Kan maybe not so unrealistic

PM Kan has been reported to suggest that the SDF would go to Korea in case of war. This has been judged to be unrealistic by some in the ROK. It certainly might cause problems for an untested force that has never participated* in exercises with the US/Korea forces (not ground combat anyway), and with no known (at least not widely known) planning for such actions with South Korea or the US. Then one would have to wonder just what the SDF could do that the ROK could not do about 10 zillion times better in a war in Korea. And how would the SDF know where the abducted Japanese are in North Korea? Would it be involved in the war only to protect Japanese? "Oh, a nearby ROK unit is is isolated, outnumbered, and needs immediate assistance. Sorry, we are only here for self-defense and that means Japanese citizens. Gomen ne. Gambatte!"

Of course there just might be some small possibility of a slight objection to Japanese military forces in Korea by the Koreans and Chinese even though they could be reassured by explaining that the SDF is not really a military as Japan is prohibited from having a military by its constitution.

So I thought, but then Martin Fackler wrote this article for the New York Times: Japan to Shift its Military Toward Threats from China

... Japan’s new Democratic Party government has been pulling closer to Washington, spurred by a bruising diplomatic clash three months ago with China over the disputed islands and fears about North Korea’s nuclear program.

.... Washington has proposed forging stronger three-way military ties that would also include its other key regional ally, South Korea...

...During a visit to the region last week, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, urged Japan to join American military exercises with South Korea. In a meeting with Japan’s defense minister, Toshimi Kitazawa, Admiral Mullen said the two nations needed to support South Korea after North Korea’s deadly shelling last month of a South Korean island...

Fackler also vaguely notes that the ROK vice minister of defense visited Tokyo last week to discuss "increased bilateral cooperation" with his Japanese counterpart.

*Or if it did, it was kept very much under wraps, so much so that most US military never knew it. In other words, nearly impossible.

How to become depressed.

After a year of living in what seems to be an unreal world---or at least one entirely different than I thought existed for the first 4.5 decades of my life---I thought it was becoming hard to become more cynical. I was wrong. It is not.

Read this at Armchair Asia.

As stereotypically resistant to change as the Japan is said to be, I am beginning to think that the US is just as much so*. And the "change"---LDP to DPJ---that certain folks in the US are resisting, does not really appear to be a huge, 180 degree change. Anyone paying any attention to Japan should have expected most of what the DPJ (vaguely) says it would like to do.

Over the last few weeks I have received much information about the US "alliance managers" fears of the DPJ victory and am grateful for all of it. One PDF which I can link to (and well worth reading) at NBR explains the DPJ's foreign policy visions and addresses some of the fears of the timid: Electing a New Japanese Security Policy? Examining Foreign Policy Visions within the Democratic Party of Japan.

Of course there are numerous blogs in addition to the above mentioned which have covered this much better than I could ever pretend or want to do including the ones here, here, and here**.

I am already dreaming of being lost in the sticks for several days in mid-September during which time I hope not to read, hear, nor think of anything related to the last year. I'll do fine not to meet another human being, I think. But for now, I shall try to go back to being a week behind the news...

*The US seems to be extremely resistant to changes in foreign policy, especially in NE Asia.

**Not being cynical enough has its penalties. When I first read at Shisaku that Hatoyama's CSM/NYT shortened and condensed article might mean problems with the US, I thought that it was very unlikely. Surely, nobody would either be surprised at what Hatoyama had written, or gotten their undies in a twist about such a vaguely written nuttin'.

6:39pm: I may need to clarify some points. The depressing thing at the Armchair Asia post is Jim Hoagland and his inane article. Also, when I wrote of not being cynical enough and referred to the Shisaku post, I meant that I was not cynical enough about what some in the US would stoop to regarding Hatoyama's article.

Kurikaeshi

I missed seeing the Monday night statement, but I am not even the slightest bit surprised.

