(I was in the US early May. What was fresh for me were the words by Professor Thomas Berger, Boston University: "The American side began to show concern that the security treaty with Japan might serve to unduly involve the U.S. in disputes between Japan and neighboring countries". A similar concern, but in an opposite direction, has been expressed by the Japanese all through the postwar period. Japan and the US probably should sort out mutual obligations.)

2007,5.25
Japan-World Trends
Akio Kawato

There have been debates in both Japan and the U.S. over the necessity, merits and drawbacks, and future vision of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.

One example is a comment in the manga published in the April 25th edition of Japanese magazine SAPIO, “The deadlock in Iraq, the United States’ aboutface in the Six-Party Talks, the neglect of abductees—the Japan-U.S. Alliance bears nothing of national interest for Japan! Even if Japan were to come under nuclear attack, the U.S. would never take nuclear reprisal! What does the Japan-U.S. Alliance serve to do? NOT A THING! Japan—stop relying on the U.S.! Japan should quickly withdraw from the Six-Party Talks, and politicians should stand up and discuss nuclear armament!”

I think there are actually many people who believe the Japan-U.S. Alliance is still necessary and that Japan should not go nuclear. However, I also sense that many people feel emotionally frustrated over the current situation that seems to go nowhere.

On the other hand, in the U.S., against the background of increasing friction among East Asian countries due to historical and other issues, “government officials and intellectuals began to show concern that, if the current situation goes on, the security treaty with Japan would serve to unduly involve the U.S. in disputes between Japan and neighboring countries. Such concern, which appeared for the first time at the end of WWII, is like the reverse side of Japan’s original concerns regarding Japan-U.S. Security Treaty” (Professor Thomas Berger, Boston University).

If Japan itself, or a U.S. military base in Japan, was attacked, the U.S. would have no choice but to protect Japan—because if the U.S. failed to protect Japan, other U.S. allies would lose faith in the U.S. and likely begin to pull away. However, the U.S. has now begun considering what to do in the event Japan enters an armed conflict with its neighbors out of nationalistic fervor.

The U.S. viewed the Soviet Union solely as an enemy. In contrast, while China might pose a future military threat, it brings massive economic benefits to the U.S. incomparable to that of the Soviet Union. China is also politically useful to the U.S., such as in applying pressure to North Korea on their behalf.

Consequently, Japan’s rank as the U.S.’s single biggest partner in Asia is now becoming more relative than in the past. It is no longer the era of Prime Minister Koizumi who expected that good relations with the U.S. would ensure good relations with China and Korea. The case is now that if Japan does not maintain good relations with China and Korea, its relations with the U.S. may not go well either.

Japan will thus steadily realize the implication of being wedged between two major powers—the U.S. and China. Being stuck between major world powers from the east and west is an historical first for Japan. Just as with Poland, which was once split between Germany and Russia, isn’t it the case that historically no country has successfully survived being wedged between two major powers?

One could argue that Japan’s case is completely different because it is surrounded by the ocean and thus faces no threat of a ground attack, and that it possesses great economical strength. However, if its foreign assets were confiscated, nothing could be done. Moreover, if large domestic enterprises were to be forced to merge with foreign companies based on their military power, the Japanese employees therein would practically become slave laborers.

What should Japan do?
I got a bit ahead of myself. As of now, China is still a developing country and the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is a solid network and infrastructure developed over the course of many years that ensures Japan’s safety and international status. The Japanese Government is trying to eliminate the unilateral qualities of the security treaty and increase its contributions in efforts to create stronger Japan-U.S. relations. For now, this is probably the most realistic policy.

At the same time, Japan needs to further polish its diplomatic skills. As international framework is now undergoing great changes, sixty years since the end of WWII, Japan must assess the direction of those changes, take initiative in proposing new frameworks, and actively command a balance among surrounding powers.

In order to do so, we first need to establish a common sense, or consensus of at least around 60% of the public, on exactly what kind of Japan we are trying to create, and how we are going to establish that Japan in the world. This is because diplomacy cannot be conducted while the Japanese public opinion cannot make up its mind. For example, the Japanese at one time doubt the effectiveness of the U.S.’s nuclear umbrella in the face of North Korean nuclear threat, but at the next moment start fearing to be “drawn into” the U.S.’s plans. The latter was visible when the Japanese received news of strengthened cooperation on Japan-U.S. security during Prime Minister Abe’s visit to the U.S. and at the ensuing “2 + 2” Meeting.

Of course, diplomacy can be duly affected by public opinion in any democratic society. However, if Japan’s voice always fluctuates, she would be eventually isolated from the rest of the world, for she is neither an autocratic power which can conduct quick and coherent policy, nor a super-power which can impose its own domestic voices over other countries.

