The case for why Mr. Abe shouldn't visit the Yasukuni Shrine

I shouldn't have been so surprised when I found out that newly elected LDP president, Shinzo Abe, visited the Yasukuni Shrine on Wednesday. Mr. Abe has always been characterized as a hawk, and his rhetoric is textbook right-wing politician. But because he already held the title of prime minister, I thought Mr. Abe was smarter than his predecessors and understood the ramifications of his words and actions.

Japanese politicians argue their visit to the Yasukuni Shrine is protected by their constitutional right to freedom of religion and that it is appropriate for policymakers to pay their respects to the 2.5 million warriors who died in the name of their country. I understand and respect this argument. And unlike a number of foreign spectators, I do not believe that those politicians who visit the shrine endorse the actions of convicted war criminals, nor do I believe that those politicians support Japanese militarism. Many politicians, and even former Prime Minister Koizumi, claim that their visits are to ensure that there are no future wars involving Japan.

But I hold prime ministers to a different standard than regular politicians. The leader of a nation must pay respect to his fallen comrades, but it must be done in a way that doesn’t offend the entire international community. The prime minister embodies all of Japan, and because of that, must watch what they say and how they act.

And Mr. Abe understands this. He knew what the geopolitical implications of visiting the shrine would be, and decided not to visit the shrine the entire time he was prime minister. Every time Mr. Koizumi visited the shrine, it strongly hurt relations with China and South Korea. His visit in 2002 upset a number of Chinese diplomats, resulted in cancelled meetings and started a mini China-Japan crisis. Mr. Abe clearly saw and comprehended how Japan’s relations in the region were falling apart due to the Yasukuni visits.

And yet he visits the Yasukuni shrine earlier this week, and during one of the tensest moments in modern China-Japan history. Maybe Mr. Abe is visiting the shrine to play into the anti-China sentiment and gain public support right before the election. Or perhaps when he becomes Prime Minister he will stop his visits. But these are lackluster excuses. Mr. Abe is the presumed successor of Prime Minister Noda, and his actions are being watched by top Chinese and South Korean officials.

Tension in the Asia Pacific benefits no one. And even though an armed conflict between China and Japan is highly unlikely, Mr. Abe’s visit is clearly flirting with danger. He is the leader of a major world power, and he must act like one. There is a difference between being a stern leader and being plain unaware of consequences. Visiting the shrine can not only bring diplomatic ruin, but it can hurt trade and the region’s economy.

The Senkaku Island crisis has led to an enormous drop in Japanese car sales in China, hurting the profits of companies like Toyota and Honda. China’s growing middle class is an important market for Japanese companies. Tension between the two nations will grow if Mr. Abe continues his visits, and that tension could lead to Japanese companies failing in China.

China can be one of Japan’s greatest economic and diplomatic allies, and I hope that, as the next prime minister, Mr. Abe can take the high road and initiate such a relationship.

Japanese Culture to Blame for Fukushima Disaster?

As is procedure after most major disasters, the Diet put together a non-partisan commission -- the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC) -- to find the true cause of the Fukushima disaster, and provide policy and procedure recommendations to both the government and nuclear industry. The commission released the English version of the report today. In their findings, NAIIC stated that the Fukushima disaster was indeed “man made,” which Japanese citizens and the international community already largely believed. But the most interesting part of the commission’s report was their finding that the Fukushima incident was a disaster “made in Japan. “

The report states  that the fundamental causes for the disaster “are found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: [its] reflexive obedience; [its] reluctance to question authority; [its] devotion to ‘sticking with the program’; our groupism; and our insularity.” It continues, “Had other Japanese been in the shoes of those who bear responsibility for this accident, the result may well have been the same.” The report finds that it wasn’t necessarily the individual people who were at fault, but actually their adherence to ingrained Japanese cultural traits that inadvertently led to the Fukushima incident.

That means that under the same circumstances, non-Japanese nuclear reactor operators and government regulators would likely have been prepared for and avoided the nuclear disaster altogether. NAIIC’s assertion is quite bold and should be explored further, but at this point I think it is important to look at what Japan can do to fix this cultural dilemma.

