Japan-U.S. Relations: Let There Be Discord

Op-Ed Contributor

Japan-U.S. Relations: Let There Be Discord

Published: November 15, 2009

HIROSHIMA — In February 1960, one month after its signature in Washington, the U.S.-Japan treaty of mutual cooperation and security was submitted to the Japanese Parliament for ratification. It unleashed a storm of unprecedented furor across Japan.

Massive and at times violent demonstrations erupted in major cities. Fights broke out in the lower house of Parliament, where police had to intervene to arrest opposition members.

A planned visit by then U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower was cancelled. Finally, even though the treaty was ratified (by default) in June, it cost then Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi, the man most Japanese saw as its main architect, his job.

All this is to say how surprising it is to see, as the 50th anniversary of the pact approaches, American policy-makers and commentators so rattled by voices in Japan questioning the treaty — and more specifically its burden on Okinawa.

The worry-mongers tend to ignore not only the treaty’s historical significance, but also the cataclysmic changes that have occurred in Japan since the elections in August.

They err mostly, however, by considering the treaty as the only link between the two Pacific rim partners, overlooking the range and depth of a far more complex friendship binding Tokyo and Washington.

First the treaty itself: For the United States it is but one among similar important bilateral security alliances. For Japan, however, it has deep psychological and moral ramifications, touching upon a myriad of issues, from national pride and self-esteem to a collective sense of guilt towards Okinawa.

As long as Japan remains under America’s protective umbrella — what historian John Dower calls its “subordinate independence” — it shall be hard pressed to exercise on the international stage a leadership role fully commensurate with its economical status or peace credentials, even in the nuclear arena, despite its moral authority as the only atomic-bombed nation in history.

The Japanese may ultimately conclude that their security pact with the United States is indeed in their own best strategic interest, or at least unavoidable for the time being. But the new government is right to want a national conversation around the alliance’s full implications.

Harried and impatient visits, like the one offered last month by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates — whose demeanor resembled more an irritated parent than an ally or friend — not only enforce the caricature of Americans as culturally insensitive but also deeply wound Japan’s sense of fair play. The Japanese rightly felt that the Americans would never tolerate such a disdain for the imperatives of their own domestic politics.

Second, the new political landscape in Japan: America has yet to grasp just how essential a change has occurred in Japan. For the first time in decades, ordinary Japanese seem genuinely proud of their political leadership.

Except for a brief spell under Junichiro Koizumi — admired maybe more for his personal integrity than for any lasting accomplishments — until recently Japanese were all but resigned to deplorable politicians wheeling and dealing behind closed doors.

True, the new government of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama may also stumble along the way. But for now people are relishing a new era and breed of politician — qualified, articulate and frequently young — able and willing to address the real problems facing this nation, leaving no sacred cows untouched. Swept into power with a huge popular mandate for change, it would be irresponsible, to say the least, for Hatoyama not to question the security alliance with the United States.

Most importantly, however, the grumblings in Washington tend to underestimate the depth and strength of a friendship that binds one of the world’s youngest to one of its oldest nations.

Few countries could have emerged from a bloody war, the atomic holocausts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and a long, humiliating occupation to retain such genuine bonds with their former enemy and victor.

Nowhere am I reminded of this sentiment more strongly than here in Hiroshima, where the motto “forgive but not forget” is the underlying spirit animating the citizens’ campaign for nuclear disarmament.

One is hard-pressed to ever hear, at least openly, any hatred for the Americans. Two years ago the remarkable mayor of Hiroshima, M.I.T.-educated Tadatoshi Akiba, went so far as to nominate an American to head the Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation, an entity that spearheads the city’s peace initiatives.

Finally, it is naïve to assume that all this is a one-way road, for America too is dependent, in more subtle ways, on Japan for its security concerns.

At a time when it is shedding blood and money in Iraq and Afghanistan, America needs Japan more than any of its European allies. Japan’s modest, cautious diplomacy does not sufficiently highlight the admiration and trust it enjoys in the Middle East and generally in the larger Muslim world.

I have observed again and again, through hundreds of young Afghan professionals I have worked with, the respect with which they regard Japan as a nation that rose from its ashes, as a country of culture and tradition that has succeeded in a globalized world, and, just as significantly, as a country without a religious attitude or agenda. It is rare to hear such sentiments offered with regard to Washington.

The relationship forged by the United States and Japan since Commodore Perry sailed into Tokyo Bay in 1853 is indeed complex. It has been sustained not just by security concerns or an economical agenda, but by shared values, pains, joys, memories and interests spanning education, culture, science and, of course, baseball. It is a resilient, multifaceted friendship, fully able to handle occasional discord.

Japan has been a nation of peace and democracy for the last 64 years, and the United States rightly deserves some credit for this. The best it can now do is to wait, courteously, for the Japanese to contemplate the next century fully on their own terms.

Nassrine Azimi is senior adviser at the United Nations Institute for Training and Research.