in part a product of the Japanese people’s very high hopes for the DPJ’s foreign policy. There are many who are now keenly watching how the DPJ government conducts its foreign policy, in anticipation that Japan’s diplomacy may be freed from the shackles of the LDP years and undergo major changes.
Immediately upon assuming office, Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama demonstrated that political leadership is indispensable for bringing about dramatic changes not only in domestic policy but also in foreign policy. For example, the bureaucrats could not possibly have conceived a daring initiative that set the nearly unattainable goal of reducing green house gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020 compared to the 1990 level. The true test of politician-led foreign policy lies not so much in how much of the goals and tasks are actually achieved, but in the essential directions and paths that it sets out from a medium to long term perspective. It is basically a foreign policy responding to the demand of the public that desires change.
Prime Minister Hatoyama’s advocacy of an East Asian community should be seen in this light as well. The idea of an East Asian community should be debated not so much in terms of its concrete form or feasibility. Rather, its significance lies in indicating a destination or a vision. The specific policies toward East Asia that may be adopted today should be seen in relation to the vision, namely, as a step on the way to the destination. In this sense, the policy toward Japan’s neighbours such as the Republic of Korea and China, on which Prime Minister Hatoyama places his priority, is at the core of the DPJ’s East Asian policy. Underlying this is the astute awareness that Japan’s relationship with its neighbours has posed a hindrance to its East Asian diplomacy.
Having said that, I cannot help feeling greatly concerned about the DPJ’s urge to seek an ‘equal’ Japan-U.S. alliance. There is very little doubt that, when it comes to ‘equality’, the United States, for its part, would demand that Japan play a greater role in the alliance. In the process, contrary to the DPJ’s urge, Japan’s ‘dependence’ on the United States could well be brought into sharper relief. Further, if Japan were to face Asia while demanding ‘equality’ with the United States, how would that Japan appear in the eye of the Asian people? The wariness in the ASEAN’s reaction to Prime Minister Hatoyama’s idea of an East Asian community may stem in fact from the immaturity of a foreign policy driven by the urge to seek ‘equality’ with the United States.
The DPJ’s propensity to base its proactive foreign policy on multilateralism points to the right direction not only for the DPJ’s foreign policy but also for Japan’s future foreign policy. For example, Foreign Minister Okada’s surprise visit to Kabul on October 11 seems to signal that, on Afghanistan, Japan is actively searching for a role which makes the best use of its inherent strength. As for the refuelling operation by the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force vessels in the Indian Ocean, we should not lose sight of the fact that it has been conducted in fulfilment of an international role based on the United Nations Charter and the relevant U.N. resolutions. As such, it should not be an issue between Japan and the United States. Rather, it could well have been the centre-piece of the DPJ’s foreign policy anchored now in international cooperation. It is hoped that the DPJ’s foreign policy will go beyond a knee-jerk reaction to ‘dependence’ on the United States, and be redesigned from the viewpoint of proactively making use of the inherently asymmetric Japan-U.S. relationship.
This article was first published by the English- Speaking Union of Japan.
Yoshihide Soeya is Director of the Keio Institute of East Asian Studies, and Professor at the Faculty of Law, Keio University.