Dr. Charles Ferguson, President of the Federation of American Scientists, believes that the Japanese cultural trait of reluctance towards questioning authority should and will change over the short-term. Using the Three Mile Island incident as an example, he stating that after the accident, an investigation committee commissioned by Congress -- similar to NAIIC -- also found that American workers were unwilling to question authority. As a result of this report’s findings, American nuclear operators established programs that protect whistle-blowers, and adopted a culture of -- graciously -- questioning authority. Dr. Ferguson believes that the Fukushima disaster has rocked Japanese culture to the core and that these strict cultural traits will naturally dissolve as authority figures in the nuclear industry adopt new rules and regulations.  

I am not as hopeful as Dr. Ferguson. I do not believe Japan’s culture of obedience and the idea of groupism will be changing anytime soon, even if there are whistleblower programs in place. America has a long cultural history that revolved around the individual, but Japanese culture is deeply rooted in the group, and even a nuclear disaster will not shake that trait.

Instead of hoping for the culture to change, I think the government can take a more pragmatic approach towards enforcing rules and regulations that take into account the unique facets of Japanese culture. NAIIC recommends creating a regulatory organization that is independent from the government chain of command, nuclear operators and political pressure. The NAIIC laid out the following conditions for such a regulatory organization: 

1. Transparent: (i) The decision-making process should exclude the involvement of electric power operator stakeholders. (ii) Disclosure of the decision-making process to the  National Diet is a must. (iii) The committee must keep minutes of all other negotiations and meetings with promotional organizations, operators and other political organizations and disclose them to the public. (iv) The National Diet shall make the final selection of the commissioners after receiving third-party advice.
2. Professional: (i) The personnel must meet global standards. Exchange programs  with overseas regulatory bodies must be promoted, and interaction and exchange of  human resources must be increased. (ii) An advisory organization including knowledgeable personnel must be established. (iii) The no-return rule should be applied  without exception.
3. Consolidated: The functions of the organizations, especially emergency communications, decision-making and control, should be consolidated.
4. Proactive: The organizations should keep up with the latest knowledge and technology, and undergo continuous reform activities under the supervision of the Diet.

NAIIC offered a number of different recommendations, but this one seemed like it could do the most to assure safety in Japan’s nuclear industry, despite Japan’s cultural shortcomings. Transparency and independence will allow the regulatory organization to act without feeling constrained by being part of the government or business sector’s “group.”

NAIIC’s assertion that the Fukushima disaster was “made in Japan” may be an overstatement and a tad harsh, but it is important to find a way to fix the regulator-business relationship so that a future disaster can be stopped. Japanese culture is one of the many different variables policymakers must keep in mind when formulating nuclear industry rules and regulations. Overcoming simple cultural deficiencies will not instantly make the industry safe, but it is a good start to a frank discussion the government and business community must initiate.

Second Time's A Charm: How Being a Hawk Can Help Mr. Abe Succeed

I first became interested in Japanese politics when then-Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi was pushing for the privatization of Japan’s postal service. He spoke with lofty rhetoric and exiled members of his own party who opposed his vision for Japan, and became one of Japan’s most revered leaders in decades. I remember how my friends and I were excited to see how Mr. Koizumi’s protege and successor, Shinzo Abe, would be as the next Prime Minister of Japan. But when Mr. Abe became Prime Minister in 2006, his cabinet and party immediately became engulfed in corruption scandals and Japan’s economic growth began to decline. After being in office for a little less than a year, Mr. Abe resigned, triggering a long series of failed prime ministers who have not been able to keep office for more than fifteen months.

But the stars have aligned for Mr. Abe. He was recently elected as the LDP’s president and his party is expected to win the general election, which will take place before May 2013. Once his party gains a majority in the Diet, Mr. Abe will become the next prime minister of Japan. Besides the fact that it is rare to see a Japanese politician take the role of prime minister twice in his career, it is particularly surprising that Mr. Abe will be the one returning to lead Japan.

During his tenure as prime minister, many Japanese citizens found his security policies too hawkish. His 2006-07 security policies had three pillars: 

• First, contribute to global peace and stability. Mr. Abe hoped to accomplish this by revising article 9 of the constitution and the definition of collective self defense, allowing Japanese forces to come to the aid of other countries.
• Second, organize a formal multi-national security council with all Asian nations that share the same values as Japan. Mr. Abe hoped that this would give Japan the ability to coordinate and execute regional security policies.
• Third, transform the military alliance with the US from a defensive shield towards a more explicit expeditionary role. This was largely part of Mr. Abe trying to transform the Japanese military’s role towards one of action and legitimacy.