We, the Japanese, should learn more about international relations, sharing several common viewpoints. Firstly, for the time being, international relations will function based on “nation states” as its units. In the world today, where free trade ensures economic growth and improved life and where the U.S. keeps an eye out for anything wicked in all corners of the world, I do not see the meaning in lovingly believing in the artificial device called a “state” or “countries”and ranting about national boundaries and national pride. However, when considering language barriers and cultural differences, there may still be a need for “countries.”

Secondly, in a world with multiple nations, ensuring a balance of power is vital in maintaining its peace and stability. Some Japanese do believe that, just as gaining the trust of the public is the key to survival in Japan, the world will respect Japan as long as it maintains dignity and professes peace and love. However, in an international society where countries that lie and operate unfairly make up the majority, a country that relies on words alone only makes for an easy target.

A “balance of power” does not refer only to military strength. It rather means building an international environment where Japan can, both politically and economically, feel generally comfortable and sense that a number of countries will take its side. True, military strength is necessary as well. In international society, nations sometimes ‘fool’ each other as they promote their friendly relations while also strengthening their military. However, it is possible to evade war and to commence discussions on arms reduction and control once the military strengths of both sides reach a near-equilibrium. In Europe, NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organization set a maximum limit on conventional military forces.

Thirdly, it is necessary to deepen discussions on what kind of society Japan is going to aim for, or, in other words, what kind of values Japan should place as society’s foundation. Even if its relations with the U.S. become more relative, returning Japan to its prewar patriarchic, authoritarian society is sure to generate overall scorn from the generations that have been educated in postwar Japan. Japan has constructed a ‘bright’ society represented by J-pop where people can live as individuals, out of a once ‘dark’ world characterized by duty and patience within deep and mutually dependent human relationships. The greater majority of today’s society supports this brighter way of life. People should better acknowledge the value of the freedom and democracy we worked so hard to build after the war.

Fourthly, Asia cannot survive on its own. While Asia has advanced, for example, the economic growth of East Asian countries, including Japan, is largely reliant on the exports to the U.S. and the European Union (EU). Additionally, if a political conflict were to arise, it would be difficult for Asia to resolve it alone. Therefore, the U.S. and EU should not be excluded from the current actions surrounding the East Asia Summit and the East Asian Community, toward which gradual progress has been made.

But what about 20 years from now…?
It is natural for the people of Japan, who once consigned their security and core diplomacy to Pax Americana while preoccupied with earning money themselves, to question the vision of their country now that its soaring economic growth has come to a halt. That explains the heightened consciousness regarding “national dignity” and independent defense. However, if Japan is to provide its security based on its own military forces alone, it will have to consider countering the military forces of not only China and Russia, but of the U.S. as well.

In postwar Japan, many were under the illusion that Japan would not be attacked as long as it declared peace and love. I believe these same people are now under the impression that the glowing expression “independent defense” will solve all of Japan’s problems. However, that track will actually lead Japan into a hysterical isolation, not only generating heavy taxation for an endless military expansion, but also restoring the military-draft system.

The war in Iraq has brought momentum to the theory of the U.S.’s downfall. However, the stability of the U.S.’s power is at a height incomparable to the BRICs and other countries. If the U.S. were to withdraw into isolationism, the world would lose its assurance of political stability and free trade. It will be thrown into great confusion as the trade of goods and money, peoples’ movement, and direct foreign investment would be largely restricted.

The reality is that most countries in the world do not fear being “drawn in” by the U.S.; rather, they are frantic to “draw” U.S.’s attention. Japan should not rush to abolish the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. Without the Treaty, Japan would stand ‘exposed’ in the eyes of East Asia and would be posed with numerous unreasonable demands from surrounding nations and the U.S. as well.

Nonetheless, if Japan-U.S. relations indeed become relative in 20 years (or maybe much sooner), I cannot say for sure what to do. The ideal would be for the U.S. and China to compete to form better relations with Japan, but what can we do to make that a reality?

The current policy of increasing contributions to the U.S. to strengthen Japan-U.S. relations may be understandable after seeing how the U.K. currently receives nuclear submarine missiles (Tridents) from the U.S. for its contributions, and how Germany is increasing their international influence by dispatching ten-thousand troops outside the NATO area. However, whether this earns the support of the Japanese public is a different story. It will be difficult to find a solution that satisfies both Japanese security and pride, be it now or in 20 years. But we must not forget that Japan is capable of displaying great presence both economically and culturally as long as safety and stability are ensured.