Essays: Japan Watcher Must Wean Himself Off Cliches

Japan Watcher Must Wean Himself Off Clichés
By: Devin T. Stewart and Paul J. Scalise

Imagine you are in Japan on a fellowship and you have been told you must write a paper to fulfill your obligations with your supporting institution. Problem is you don't have anything new to say. Do you: a) ask for more time and keep researching; b) admit you've made a terrible career move and go home; or c) throw caution to the wind and write something like this:

Peter Rutland. "Japan must wean itself off the U.S." International Herald Tribune, Wednesday, July 21, 2004.

Apparently its author, Peter Rutland, a Wesleyan professor visiting Sophia University as a Fulbright lecturer, would decide to get the article out no matter what. Although Sophia and Fulbright do not require lecturers to write op-eds, it would be difficult to otherwise explain this article, which appeared in the International Herald Tribune (IHT) on 21 July 2004 with a title that ominously reads "Japan must wean itself off the U.S."

The op-ed is poorly argued, offers nothing new to policy debates and only concludes that Japan needs "new approaches" to its foreign policy without providing specifics. We would let the article go if it weren't for the fact that Rutland gives voice to a growing minority of dissatisfied academics and activists looking to reject that old dictum that it's better to look before you leap. Of course, we agree that clarifying parameters for the alliance is a legitimate issue. But then again, it also deserves more than empty sound bites.

First, let's start with the op-ed. Rutland quips that if the United States made the dinner and NATO washed the dishes, the Pentagon would hope that Japan would at least "pick up the tab." We are not sure where this idea comes from other than a stereotypical view of Japan's "checkbook diplomacy" that might have made sense 15 years ago. As Rutland himself states in the essay, the United States has been asking Japan to take more responsibility for its own defense. Financial support alone to military or peacekeeping operations is regarded as insufficient.

Rutland then asserts that the United States takes Japan for granted, but follows this statement by reporting that speakers on a panel last spring (2003) called the U.S.-Japan alliance a "special relationship." The phrase echoes what U.S. officials of yore like Ambassador Mike Mansfield and of today like U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage say of the relationship.

While these panelists talk about a special relationship, Rutland later cites his students, which are presumably undergraduates and typical of liberal Sophia University, for counter-argument. He writes that, to his students, war is—surprise, surprise—alien to them and they find "profoundly disturbing the role of violence in American society." He concludes that "this division of labor cannot continue," but fails to say why it cannot.

We would describe the trust between the United States and Japan part of what is called an "alliance."

Rutland then refers to polls, but never cites sources or gives the full picture. He says 60 percent of Japanese support Article 9 of the Constitution, ostensibly presenting an obstacle to a more active Japan in military affairs. What he fails to mention is that a Yomiuri Shimbun poll conducted this spring found 65 percent of pollees favoring constitutional revision; and even the more left-leaning Asahi Shimbun reported the results of a poll it conducted that found 53 percent of respondents favoring revision of the top law.

Rutland suggests that the LDP's "poor" performance in the recent upper house election was due to the public's frustration over Japan's dispatch of troops to Iraq. Apparently he stumbled across this nugget of insight by interviewing his students because that's the only evidence he offers. We would submit that Japan's major newspapers attributed the LDP's performance to the party's failure to present clear policies on the pension system and to what may be described as "structural reform fatigue." Even if you cite Western newspapers, the issue is arguably more of "projection" than analysis—the idea of placing Western assumptions and political fads on Japanese sensibilities and priorities. The election was not about Iraq.

In any case, the LDP did better than was expected. The markets had bet on a crushing defeat, which did not happen. So, we are not even sure what metric Rutland used to interpret the LDP's showing as "poor."

Rutland's essay asserts that Japan only sent troops to Iraq purely out of loyalty to the United States. This statement perhaps is a reflection of the question many Japanese ask, Is Koizumi Bush's lapdog? We would offer other explanations about why Japan is in Iraq, however.

The rationale given by policymakers is that Japan wants to be more active in operations that contribute to international peace; Japan wants to make sure the story in the first Gulf War isn't repeated when Japan only contributed money but was not thanked; Japan is concerned about its energy security and believes stability in the Middle East will achieve that goal.

A reason stated off-the-record is that Japan even hopes the United States will resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis. This is a reasonable hope given North Korea's insistence that the United States must be involved in these talks. No big leap here: We would argue that Koizumi is pursuing Japan's national interest. Nobody is anyone's lapdog. No canine conspiracy.

This brings us to the point. Why should anyone take such muddled thinking seriously? Our answer is simple: the next generation of leaders in Japan won't remember the Cold War alliance with such loving affection. It's all the more important for Americans writing on Japan to do their homework before projecting their own cultural baggage onto the subject; the Japanese Upper House elections were about social security, the constitution and Koizumi's vision (or lack thereof). Iraq had little (if anything) to do with it.

So remember: if there are problems in the alliance it's prudent to see a marriage counselor, not rush to divorce.

Essay first published July 29, 2004.

Stewart is Assistant Director of Studies at the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Scalise is a former Japanese equity analyst, co-founder of JapanReview.Net and currently a D.Phil Candidate at the University of Oxford.