To endorse another of your points: what is new about the Hatoyama administration is that it has not caved in to US pressure (even pressure strongly ratcheted up). After all, what could be stronger than an imminent visit by a US President? But the Japanese government is resisting and won’t be hurried into making a decision that gives the US what it wants. This is a pretty unprecedented situation for the United States to have to deal with, and it is not handling it well. The fundamental question is whether the United States is prepared to accept the legitimacy of a newly elected democratic government with a mandate to make some adjustments to the alliance particularly with respect to base policy. The United States is entirely disregarding this mandate, while the Hatoyama government is asserting it strongly in response. Foreign Minister Okada, in particular, is showing how tough-minded he can be.

Nevertheless, somewhat disturbing are the open differences on key policies relating to the alliance within the DPJ cabinet. You refer to these and describe them as ‘normal’. However, it is not ‘normal’ for cabinet members under Westminster conventions publicly to assert different policy positions. They may be known to disagree, but they generally maintain a veneer of unity in public and refrain from openly pushing their own policy positions. We’re seeing good examples of the latter not only in relation to Futenma but also in relation to the EAC concept (as per my posting). This does not make Hatoyama’s job any easier, but he seems to have refrained from reining in his ministers.