Japan’s main opposition party, which until recently touted plans to stand up to the US and form closer ties in Asia, is taking a more pragmatic line toward Tokyo’s top ally ahead of a likely election victory.
That should help ease concerns about any possible upset in the relationship, under which Japan has for decades kept in lockstep with the US on security policy in return for the shelter of its “nuclear umbrella.”
Analysts say the change in emphasis by the opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) is both a bid to avoid alienating voters ahead of the Aug. 30 poll and a sign of a new realism as it confronts a growing probability of taking power.
“The stage is completely different now,” said Yukio Okamoto, a former diplomat now of think tank Okamoto Associates.
“They have to really, realistically think about what they are going to do,” he said. “The line they have been insisting on so far is untenable, unsustainable in the face of the stark realities of the world security situation.”
The long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has made the US-Japan alliance the core of its diplomatic and security policies since the end of World War II and has stretched the limits of its pacifist Constitution, often at US urging.
In an effort to erode the rival Democrats’ lead in opinion polls, the LDP has repeatedly accused opposition leaders of lacking the experience to handle growing regional threats.
North Korea conducted a nuclear test in May, following what Pyongyang said was the launch of a rocket, which passed over a nervous Japan. China’s rapidly rising military might is another constant concern for Japan, whose defense budget has been sliding for seven years.
“In the midst of that, your security policy is ‘let’s distance ourselves from our ally of the past 50 years and embark on a new security policy’? It’s a no-brainer that you back away from that,” said Brad Glosserman of Hawaii-based think tank Pacific Forum CSIS.
“Essentially, what the DPJ wants to do at this point is eliminate every reason that voters have for not voting for them,” he said.
Democratic Party leaders have long stressed that they will keep the US alliance at the center of Japan’s security policy, but their plans to challenge the consensus on a range of issues could cause friction.
Former party leader Ichiro Ozawa sparked criticism in February, for example, when he said that most of the 47,000 US troops based in Japan were not required.
The DPJ has also attacked an agreement to move 8,000 US Marines from the southern island of Okinawa to the US territory of Guam because of the high costs involved for Japan.
Under Ozawa’s successor, Yukio Hatoyama, the party is now distancing itself from promises to call an immediate halt to a refueling mission in support of US-led military operations in Afghanistan.
The DPJ has in the past delayed legislation enabling the mission, saying it was a breach of Japan’s Constitution. Ozawa publicly snubbed a personal request from then-US ambassador Thomas Schieffer in 2007 to back it.
References to “radical” reform of the Status of Forces Agreement that dictates the treatment of US forces in Japan and to “constant monitoring” of costs of US bases that are footed by Japan have been removed from the DPJ’s manifesto, the Mainichi Shimbun said earlier this month.
The official party platform has yet to be unveiled.
Many analysts are optimistic about Japan’s relations with Asian neighbors if the DPJ takes power, since the party is unlikely to spark the kind of feuds over wartime history that have periodically marred ties with South Korea and China.
The DPJ could also prove a better fit than the ruling party with US President Barack Obama’s administration.
“There’ll be times when the Japanese disagree with us. Most of the time they’ll agree with us,” Daniel Sneider, Associate director for research at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University, said at a panel discussion in Washington this week.
“That’s a healthy relationship,” he said.
But others are still concerned about whether the DPJ can tone down security policies introduced in opposition once it takes over. The timing is especially critical since key five-year defense plans are scheduled to be completed by the end of this year.
“The DPJ may be able to make some mistakes on individual security decisions, which it can make good later,” Okamoto said. “But this exercise of deciding the five-year plan cannot be made good if they blunder,” he said. “Once it’s done, that’s it.”
“They had better come to a very quick realization about what Japan needs to do,” he said.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US