'Elvis' Has Left the Picture
After Koizumi, the U.S. should press Japan to mend fences with China.
By Graham Webster
Sunday September 17, 2006
When Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi visited Graceland with President George W. Bush this summer, Japanese-U.S. friendship took center stage. Koizumi, an avid Elvis fan whose suave hairstyle contributed to his maverick image at home, enjoyed a close relationship with Bush. But Koizumi’s tepid relations with China and other Asian nations pose a challenge to both Tokyo and Washington. His departure this week is an opportunity for a much-needed change.
Under Koizumi, Japan supported the invasion of Afghanistan and sent troops to Iraq, despite constitutional limits on military deployment. Koizumi’s team worked with the Bush administration on security in Taiwan and North Korea, and Japanese-U.S. economic ties are healthy.
But just as Koizumi strengthened cooperation with the United States, he slowed diplomatic relations with China to a virtual crawl through his uncompromising behavior on historical issues. Koizumi’s handling of the so-called “history problem’’ has been so ham-handed that Japan’s bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council last year resulted in dozens of anti-Japan demonstrations in China, including the largest single demonstration in Beijing since the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident.
The Chinese government was already fed up with Koizumi. Fulfilling a campaign promise to a right-wing interest group, Koizumi made five yearly visits to the controversial Yasukuni shrine, which honors Japan’s war dead since the 1860s, including 14 people convicted as Class A war criminals after World War II. The Chinese and South Korean governments have loudly chastised him for the visits, which they say are a nod to Japan’s imperialist past.
The Bush administration, preoccupied with anti-terrorism efforts and a troubled Iraq strategy, has stayed out of this dispute. Some say Bush’s failure to scold Koizumi on historical issues, while humoring his Elvis impersonation, was read as a snub in East Asia. But soon, everything might be “all shook up’’ in Japan. Shinzo Abe, who most agree will become prime minister this week, has defended Koizumi’s shrine visits, but he has made no promises to visit regularly. Indeed, seeing the opportunity to improve ties with China, he has already hinted that he might forgo a visit this fall to pave the way for a summit with Chinese President Hu Jintao in November.
Now it’s time for the United States to fully engage in the region. The White House should tell Abe that antagonizing Japan’s neighbors is not an option, and it should make sure China overhears. Then the administration should commit to greater engagement with China. Policy-makers concentrating on the Middle East need to be reminded that East Asia, too, is a vital region for America’s future. East Asia won’t wait for Washington to wake up.
If Japan mends ties with China and becomes more independent of the United States, American businesses may lose customers. Japan already trades more with China than with the United States, and a Japanese Cabinet minister last month found international support for an $80 million study toward an agreement to open up trade in Asia. The proposed agreement would include Japan, China, South Korea and Southeast Asian countries, as well as Australia, New Zealand and India. If it comes through, the accord would include more than 3 billion people, but Americans would be left out.
The position of the United States as a moral leader in the world is also in jeopardy. China is working to improve its image and turn itself into a regional leader. Privileged Southeast Asians, who for years have seen value in learning English or Japanese, are now considering Mandarin, and China is building the schools to teach them. The United States should be a driving force in Asia for human rights, but Washington must lead by example. The Bush administration’s treatment of detainees in Guantánamo Bay, and highly publicized crimes by U.S. forces at Abu Ghurayb and Al-Hadithah, undermine U.S. moral authority.
Finally, the world’s military balance may change. In the coming decades, both Japan and the United States are likely to face a more powerful China and perhaps even an end to unilateral U.S. dominance in the Pacific. But Japan and the United States will be more secure if both countries work with China and avoid any standoff over such potential flash points as Taiwan and the Korean Peninsula.
To maintain peace and prosperity in East Asia and at home, the United States must make the region a high priority. If we don’t, we ain’t nothin’ but a hound dog at Heartbreak Hotel.
This piece originally ran in the San Jose Mercury News. Graham Webster, associate editor of CampusProgress.org, writes a blog on East Asian international relations at gwbstr.com/b.
--------
Comments
Leave a comment about this article below. For more discussion, visit our community page and sign up for your own Campus Progress blog!
|
!
The author displays the best of intentions, but I believe his viewpoint on East Asian international relations misunderstands the fundamentals of the situation.
Assurances have been made behind closed doors that Abe will not continue Yasukuni visits in the same way that Koizumi has; some sort of accord will be reached. This will not be due to American pressure, but rather due to the fervent wishes of the Japanese business community.
Also, talk about a complete misreading of why Yasukuni has become an issue. In 1994, when the Emperor (Hirohito’s son! The son of the man responsible for Nanjing and the rest, the inheritor of his legacy!), visited China, they absolutely showered him with praise. The mood was overwhelmingly positive. Now, a little over ten years later, it’s all about Yasukuni. Why? Not the Japanese government’s wishes, that’s for sure. The Chinese government is experimenting with nationalistic sentiment as a unifier, but they recognize they’re playing with fire.
Lastly, the Japanese are not simpleton morons. They utterly know the score with Yasukuni; their reluctance to back down stems primarily from the fact that they know why China is making it into a large issue.
I’ve asked the same question you ask in this piece to several people within the current and past administrations, including senior Japan and China hands. They all gave the same answer; one of the primary things keeping Japan from revising Article 9 is knowing that we will act as a strong advocate on their behalf. If we go to them, an ally of the United States, on behalf of a country that for all its merits is not an ally and is in fact a rival of our ally, we completely shoot down our own credibility with the Japanese.
All in service of a country where our help won’t be appreciated and won’t buy us any political capital. Not to mention the fact that Yasukuni is a favorite of the Chinese because it’s convenient; if it weren’t that, it’d be something else. The point is the benefits they reap, not the specific visits themselves.
Lastly, a note in general on East Asian policy: If you think America doesn’t make Asia a high priority, you’re simply not paying attention.
In fact, part of the reason America can make Asia such a high priority is because we remove most debate about Asia from the public sphere; compared to almost every other important area of US policy, our Asia policy is crafted with comparatively little in the way of political interference. Bush and Clinton have been somewhat closer on Asia policy than on most other aspects of their presidencies, and that is to both their credits.
We are roughly as engaged now with China as we’ve ever been. To the extent that we’ve taken a slightly harder stance than under Clinton, that has been to our benefit; behind closed doors, the Chinese have been more receptive to our demands under Bush. Relations with the elites (and in Asian diplomacy, the elites are what matter) are by and large going strong. We’ve managed to craft relatively strong relations with the leaders of Japan, China, and Taiwan simultaneously; no small feat, considering the history, and mirrored by our simultaneously strong relations with both India and Pakistan.
Since East Asia is my focus, I’d like to get into this more with you, Graham. Mind if I contact you by e-mail or AIM?
— JM - Sep 18, 09:03 PM - #I’d be glad to talk with you, JM, and I would have e-mailed you just now if you hadn’t given our system a fake address. Anyone is always free to contact me at gwebster
atamericanprogressdotorg-Graham
— Graham - Sep 19, 09:08 AM - #