Removing or even revising article 9 was particularly controversial in 2007, and likely hurt Mr. Abe’s popularity as prime minister. But now that the Senkaku island conflict has taken the media by storm, the Japanese public may be more receptive to rethinking the purpose and role of their self defense forces.

As Prime Minister, Mr. Abe would likely continue supporting an expanded role for the Japanese Self Defense Forces. I expect Mr. Abe to push for some short-term security changes, like renaming Japan’s Self-Defense Force to more accurately reflect its status as a real military, or urging US marines to introduce the MV-22 Osprey transport aircraft in Okinawa.

And expect Mr. Abe to be strongly supportive of Japan’s ownership of the Senkaku islands. In a recent interview, Mr. Abe stated that he would take “firm action to protect the islands and the territorial waters around them.” He insisted that there are “no territorial disputes over the islands; They unquestionably belong to Japan.”

But there are some analysts who believe that Mr. Abe doesn’t even have a chance at even becoming prime minister. Koichi Nakano, a political science professor at Sophia University in Tokyo, believes that Japanese citizens would never vote for the LDP as long as Mr. Abe is at the helm. “For ordinary Japanese who are not ideologically leaning one way or another, I think they’ll say, ‘Really? That’s the guy who quit and left Japan in limbo,’” stated Mr. Nakano.

I don’t prescribe to Mr. Nakano’s pessimism regarding the LDP unable to regain a majority in the Diet with Mr. Abe as its leader. But it is without a doubt that Mr. Abe will have to prove himself either before or immediately after becoming prime minister. He failed his first time around, and he will need to show the nation that he is a competent leader. Lucky for him, his right-wing rhetoric could capture the hearts and minds of the Japanese, especially as tension grows in East Asia.  

Don't count on a third Sino-Japan war anytime soon

I think it is safe to say that most people do not find foreign relations particularly exciting. The State Department’s progress on trade disputes, human rights best practices, or even energy partnerships do not capture front-page headlines. But war, on the other hand, captures the attention of millions and receives unparalleled media coverage.   Which is why I should not be surprised that a few reporters recently declared that a war is brewing in the Asia-Pacific. They believe that a third Sino-Japanese war may be on the horizon. Although China and Japan have been arguing over ownership rights to the Senkaku islands for years, the recent purchase of the islands by the Japanese government has ignited protests across China. And as Chinese citizens take to the streets burning Japanese flags and cars alike, anti-Japanese rhetoric has even seeped into the Chinese government. One of China’s top government advisors has proposed crippling Japan’s economy  through a “bond war,” and a member of the Chinese military has even proposed deploying battleships near the disputed island. These recent comments are proof enough for a few that an attack on the land of the  rising sun may be imminent, effectively drawing the United States into World War III. There is no doubt that the Chinese government is upset over Japan’s recent purchase of the Senkaku islands and will attempt to acquire the islands through nearly every means available. However, China would never take that paramount step of going to war with Japan. Their leaders have more common sense than that.

Chinese leaders are smart. They realize that starting a naval battle with Japan over the Senkaku islands would mean that the US would be forced to intervene. Although the Japanese Self-Defense Force has a sizeable navy, the United States has treaty obligations that would quickly bring them to the aid of Japan. Although China has been expanding their military at breakneck speeds, it is still no match for America’s naval juggernaut. China may sail their battleships around the islands and try to intimidate Japan, but the threat of US military intervention would deter any attack.

Even if Chinese officials ignore the power disparity between their military and that of the US, China’s economy would be ravaged by an armed conflict. Immediately after initial hostilities, the US and Japan would cut off all trade relations with China. China is experiencing its first bout of economic trouble in decades, with GDP growth for 2012 is projected to be a “low” 7.8%. Their economy depends on exports, and if they go to war with Japan, they suddenly lose their 2nd and 3rd largest trading partner. I won’t pretend to be an economist, but I know well enough that this alone would wreak havoc on China’s currently fragile economy.

