Posted By Dan Twining Share

In a thoughtful essay in today's Financial Times, Gideon Rachman asks whether Japan may now be tilting towards China after 60 years of aligning itself with the United States. This question is interesting on multiple dimensions -- including with regard to the future of U.S. primacy in Asia, the impact of China's rise on its neighbors, the nature of Japanese politics and identity, and our understanding of the deep structure of international relations at a time of systemic power shifts. Indeed, Japan is a critical case study for assessing how the developed world will respond to the rise of dynamic new power centers in Asia -- and what the implications will be for American leadership in the international system.

The ascent of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) after nearly six decades of unbroken rule by the conservative, U.S.-oriented Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has convulsed not only Japanese politics but also its foreign policy.  Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has mused about constructing a pan-Asian fraternal community based on "solidarity" -- not with Tokyo's closest alliance partner across the Pacific but with its near neighbors, led by China. What should have been little more than a tactical skirmish about the terms of the realignment of U.S. forces in Okinawa has become, through mismanagement on both sides, a strategic headache for both Washington and the inexperienced government in Tokyo, raising unnecessary tensions within the alliance. DPJ leader Ichiro Ozawa, the power behind the throne of the Hatoyama administration, recently led a delegation of 143 parliamentarians and hundreds of businessmen to Beijing, reviving in form if not substance the tributary delegations from China's neighbors that, in pre-modern times, ritually visited the Chinese court to acknowledge its suzerainty as Asia's "Middle Kingdom." 

These and other moves, unthinkable during the Cold War heyday of the U.S.-Japan alliance, suggest a striking shift in Japan's geopolitical alignment as the Pacific century dawns. Despite the fact that Japan was never part of "the Chinese world order" in traditional Asia, some analysts believe a Japanese tilt toward a resurgent China would be in keeping with the country's foreign policy traditions. As Gideon writes:

Some western observers in Tokyo muse that perhaps Japan is once again following its historic policy of adapting to shifts in global politics by aligning itself with great powers. Before the first world war the country had a special relationship with Britain. In the inter-war period Japan allied itself with Germany. Since 1945, it has stuck closely to America. Perhaps the ground is being prepared for a new "special relationship" with China?

In this reading of Japanese history since the Meiji restoration, the country has repeatedly aligned itself with the international system's preeminent power -- Britain in the early 20th century, Nazi Germany until 1945, and the United States since then. If Japan really is edging away from the United States to align itself with China today, that is a compelling indicator that the future belongs to Beijing, and that America's best days as the world's indispensable nation are behind it.

Yet this judgment is, if anything, premature -- and may simply be wrong. Imperial Britain, Nazi Germany, and America during the Cold War were actual or aspiring hegemons from outside Asia; Japan's alliance with each of them cemented its own role as Asia's dominant power.  Japan was not aligning with each of these powers to bandwagon with them, subordinating its power and interests to theirs. It allied with these Western states to facilitate its own pursuit of national power and leadership in Asia. 

This is true even of Japan's Cold War alliance with the United States, when post-war leaders in Tokyo pursued a conscious strategy of developing Japan's economic and technological dynamism within the cocoon of American military protection. In a systematic and self-interested manner, these leaders took advantage of the security umbrella provided by the United States to modernize Japan's economy and build strength with an eye on a long-term objective of moving beyond the constraints imposed by the U.S. alliance as Japan grew into a leading economic and technological power. The DPJ's new independence vis-à-vis Washington reflects this evolution, and the only surprise is that more Japan hands in the West didn't see it coming.

Historically, Japan has shown a striking ability to rapidly transform itself in response to international conditions, as seen in the Meiji break from isolation, the rise to great power in the twentieth century, the descent into militarism, and renewal as a dynamic trading state.  Only a few years ago, excellent books and articles with titles like Japan Rising: The Resurgence of Japanese Power and Purpose, Securing Japan: Tokyo's Grand Strategy and the Future of East Asia, and "Japan is Back: Why Tokyo's New Assertiveness is Good for Washington" framed the country as a resurgent Asian great power. Since 2001, successive Japanese prime ministers have articulated unprecedented ambitions for Japanese grand strategy.  These have included  casting Japan as the "thought leader of Asia," forging new bilateral alliances with India and Australia, cooperating with these and other democratic powers in an "Arc of Freedom and Prosperity," formalizing security cooperation with NATO, constructing a Pacific community around an "inland sea" centered on Japan as the hub of the international economic and political order, and building a new East Asian community with Japan at its center. These developments reflect the churning domestic debate in Japan about its future as a world power and model for its region, trends catalyzed by China's explosive rise.

