used as a weapon in fighting and as an ornament in presenting a policy to the public. It is quite rare that a policy emanates from one specific philosophical thought. The reality is that ideology is used to give justification for one or other policy.

One should be careful in following ideologies and philosophies on international relations. For in some cases they merely represent some extreme forces in the society, while the majority of the people silently adhere to more moderate and balanced positions. It is the media which plays up the extremist opinions and plays them against each other, thus creating an interesting show. Such media does not want a truth to be shown too early. It should be the media (in their mind) which shows a truth to the people only after a long process of sensational reportings. Therefore, if you later analyze the situation only on the basis of media reports, you may be astray far from reality.
So for convenience’s sake I enumerate below the points which I deem worth of interest in following Japan’s international relations.

The nature of Japanese perception of the outside world

　　It is often said that Japan is an isolated island country. But the fact is that Japan has been living amid a close network of international transactions and exchanges all through her history. Not only government but also private persons took initiative in dealing with foreigners: a good example is the Wakoh, medieval Japanese “pirates”　(other nationalities operated as well under the guise of “Wakoh”) who were in fact private merchants who operated without governmental license. Japan must have kept a close and voluminous trade and cultural exchange with Qin China. Most of these historical facts are either forgotten or insufficiently studied.

The majority of Japanese people make their living without any exposure to the outside world. They can manage without ever thinking about international situation. They do not feel and can not understand the need to make compromise to foreign countries for the sake of balance of power. They judge other countries on the basis of like or dislike and whether one or other country is “righteous” in its behavior. The media tend to accommodate their reporting to the stereotypes in the society.

The masses are passive toward the outside world. Europe and America, among others, are merely considered to be either the authority which provides standards of judgement, or a kind of “natural disaster” beyond human control, which inflicts damage without plausible reasons.
The American masses may be even more ignorant about foreign countries, but the elite do think about the world and do so pro-actively. Japanese policy makers also think about international relations, but they are more passive than their counterparts in the US and Europe. From time to time their analysis of the outside situation gets behind the reality, turning into a wishful thinking. Being short of the capacity to promote one or other new international framework, the Japanese tend to be preoccupied with meticulous legal discussion and polemics about whether one or other partner is behaving “righteously”. In the postwar history Japan has been mostly accommodating with what America proposed, when it comes to changing one or other international framework.

Such a tendency came into being not only because of Japan’s dependence on the USA in its security, but also out of deep historical background: the lack of foreign elements in daily life and a strong tradition of populism. It is alleged that the Japanese medieval society was formed on the basis of independent familiies (Ie). This tradition still lives unnoticed. The difference from the past is that today each individual forms an untouchable “family” (Incidentally in today’s Japan a large number of “family” consists of only one person.), shutting oneself up in the small cell and repelling any intrusion not only by the government but by anything public; a quasi-individualism which is in fact rather passive. Such a society is not apt for a pro-active engagement in international relations.

New tendencies in the world and Asia: How they will affect the paradigms?

　The concepts of “sovereign state” and “nation state” were developed in Western Europe. Today’s study demonstrates that they were formed among others for an effective conduct of wars：　wars with neighbors and warfare to conquer colonies overseas. Its rigorous system is suited for mobilizing soldiers and collecting taxes. It is a mighty machine, and it needs a strong and intelligent leader. Without one a nation state can make very dangerous mistakes for itself and its neighbors. Japan is a good example of such mishandling. Perhaps, Japan’s society is not suited to build a coherent and mighty sovereign nation state.

Fortunately or unfortunately for Japan the concept of nation state is now subject to a change in view of the demise of colonialist era and the entrenchment of the global free trade. Today states do not have to engage in armed conflicts for gaining economic benefit.

Asia today faces a fundamental change in paradigms. The end of the Cold War and the resurge of China are bringing a totally new framework. For Japan, too, it is a revelation. From the Meiji Era “international” meant for her mainly Europe and America. Now Japan has to face Asia and her own colonialist deeds committed in these 150 years. And for the first time in her history Japan is simultaneously facing two big powers in the east (the USA) and in the west (China), between which Japan has to carefully maneuver (During the Cold War era there was no need to “maneuver” between the USA and the USSR).

In this new environment neither Japan nor China has yet established their new modus operandi. Though the old concept of sovereign nation state is being reconsidered in the West, countries in Asia are adamant in building full-fledged sovereign nation states. Being not yet free from inferiority complex toward the West, the Asian countries are striving to show to the Westerners who is the best in Asia.

Japan and other Asian countries should restudy how the colonialism became possible. It is not that Asia was conquered because the western civilization at that time was more advanced. Portugal’s armament, for example, was not very modern, when it won colonies in Asia. Using and exploiting the colonies, Europe, England inter alia, started the Industrial Revolution, which brought the current predominance of the western civilization. But today Asia is becoming the center of world industry. It is time now for Asia to part with the complex toward the West, and to proceed forward-lookingly.

The international and interregional relations in Asia seem to have been different from the one in Europe after the Westphalia Treaty. Kings and Maharajas had not established such absolute power as their European counterparts managed to do. In the Southern half of Asia international trade was loosely regulated to allow free trade. Some studies say that their war had a character of a game since the war was fought by mercenaries for whom their own lives were more important than orders. Sometimes the kings engaged in a war to capture as many as slaves; their tactics was much different from that of Europeans which is designed for a total extinction of the enemies.

　Therefore, Asia’s past should be studied more to draw necessary lessons for us today. But it does not mean that Japan and Asia should revive the values in the medieval age. Only useful elements should be selected and be adapted to the contemporary society.

　　Coming back to Japan, maybe she should finally realize that she is not qualified by her own nature to possess a strong sovereign nation state of the Western type. In Japan strong leaders appear only in emergency and in other times they are not welcomed by the society. The prewar history starting from the invasion of Manchuria was a fatal process of automatism neither orchestrated nor planned by one and only strong leader: the interaction among people’s sentiment, the media, the army and the government.