This comment suggests that with the advent of the Hatoyama administration the independent-foreign-policy pragmatists have come to the fore over what Professor Ronald Dore writing in 2002 called the ‘Washington poodles’ (he was implicitly referring to PM Koizumi at the time) and the ‘nationalists…interested only in belligerent self-assertion’ (Dore explicitly referred to the Mayor of Tokyo as an example of this group). The DPJ does not have a monopoly of independent-foreign-policy pragmatists, but it is showing how it can be done – by keeping a strong focus on economic diplomacy in Asia and by insisting on the advancement of Japan’s national interests as a legitimate policy goal even in the face of US objections.

Tobias says: ‘Thus far Washington has mishandled the transition to the DPJ,’

Perhaps the Obama administration has discovered that the old methodologies of ‘how to deal with Japan’ (a good strong dose of gaiatsu, plus the odd hint of more serious sanctions) no longer work. NHK recorded some of the meeting between Secretary of State Clinton and Foreign Minister Okada just prior to the President’s visit. What was striking was Clinton’s fairly pointed reference to the US desire for the visit to produce a ‘positive and productive outcome’ (if my memory serves me correctly). This was a not so subtle allusion to the American desire for the Hatoyama administration to comply with Washington’s wishes across a range of issues, not the least Futenma.

Tobias says: ‘the Obama administration can reverse course on trade policy in Asia, a region which Daniel Drezner contends ‘has simply bypassed Washington.’

In the light of these comments, the question might be asked whether President Obama’s assertions that the United States is an ‘Asia-Pacific power’ and a ‘Pacific power’ suggest that the United States is striving for relevance in the region, particularly in areas of trade and diplomacy.