Friday, November 05, 2010

Island disputes test Japan's honour

No one is saying that contemporary Japan will develop into the militaristic Japan of old. But regional powers in Asia should take heed not to push Japan too much, lest the consequences surprise them.


IN OCTOBER 1996, Mr Yukio Hatoyama and Mr Naoto Kan, two founders of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), made an extraordinary demand by calling for the removal of United States troops in Japan.

Fast forward 13 years to 2009 - the year the DPJ finally grabbed power - and that demand no longer exists.

For a few months last year, however, DPJ officials worried their US counterparts after they stated that there would be a sea change in Japan's military relationship with the US. For example, the DPJ called for a revision in the sensitive Status of Forces Agreement that governs how US troops in Japan are treated.

Mr Hatoyama served as premier for a brief nine months. His successor, Mr Kan, is the only serving politician from the DPJ class of 1996 that had called for a radical change in Japan's alliance with the US.

In Mr Kan's five months as premier, his volte-face from his previously held views is interesting. There is little talk about any kind of distancing from the Americans. In fact, there is much talk about strengthening the alliance.

Speaking to Japanese troops in September, Mr Kan sketched the dangers posed by China and North Korea, and stressed that he would 'deepen the alliance into an appropriate form for the 21st century'.

This is understandable. In recent years, Japan has seen its security environment deteriorate. In 2006, North Korea conducted its first nuclear test. China's military has also cast a long shadow over Japan, particularly after Tokyo's recent clash with Beijing over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.

Also, Russia remains a worry. Earlier this week, Japan locked horns with Russia after President Dmitry Medvedev visited an island in the disputed Kuril chain.

Not surprisingly, Japan's strategic thinking in the past two decades has been dependent more on its security environment than the instincts of its politicians. Indeed, the Japanese military has undergone a radical shift, such that pacifist Japan is on the path of remilitarisation.

In 2007, the Japanese Defence Agency was turned into a full-fledged ministry, paving the way for Japan to become a 'normal' military power. Japan has increased cooperation with the US on ballistic missile defence - a system that is arguably both defensive and offensive.

Japan's ability to project power over long distances is also being augmented with the purchase of a helicopter carrier, Boeing 767 in-flight refuelling tankers and long-range air transports.

Writing in 2008, Japan analyst Christopher Hughes said that Japan's remilitarisation should not be read 'as an alarmist warning that Japan is necessarily intent on reverting to the kind of state it became between 1931 and 1945'. Rather, he argued, Japan is set upon a 'long-term trajectory' that will see it assuming a more assertive regional and global role.

That is fine. Japan, after all, has been a responsible global citizen for decades, and a beefed-up Japan Self Defence Force (JSDF) would be good for regional stability.

The problem here, however, is that China, North Korea and Russia have to be careful in pushing Tokyo too far in their disputes.

Embedded deep in the Japanese psyche is an acute sensitivity to rank, dignity and honour. With each perceived slight that Japan suffers, the profile of the country's nationalist right-wing increases. This could push the Japanese military into uncharted waters - be it the adoption of nuclear weapons, or even a JSDF that is more independent of its American ally.

In September, a group of 100 conservative politicians led by former premier Shinzo Abe criticised the government's release of the captain of a Chinese fishing trawler that had slammed into Japanese coast guard ships near Senkaku.

'We are standing at a watershed where our ability to defend the Japanese people and this nation itself is tested,' the group named Sosei Nihon, translated roughly as Creation Japan, said in a statement. 'We hereby declare we will resolutely seek to overthrow the Kan administration which has damaged our nation's interest, trust and dignity.'

Note the emphasis on Japan's dignity. In recent years, talk about Japan's honour and dignity has become more intense. The Dignity Of A State, written by Japanese mathematician Masahiko Fujiwara, has caught the popular imagination.

Honour and dignity are themes that resonate throughout Japanese history. During the Tokugawa period, both the warrior and bureaucratic classes emphasised the role of honour.

Likewise, Japan's most strategic decision in 1941 - the decision to attack Pearl Harbour - stemmed from bizarre, but understandable, calculations about honour. If Japan had yielded to American demands to withdraw from China, it would have lost its honour and all sense of purpose. Alternatively, a fight against a power 10 times more powerful, though damaging, could still preserve its honour.

Speaking to the Emperor that year, Chief of Naval General Staff Osami Nagano told the Emperor that if Japan did not go to war against the US, the fate of the nation was sealed. 'Even if there is war, the country may be ruined. Nevertheless a nation which does not fight in this plight has lost its spirit and is already a doomed nation,' he said.

No one is saying that contemporary Japan will develop into the militaristic Japan of old. But regional powers in Asia should take heed not to push Japan too much, lest the consequences surprise them.

STRAITS TIMES williamc@sph.com.sg