Japan and Space

Today's blog will take the form of a book review. The book in question is In Defense of Japan: From the Market to the Military in Space Policy, written by Saadia Pekkanen, Paul Kallender-Umezu, two self-professed enthusiasts of the minutiae space industry. Luckily, they chose to make their book relevant to people interested in more general aspects of Japanese politics, and the alliance with the United States. The insight paid off, as the book provides an excellent look into the surprising indigenous development of space capability in Japan.

The central point of the book can be summarized with a line from the preface: "Japan has the technical wherewithal to be marked as a military space power and now has placed national security as the centerpiece of its space development strategy." You might be asking yourself when this happened, or how. Well, the authors are well aware of this predicament. In fact, the greatest developments in Japanese space capabilities have taken place out of sight of the media, which only reports a few rocket tests and ballistic missile defense. Instead, they testify that "important answers lie in the market" (2). Oddly, failed investments in space technology over the long run only forced companies to increase those investments to try to cut their losses by coming up with a successful technology. In the end, this sphere proved the most profitable for companies, and the prospect of dual-use civilian/military technologies made the investment worthwhile. These militarily relevant expenditures have translated into military-capable space infrastructure.

Still, there is no cohesive national structure for space exploration/arms development in Japan. Several conferences have discussed the issue, and left the door open for development, but constitutional constraints against rearming have left murky any attempt to centralize the process. Weird that something so complex can emerge with so little bureaucracy, yet civilian and commercial parties control the space "program."

The authors offer a reason for the lack of attention paid to this novel development. They talk about how debates about Japan don't focus on whether they have space capability, but rather just war over which international relations theory should be used to understand Japan, and how that relates to their pacifist nature relates to their ability to militarize. Odd that actual developments should fall through the cracks.

The whole thing is summed up pretty well by reviewer Andrew Nathan in Foreign Affairs:

Today, in addition to ballistic missile defense capabilities developed in cooperation with the United States, Japan is working on reusable launch vehicles (that is, space planes); satellites that detect missiles and help with navigation, communication, and targeting; warhead reentry technologies that can advance the use of missiles in warfare; unmanned aerial vehicles; and technologies for "space situational awareness," which reveal a concern about possible future conflict in space. It is too soon to count Japan out in the arms race in Asia.

Perhaps more surprising than scary at this point, but interesting and worth investigating nonetheless.

Japan and the Other

Today in English class we were discussing the idea of the Other. To summarize the concept, the Other is essentially what "we" (whatever the norm is in a given culture) are not. That is, if we are male, the Other is female. If we are white, then the Other is a racial minority. In this way, all cultures (not just ours) define themselves, establishing a firm identity by contrasting it with alternatives. In a sense, the Other is essential to understanding the Self. Still, use of the Other becomes problematic when a culture becomes too dominant and exploitative, uses the Other to mark those who don't belong, and uses violence or other means to exclude them. Creating the Other can also greatly hamper cross-cultural communication, since the Other can be construed as an inferior, and therefore unworthy of being taken seriously or without a contribution to be made.

Obviously, these problems carry over to our relationship with Japan. To avoid rephrasing something in a worse form than the original, here's the abstract to an excellent paper on the subject, which I will continue to cite throughout this paper:

This paper tries to show how cross-cultural conflict often occurs between Japan and Westerners as the result of imposing one's own cultural meanings onto another culture. Interpretations of Japan, as well as other Asian cultures, often carries an implicit assumption that the West is rational (and superior) whereas the East is bound by ancient traditions (and is inferior). "Orientalism" has been identified as the particular form that Western stereotypical understandings of Asian cultures has taken. Intercultural communication becomes highly problematic as long as stereotypes are held and as long as the other culture is seen as foreign and wholly other. By transcending this "Orientalism" we will be in a better position to understand and communicate with those from another culture without having to set up a dichotomous boundary between "us" and "them." Conflict with Japan is focused on 1) because there seems to be a lot of it, and 2) because Japan represents a unique culture field which is, in some ways, both modern and familiar, yet in other ways seemingly foreign to Western interpretive structures. This paper will call into question some of the stereotypes that Westerners often project onto Japan as being a monolithic culture which is excessively authoritarian, hierarchical, and patriarchal. We will try to offer some other interpretive options for understanding a culture which has suffered from intercultural communication problems for so long.

Some of what's going on in that abstract requires certification higher than a middle school diploma to fully flesh out (don't worry, I'll have a high school diploma soon), but, without getting bogged down in some of the more esoteric terminology or concepts, and perhaps staying away from the gritty details of the field of Japanese cultural studies, we can draw out a few key points.