Stung by the reaction, [to his New York Times article] Mr. Hatoyama appears to be back-pedaling and engaging in damage control. On Monday night, he said he had not intended for the article to appear abroad, and said it was being misinterpreted. “If you read the entire essay, you will understand that it is definitely not expressing anti-American ideas,” he said. NYT

Anything that a Japanese politician says that causes embarrassment or "confusion" is always due to misinterpretation and misunderstanding overseas. Besides, it was meant to be for internal use only like all such overly honest opinions expressed by a politician, government official, or other person with power or influence in Japan.

But none of that is a shock. The shock is the fact that any of what he wrote would have been news to any person knowledgeable about Japan. Surely folks involved with Japan/US relations are more aware of what is going on in Japan than that. Surely they would not need to rely on a NYT article.

For once, I am not being sarcastic. I find it impossible to believe that anyone paying attention would have been surprised. Impossible.

Oops. Another Japanese word pointlessly used in the title.

It's like?

Okada, who would likely have a key role in the new government if the opposition party takes power, criticized what he described as Japan's obedience to Washington. Tokyo has largely followed the lead of the U.S. over the last five decades despite sharp policy changes under the 11 different U.S. presidents who have served during that time.

"It's like Japan hasn't had its own diplomacy, or its own opinions," he said at a briefing Monday for a small group of foreign journalists. CBS

The DPJ's Katsuya Okada talking about his vision of Japan when the DPJ wins the election. What does he mean by "It's like"? Ya mean Japan has had it's own diplomacy and opinions? How was anyone supposed to know that?

The news is reporting that the US will relist South Korean ownership of the disputed Takeshima Islands. This will certainly peeve the nearly non-existent, nationalists.* Others may be concerned that this could damage US-Japan relations. (The US said that this represents no change in policy but a reversal of its week-long listing of the islands as belonging to no country.)

It seems that some folks are always concerned that certain US actions will damage the relationship.

Let's imagine that this tempest-in-a-teapot---or something that was actually serious---did damage relations. Severely. Japan then refuses to cooperate with the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. Japan reduces all military/security cooperation with the US. Would that irreparably harm either country?

Would it be bad for the US to no longer be seen by other countries in the region as moving toward a Japan-centered Northeast Asia policy? Would the US once again be viewed as a positive that acts as a stabilizing force between potential military rivals such as Japan and China instead of being on team Japan? Would the US actually have to rethink its 60 year-old policy that US bases (and the mostly one-sided Security Treaty) must be maintained in/with Japan until hell freezes over no matter how the world changes?

Would it be bad for Japan if it no longer supported policies just because Boy George---or whoever follows---insists that if it doesn't Uncle Sam will get mad? Would the right-wingers really be able to realize their fantasy of a re-armed Japan? Would Japan even be able to afford rearming with all of the other problems it is facing now? Would the nationalists (who don't really have much influence, or perhaps don't even exist) be as willing to use that force as some of them irresponsibly claim? If they were, would the Japanese public rise up and vote them out of office as it has throughout history?

Just a few poorly thought-out questions. Of course, I didn't even consider the possibility of damaged relations spilling over into trade. Anyway, I am sure that as the now long dead Senator Mike Mansfield said, (paraphrasing) "The US-Japan relationship is the most important in the world, bar none."

*We can in part judge the presence of nationalism (narrowly defined) in Japan by how much it spends on defense---around 1% of its budget. This is much less than other countries in the region. Japan is in a very unstable part of the world with potential war zones (Korea and Taiwan) nearby, and yet Japan still only spends such a minuscule amount on defense. This, among other things, shows a lack of nationalism. It just isn't an issue!

Oops!!! Wonder if the fact that the US is providing security for Japan influences that lack of defense spending and lack of concern by the public with defense/foreign policy issues? Naaaah...

Edited at 2300. I should have read MTC's Shisaku post on the relisting of the Takeshima Islands before I posted the above. Maybe so, but I really wanted to rant about nationalists who don't really exist to any extent in Japan, a country with little or no (narrowly defined) nationalism.