Comments on: What the new Hatoyama government means for the US-Japan alliance http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/11/12/what-the-new-hatoyama-government-means-for-the-us-japan-alliance/ Economics, Politics and Public Policy in East Asia and the Pacific Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:41:20 +1100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Tomohiko Satake http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/11/12/what-the-new-hatoyama-government-means-for-the-us-japan-alliance/comment-page-1/#comment-75836 Tomohiko Satake Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:39:09 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=7822#comment-75836 I wonder if the Hatoyama Government is really creating ‘an entirely new policy framework’ in terms of alliance policy. Whether the government stresses Japan’s own national interest or not, reaching the common conclusion, that the US alliance is the cornerstone for Japanese security, is unavoidable so long as Japan cannot become an ‘independent’ military power, and so long as Japan has potential enemies in the region. Thus it is highly unlikely that the DPJ will maintain its controversial ‘independent’ posture in the years to come, although it could make some minor changes in some cases such as the Futenma issue. This is particularly the case at a time when people are increasingly concerned about North Korea’s nuclear weapons and the rise of China. Multilateralism is fine. But it cannot be pursued without a military guarantee in case it fails. In this sense, the current Hatoyama Government reminds me of Australia’s Keating Government from 1991 to 1996. Like Hatoyama, Keating (and his Foreign Minister Gareth Evans) pursued a ‘regional engagement policy’ and multilateral, rather than bilateral, diplomacy. They also insisted that Australia should seek a more independent foreign and defence policy from the US. It seemed, however, that the more Keating spent time as a Prime Minister, the more he realised that Australia’s regional engagement aspirations could not be achieved without the backbone of the US’s military or strategic presence in this part of the world. It will be very interesting see whether the DPJ government will follow the same path or not. I wonder if the Hatoyama Government is really creating ‘an entirely new policy framework’ in terms of alliance policy. Whether the government stresses Japan’s own national interest or not, reaching the common conclusion, that the US alliance is the cornerstone for Japanese security, is unavoidable so long as Japan cannot become an ‘independent’ military power, and so long as Japan has potential enemies in the region. Thus it is highly unlikely that the DPJ will maintain its controversial ‘independent’ posture in the years to come, although it could make some minor changes in some cases such as the Futenma issue. This is particularly the case at a time when people are increasingly concerned about North Korea’s nuclear weapons and the rise of China. Multilateralism is fine. But it cannot be pursued without a military guarantee in case it fails.

In this sense, the current Hatoyama Government reminds me of Australia’s Keating Government from 1991 to 1996. Like Hatoyama, Keating (and his Foreign Minister Gareth Evans) pursued a ‘regional engagement policy’ and multilateral, rather than bilateral, diplomacy. They also insisted that Australia should seek a more independent foreign and defence policy from the US. It seemed, however, that the more Keating spent time as a Prime Minister, the more he realised that Australia’s regional engagement aspirations could not be achieved without the backbone of the US’s military or strategic presence in this part of the world. It will be very interesting see whether the DPJ government will follow the same path or not.

]]>