-We stereotype and assume superiority when trying to understand Japan

When understanding Japan, we all too often imagine Japanese as efficient, dependent, and polite. The implication becomes that Japanese are conformist- incompatible with Western ideals of the individual and rights, and simply different and inferior.

-That makes it hard to communicate across cultures

When we assume someone is that inferior, it makes hard for us to imagine any benefit to communication. Additionally, some aspects of the stereotype- such as Japanese being unable to express their opinions or communicate without Japanese- make it seem to us as if we are unable to communicate with Japanese. That only furthers the stereotype, because there's no chance for it to be broken down.

-There are ways to end this predicament

Rosen (in the article cited above) has a few suggestions from other sources: Using an idea from Hinduism to open ourselves to other ideas, and learning the same language so communication is easier.

Though those options seem less than practical, it probably is important to bear in mind the stereotypes we use to understand people, and actively resist them. Pointing out and acknowledging them is the first step.

A personal touch-

While I'm familiar with the stereotypes and attitude explained above- especially in the extreme forms portrayed in the media like a Japanese takeover of our economy- I have to say I've had so little personal experience with either ethnic or native Japanese that these stereotypes, no matter how distilled or thought through, are truly all that dictate my understanding of what a Japanese person is like. Accordingly, when I read an article about something like Japanese politics, my only context for really understanding Japanese political dynamics is to assume their politicians behave as we do. The problem is when Japanese politicians do and say things American politicians would never do or say. See sub-point #3 here. In these cases, statements like that of Ichiro Ozawa (saying he was not worthy of office but would run anyway) can only be understood within a narrative of Japanese compliance and humility, which, even if true in a way, without context creates a sense of inferiority instead of respect.

For the last few years, my neighbors across the street have been a Japanese businessman and his family. There have been two families so far, each here for two year terms. Only the men have known (some) English, although the kids and mom have an English teacher every week. I don't speak Japanese, a problem Rosen anticipates. A cultural barrier straight down the middle of my street.

Maybe it's time to ask the English teacher to do some translating.

Pearl Harbor Anniversary

Today is the anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the precursor to the current relationship between the US and Japan.

The alternatives to the current scenario are interesting. If Japan and the US had maintained an uneasy peace, could they have compromised over the Pacific sphere rather than fight over it?Would China ever have emerged as a power had the US not so thoroughly decimated Japanese influence?

Regardless, one thing is clear. Pearl Harbor preceded great bloodshed by both the Japanese and American peoples. Whatever complaints one has about the way geopolitics work today, we are certainly in a better place.

Japan and Muslim Women

In English class, we're reading Reading Lolita in Tehran. It's written by Iranian expatriate and American Literature professor Azar Nafisi about her experiences teaching American literature in Iran during and after the Islamic Revolution. For detailed chapter summaries, check here. If you're not in a reading (except for my blog) mood, just know that the themes in the book have a lot to do with Nafisi and her female students forging unique identities in spite of government control over how they dress, look, act, and live.

You might be wondering, how does this possibly connect to Japan? After all, Japan isn't exactly known for religious diversity. However, .2% of the Japanese population calls itself Muslim. If you think this percentage is insignificant, just remember .2% of people in the world are Jewish. Muslims have been in Japan for only about 100 years, and are thought to have originally come when some Tartar Muslims were escaping the Russians. The population is highly convert-driven, but Muslim businessmen are also coming now. For information, check here.

Businessmen is where the business of today's post begins. Like many men, these Muslim businessmen seek to marry once they come to Japan. Obviously there aren't very many eligible Japanese Muslim bachelorettes, so often they take native Japanese wives. These wives often convert to Islam as a condition of marriage because of religious doctrine.

As the director of the Islamic Center of Japan puts it, "Women are attracted to Islam because they want freedom. Islam gives them independence because they do not have to be a slave of any man. Islam is against moral aggression against women. The chastity and honor of women are protected. No illicit relations are allowed. All these things attract women."

The article, originally published in the Japan Times, goes on to discuss the difficulties Muslim women face living in Japan. The Islamic lifestyle is radically different than that of most Japanese: different clothing like headscarves, different rituals like prayer, and different social customs like no drinking. Within the article, it is speculated that the difference and rigidness of Islam might attract some women.

