Comments on: Japan: The Hatoyama government tackles the alliance early http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/10/13/japan-the-hatoyama-government-tackles-the-alliance-early/ Economics, Politics and Public Policy in East Asia and the Pacific Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:12:37 +1100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Aurelia George Mulgan http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/10/13/japan-the-hatoyama-government-tackles-the-alliance-early/comment-page-1/#comment-67226 Aurelia George Mulgan Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:54:07 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=7413#comment-67226 Nagashima Akihisa's outspoken comment that the refueling mission ought to continue (albeit with a new mandate from the Diet) shows that he just doesn't get it. One of the keys to the Westminster system (to which the Hatoyama government aspires) is cabinet decision-making and cabinet solidarity. This means that any member of the ministerial team in the ruling party, including the most junior parliamentary secretaries, are bound by conventions of cabinet solidarity, i.e. expressing no public disagreement with the government's line. Any such public display of policy independence or dissent should be accompanied by a return to the back bench. Nagashima was rightly rebuked by his boss and others including the Chief Cabinet Secretary. He seems to be trying to carve out an independent policy profile for himself, while retaining membership of the ministry. His position is quite different from Kamei's, who is a minister in his own right, but who should nevertheless reflect the collective government position and not his own independent political/policy standpoint (it seems the instinct for pork-barrelling dies hard). If Hatoyama and his colleagues are really serious about reform of the system, they should promptly demand either retraction or resignation at the first sign of any dissent from the government line. As far as Japan's 'contribution' to Afghanistan (and 'war on terrorism') goes, Okada's recent visit there is highly significant. Japan's future contribution, as yet unspecified, will, no doubt, hinge on a financial outlay, probably to civilian causes, such as health and education. This may replace the Indian Ocean deployment and represent a return to the 'gift' diplomacy of yore (for the occasion of Obama's visit) and 'chequebook' diplomacy (to the international community). On the issue of Futenma - there have been several reports of various American spokespersons saying that the Obama administration will not renegotiate the agreement on relocating Futenma, including Roos' comment cited by Tobias Harris above. However, on his visits to Japan, Kurt Campbell has shown willingness to listen to the Hatoyama government's views on the matter. He has also commented on how important it was for Japan and the United States to respect each other as 'equals'. Futenma represents an opportunity for the United States to put this rhetoric into practice. Moreover, from a practical point of view, it would be impossible for the United States to enforce the existing agreement on Futenma without Japanese cooperation. Nagashima Akihisa’s outspoken comment that the refueling mission ought to continue (albeit with a new mandate from the Diet) shows that he just doesn’t get it. One of the keys to the Westminster system (to which the Hatoyama government aspires) is cabinet decision-making and cabinet solidarity. This means that any member of the ministerial team in the ruling party, including the most junior parliamentary secretaries, are bound by conventions of cabinet solidarity, i.e. expressing no public disagreement with the government’s line. Any such public display of policy independence or dissent should be accompanied by a return to the back bench. Nagashima was rightly rebuked by his boss and others including the Chief Cabinet Secretary. He seems to be trying to carve out an independent policy profile for himself, while retaining membership of the ministry. His position is quite different from Kamei’s, who is a minister in his own right, but who should nevertheless reflect the collective government position and not his own independent political/policy standpoint (it seems the instinct for pork-barrelling dies hard). If Hatoyama and his colleagues are really serious about reform of the system, they should promptly demand either retraction or resignation at the first sign of any dissent from the government line.

As far as Japan’s ‘contribution’ to Afghanistan (and ‘war on terrorism’) goes, Okada’s recent visit there is highly significant. Japan’s future contribution, as yet unspecified, will, no doubt, hinge on a financial outlay, probably to civilian causes, such as health and education. This may replace the Indian Ocean deployment and represent a return to the ‘gift’ diplomacy of yore (for the occasion of Obama’s visit) and ‘chequebook’ diplomacy (to the international community).

On the issue of Futenma – there have been several reports of various American spokespersons saying that the Obama administration will not renegotiate the agreement on relocating Futenma, including Roos’ comment cited by Tobias Harris above. However, on his visits to Japan, Kurt Campbell has shown willingness to listen to the Hatoyama government’s views on the matter. He has also commented on how important it was for Japan and the United States to respect each other as ‘equals’. Futenma represents an opportunity for the United States to put this rhetoric into practice. Moreover, from a practical point of view, it would be impossible for the United States to enforce the existing agreement on Futenma without Japanese cooperation.

]]>