And simply being at war with Japan would make China a number of new enemies. Japan -- being the number one provider of foreign aid in the world -- has amassed a number of rich allies over the years.  Japan’s allies would threaten placing embargos on Chinese imports or cutting trade off altogether, until the Chinese agree to end the conflict. China still depends on their manufacturing sector, and losing a large share of the international market would destroy the foundation to their economy.

And as if that wasn’t the worst of it, China’s reputation with its neighbors in the region would be forever tarnished. China is trying to define itself as the rising leader of Asia, but few nations would trust a China that would start a conflict over a few rocks (no matter how symbolic they may be).  South Korea doesn’t have the best relations with Japan, but even policymakers in Seoul would slap sanctions on a hostile China. Now that the US has pivoted towards Asia, they would be in the perfect position to replace China as a peaceful and benevolent leader in the region. Chinese officials would never risk losing their potential leadership role in the Asia-Pacific.

All of this economic turmoil and regional instability would be hard for any government to handle, but even worse for one going through a once-in-a-decade leadership transition. Later this year, China’s entire leadership will be changing and a fresh lot of policymakers will be in power. An armed conflict with Japan would be impossible for a new government to handle. Heck, analysts even declared that the Bo Xilai fiasco would disrupt the entire government transition process -- imagine what a full-blown war would do.


China is well on its way to becoming a major world power, why would they mess it all up now over a series of uninhabited islands? Sure, the islands would allow China to expand their naval border and stick it to Japan, buts is it worth the ensuing economic turmoil? A war with Japan would bring military, economic, diplomatic and political ruin. Perhaps if China were a North Korean-type country, on their way out and with nothing to lose, then launching an attack on Japan would be somewhat feasible. But Chinese leaders have common sense; they understand their country’s potential and that is what will stop any conflict.

Mr. Noda, how will history remember you?

As the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit rages on, it has been confirmed that Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda will not express his interest in joining the first round of TPP negotiations this fall in Russia. Noda’s recent decision is likely an attempt to appease agricultural organizations, which make up a significant portion of his party’s voting base. These votes will be vital if the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) has any lingering hope of winning the snap-election expected early November. A number of DPJ members argue that since the TPP is a “living” trade agreement, Japan can join later down the road and do not need to be present at the first few rounds of negotiations.

But Japan’s stagnant economy requires free trade in order to be revitalized. If the government waits too long to act, major Japanese companies may decide to move production bases abroad, further accelerating the “hollowing-out” of their domestic industry and thrashing their economy. If Japan wishes to join the first round of TPP negotiations later this year, the Japanese government must show that they are making a concerted effort in reforming trade and government finance policies. But they must act by the end of the month in order to gain US sponsorship and receive a seat at the negotiation table. The first round of negotiations will revolve around such issues as eliminating or shrinking tariffs and formulating rules on trade and investment.

If Japanese officials aren't present at tariff and investment negotiations, then the Diet will be required to agree to potentially unfavorable rules when joining the TPP later down the road. Noda must come to terms with losing support from agricultural organizations and even popularity inside of his own party, and stop at nothing to pass the necessary trade reforms for Japan’s entrance into the TPP.

Let’s face it, the DPJ is already projected to have a tough time in the upcoming November snap-election. The LDP will likely win and the new Hashomoto-infused JRA is projected to steal a sizeable chunk of the DPJ’s seats. Instead of worrying about losing an election (poor Noda is being attacked by those from the opposition party, inside his own party, and grassroots political movements), Noda should focus on pushing policies that will actually help Japan. Winning this election is a lost cause -- he used up all of his political capital with the passage of the sales tax increase.

Now is time for Noda to go big and go bold. He supported the TPP in the past, but he should be supporting it now more than ever. While the US and China face economic uncertainty, the euro teeters on collapse; the Japanese government must do all it can to prepare for the worst. Joining a free trade organization with 11 of some of the most powerful economies in the Asia-Pacific will help.

Naturally, simply joining the TPP will not solve all of Japan’s woes, but it is a step in the right direction. Hashimoto is bringing with him a storm that may revolutionize the stagnant Japanese political system. Mr. Noda, why not eternalize yourself in history by revolutionizing Japanese trade before passing on the torch?