Japan's strategic future remains uncertain in light of the country's churning domestic politics and troubling economic and demographic trends. Yet there is no question that military modernization in China and North Korea has spurred a new Japanese search for security and identity that has moved Tokyo decisively beyond the constraints that structured its foreign policy for fifty years following defeat in the Pacific war. The ascent of the DPJ, with its calls for a more equal U.S.-Japan alliance and greater Japanese autonomy in security and diplomacy, is another step forward in Japan's transformation into what DPJ leader Ichiro Ozawa famously called a "normal country." Enjoying a normal relationship with China, as the DPJ intends to do, is part of that process. But so will be a continuing partnership with the United States.

Jason Lee-Pool/Getty Images

 

TORNADOES28

9:25 PM ET

March 9, 2010

Tilt?

It's funny. Japan "tilted" towards china for over a thousand years from around the 3rd or 4th century until 17th century. They only "tilted" towards the US for a little over 50 years.

 

TOMHE

1:22 AM ET

March 10, 2010

in short of correct verbs

To tilte, is just one way of describing. It might be correct to describe the behaviors of past. I doubt it can still hold its relevancy to reality in the future. Japan, China, and US, may build a new kind of relationship, which requires a new verb to describe. I am sure you the native speaker of English will come up a better choice.

 

YOSHIMICHI MORIYAMA

3:12 AM ET

March 11, 2010

Japan's foreign policy

Mr. Hatoyama is a great dreamer, trusting in 'Asian solidarity.' He does not know that he is dreaming the unreal and the impossible. That is perhaps what makes up a great dreamer.

The Japanese have often spoken of Asian solidarity since the Meiji Restoration of 1868 but mean by it mostly China, forgetful of other small Asian countries and peoples. Mr. Hatoyama is no exception to this. He and many of his colleagues seem to think that if they simple say, "There shall be Asian solidarity and Japan's equidistance between the U.S. and China," there will be those things on the spot. As Mr. Rachman wirtes, even Mr. Hatoyama himself may not really know what he is up to. He seems to befogged as every move of his has not come out right as he intended.

Throughout Sino-Japanese history, no matter how passionate love the Japanese have felt toward China, the Chinese have never taken it seriously. Their attitude has been a disdainful one as was shown by Mr. Hu Jiangtao's response to Mr. Hatoyama's latest wooing. It did not change even during Japan's aggression into China in 1930s.

There are a few misunderstandings which are prevalent and easy to commit about Japan's foreign policy in Mr. Twining's article. China has intended to conduct its relations with the external world according to its own image; it has wanted to fashion the world in its own image of what it (the world) should be like, which comes from its long experience as the Middle Kingdom. Japan has adapted to the 'ready-made' world in which it has found itself.
Japana has made its foreign policy, responding to the most immediate enviornment and needs that it faced. It has never attempted, in this sense, to take leadership in Asia, not even in 1930s. Grand-sounding phrases must be given interpretation in this context. "Mr. Hatoyama, it is said, often proposes grand-sounding schemes ???without really thinking them through." This is quite correct.
Japan had its most important relations all the time since 1868 with the Anglo-Saxon world. There was no period in Japanese diplomatic history when it had more intimate relations with Germany than with Great Britain and the United States. Its military pact with Naze Germany was peripheral, temporary and for the sake of passing moment's expedience, though it was nonetheless a fatal mistake. Because Japan had been bogged down in war with China as Napoleon and Hitler were in Russia, its relations became strained with the United States. It wanted to find ways to extricate itself out of China in a honorable manner, i.e. saving its own face, so it hat to enter into negotiations with the United States, not with Nazi Germany, about what to do with China and not about what to do with the Pacific area. The United States was uncompromising and Japan was driven further to the wall. It called in Germany in desparation to tilt the unfavorable balance; this did not help; it still worsend Japan's position. All this would have been avoided if the military had been kept within their proper bounds.

 

Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.

Read More