Do you expect any shifts in direction under Kan?
Kan is very aware of what it means to have a cabinet-centred government. And one of the most interesting things when the DPJ took over is that the meetings of administrative vice ministers that had been held were stopped—a tradition of more than 100 years down the drain. But what you see is that these structural issues are discussed in a very oblique way in the Japanese media. The centre of discussion is policies and how different are they going to be from the LDP. So what you see now is that Kan, who has spent several months in the Finance Ministry, appears to be adopting what these ministerial officials wanted when Junichiro Koizumi was prime minister. And he’ll probably be swept along to some extent by the policy dynamic that comes in part from inside the ministries, from the bureaucrats. But what’s most important in his mind is this structural ideal that Japan must have a cabinet-centred government. It’s revolutionary for Japan.
One persistent question is how much influence Ichiro Ozawa will have over the Kan government. What do you expect?
Ozawa is tired. There’s been speculation about the state of his health for some time. He seemed to have recovered from this, but he still can’t attend a heavy meeting for more than 20 or 30 minutes, which is why if he’d become prime minister, which of course is what the original plan was, he would have transferred power to Kan or Hatoyama after half a year to 9 months or so. Those were the plans before he was forced to give up the presidency of the party (over a funding scandal). So he is old, and probably very fed up. But at the same time it’s his baby. Without him you wouldn’t have had a reformist party in Japan. Without him you wouldn’t have had the whole political upheaval in 1993. Without him you wouldn’t have had a DPJ. So I hope he’s working behind the scenes for the upper house elections.
Any other thoughts on the recent developments?
Twenty or 30 years ago there were quite a few American correspondents in Tokyo who had a pretty good historical background on the relationship, and they’d have put all this in perspective. But today, the American media gets what they write about this from informants in Washington. There are a couple of people in Tokyo, but they don’t bring the same kind of depth and understanding to it. Which means the story becomes the story that Washington wants people to see and read. And if you were the government in Washington, you’d want it to be like that. So in other words, there’s no countervailing interpretation of what’s going in Japan to what is coming out of Washington.
Karel van Wolferen is a Dutch writer and professor and author of ‘The Enigma of Japanese Power’.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Dan Kuyek
Hmm, “western lackey”. No country with an American military presence has ever been invaded. Thereby saving untold billions from defense budgets and allowing faster economic development.
Almost every country connected to the sea of China has requested a continued military presence in the region, including Vietnam.
Stability, burgeoning economies all over Asia. All at the expense of the US.
The only valid justification being it would cost the Americans a lot more if they let you travel the usual course, having to “intervene” yet again.
Count your lucky stars, for those days are to an end and you will come to rue that day.
Michal Zapedowski
Would-be invaders? This isn’t 1945. No one is going to invade Japan.
If the DPJ had any guts, it would truly differentiate itself from the LDP, by asking the Marines to leave Japanese territory — not out of spite or anti-Americanism, but simply because, after 65 years, there simply isn’t any reason for them to be there anymore.
Japanese territory is not under any direct geopolitical threat, and if it were, the Japanese Self-Defense Forces are fully capable of handling it. It’s time for America to stop baby-sitting other peaceful democracies. I’m sure there are many Marines who would agree. And why should they be asked to serve, in peacetime territory, where the local population hates them, and when their brothers in arms are fighting and dying in Afghanistan serving much clearer objectives?
The DPJ would be doing the people of Okinawa a favor, essentially acknowledging them as equal citizens of Japan, because the inhabitants of that island bear no more responsibility for Japanese militarism during the 1930s through 1945 than anyone else, and Okinawans should not be relegated to the status of a permanent aircraft carrier for a foreign country. The rape of one Okinawan girl by a Marine is merely the spark that lit a tinder-keg, so to speak. The tensions were already there before, and I’m sure even the Okinawans realize that that individual Marine is not emblematic of the entire Corps, by any means. It’s simply the straw that broke the camel’s back.
And they would be doing American taxpayers a favor, because — if you want to talk about “bureaucratic capture” — there is no reason for the U.S. military bases in Japan, other than that they are a major source of profit for certain entrenched interests in the military-industrial complex that General Eisenhower, as President, warned Washington about. His warning went entirely unheeded.
In other words, ordinary voters on both sides of the Pacific are looking for a little bit of political courage — and the DPJ is looking to demonstrate its competence, show that it can be taken seriously, and simultaneously differentiate itself from the LDP. What are they waiting for? Mr. Hatoyama — if you were willing to fall on your sword and resign the premiership, why did you not do what was necessary first? And Mr. Kan, will you have more courage than your predecessor?
Kujirakira
“…but simply because, after 65 years, there simply isn’t any reason for them to be there anymore.
…
Japanese territory is not under any direct geopolitical threat
…
there is no reason for the U.S. military bases in Japan”
While I’m all for cutting down on the presence of US military in Japan, and especially Okinawa, these sorts of statements entirely miss what is really going on here.
US forces aren’t in Japan, and especially not Okinawa, because of anything to do with threats to Japan. They are there for South Korea and Taiwan. Okinawa is in an especially advantageous strategic location with respect to Taiwan.
The Marines based in Futenma are part of a theoretical fighting force which can, on a moments notice, respond to Chinese aggression against Taiwan or reinforce South Korea.
Now, that’s not an excuse for Okinawans to bare the burden. The likelihood of you getting Futenma specifically moved is about 0 in a million. Especially with all the snake rattling from North Korea now.
However, it’s important to understand exactly why we are there, and how it relates to our sphere of influence in general. The kind of arguments you put forth about tax payer money and Japanese soil would be immediately dismissed.
You are right that the military industrial complex has taken over a huge part of our GDP… but that doesn’t actually have any relation to bases in Japan. In fact, a large percentage of our base infrastructure in Japan is funded by Japanese taxes. The military industrial complex is in the R&D department… we’re not going to save any money by moving 50,000 people from one plot of dirt to another plot of dirt.
Shawn
It’s sad that a once proud and independent people with the soul of a samurai have now been reduced to a western lackey, a stooge! For japan to return to its former glory it its leaders must once again don the samurai outfit and take back control of their country from the western government proxies and their banking overlords!
RJ
Shawn, your comments sound like someone playing a Japanese video game, not a statesman. I don’t know what former glory you are talking about, as Japan today is highly prosperous, technologically advanced and possesses a strong military.
However, there are certain geopolitical facts you should consider. Japan’s vital sea lanes overlap China’s. Both nations neet access to the South China sea and the straits of Malacca, as both nations need to import oil and raw materials (Japan even more so than China). Removing the US Navy from the region would encourage China to seek hegemony over these sea routes. Japan would be forced into an expensive arms race with China. It is a far better arrangement to let a benevolent power like the USA take care of maintaining these sea routes than for Japan to directly confront China herself. Japan has a vital role to play in the region, but it is through working in concert with the USA, not trying to go it alone.
Dr Michael Vaughan
Japan is undergoing a political upheaval. Prime Minister Kan’s new Government may reverse some of the disillusionment affecting the Japanese electorate, but it will not change Washington’s ongoing domination of Japanese defence policy. Kan’s Government has just admitted that the US Marine Base, in its view, acts as a “deterrent” to would-be aggressors. The real question is what role can the ailing and unpopular Ichiro Ozawa play in Japan’s political future. True, he still leads the biggest faction within the DPJ (some 150 lawmakers in both Houses of the Diet) and true, he remains the Party’s effective founder. He will not, though, be able to dislodge the Americans from Okinawa and he will need to work hard to strengthen ties with China. He will also have to work very hard to convince angry Japanese voters to support the DPJ in the July Upper House Elections.