It is interesting to see the contrast between Reading Lolita, where the less fundamental Muslim is the minority, and Japan, where the observant Muslim is in the minority. It seems like it might be easier for the Japanese women to find meaning in their religion then it is for Nafisi to do so, simply because it becomes an active choice versus a forced one. Being a minority is hard, but the article (although it predates 9/11) doesn't really mention persecution. In that context, Islam can be regarded as a rewarding lifestyle. That's a counter-narrative to the way we regard Islam in popular culture.

Japan as Cornerstone

In English class we recently spent some time discussing metaphors and their use in our culture and daily speech. Some of these qualify as conventional metaphors, so embedded in the way we understand life we don't even notice they're there. For instance, we commonly refer to death as departure (she's left us), or love as a fire (his passion burns for her), but how often do we choose these metaphors or notice we're using them? These contrast with original metaphors, used by poets and other communicators to make points in a creative manner.

The metaphor I want to explore in the context of Japan is somewhere between conventional and original: it was created and is no way cultural, but it has been used in discourse about the alliance for over 30 years. The metaphor, shockingly enough after the title for this post, is Japan as a the cornerstone of US security efforts in Asia.

I thought about creating a cool graphic juxtaposing a map of East Asia with the image of a cornerstone, but I lack the technical skill.

As far as I can tell, after somewhat intensive and comprehensive research of news sources via Lexisnexis, the first American politician to refer to Japan as "the cornerstone of stability in the vast reaches of Asia and the Pacific" was Gerald Ford in April of 1975 while at a conference with other Asian nations like Australia, New Zealand, and Indonesia.

Apparently Jimmy Carter picked up on the metaphor, because the following year he made it part of his platform while running for President. The US News and World Report from July 26, 1976 quotes the platform as calling Japan the "cornerstone of our Asian interests and policy."

Carter and his administration continued this policy throughout his presidency-

6/8/77- "[Appointed Japanese Ambassador Mike] Mansifed, 74, said that he was carrying Carter's message that the closest possible ties with Japan are 'the cornerstone of American foreign policy.'" Washington Post

3/20/78- "(Significantly, China recently told Japan's Socialist Party that China tacitly supports the U.S.-Japan security treaty, the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy in the Far East.)" Forbes Magazine

3/8/79- "Both President Carter and Prime Minister Ohira took the opportunity of their meeting to stress anew the importance of the relationship of the two countries. President Carter said, "we consider the relationship with japan to be the cornerstone of the implementation of american policy throughout Asia." Ohira said, "in all aspects of Japan's foreign policy, our partnership with the United States is pivotal." U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke also had this to say: the political and strategic relations of the two countries have become 'closer than any time in memory'." Xinhua News Service

Something eerie

9/23/10- "Obama met Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan in New York, hours after holding talks with China's Premier Wen Jiabao, amid heightened tensions between Tokyo and Beijing over a dispute in the East China sea. 'We have reaffirmed the importance of the US-Japan alliance not only to regional stability, not only to the security of both our countries,' Obama said, after the talks with Kan. 'We believe it's one of the cornerstones of peace and security throughout the world.'" AFP

30 years later the alliance is still cached in similar terms by US leaders. The alliance is still a cornerstone. Now, what exactly is a cornerstone?

Princeton's Wordnet offers several definitions. The first is "basis: the fundamental assumptions from which something is begun or developed or calculated or explained," which is instructive in understanding the use of the term in the context of the alliance, but already rests on a metaphor for what a real cornerstone is: a stone in the exterior of a large and important building.

What happens when we understand the Japanese alliance as foundational to the building of US power in Asia? We view it as static, reliable, but also unchanging and perhaps not requiring change. As is illustrated in a quote from the Gerald Curtis' chapter in the new book Getting the Triangle Straight; Managing China-Japan-U.S. Relations,

"Americans are fond of referring to the alliance with Japan as the “cornerstone” of US policy in East Asia. It is an apt metaphor because a cornerstone just sits there; it is inanimate and reliable, something you can confidently build upon. But the Japanese cornerstone is shifting."

It seems that when we tell Japan and the world that Japan is our "cornerstone," we've always been able to reassure Japan of our commitment. Yet this reassurance is in many ways a threat. If the cornerstone comes out, the whole building comes down. The weight of the imperial edifice (speaking of metaphors) seems to rest in some ways on Japan's shoulders. So while the metaphor of Japan as cornerstone certainly captures an amount of mutual dependence and allegiance, it also dares Japan to try to stop relying on the US for its security. The part of the metaphor which prevents Japan from deeply challenging the alliance structure also makes it inflexible, and perhaps unable to respond to new challenges facing the alliance.

Can a cornerstone really shift?

New Article in the Economist

Great new article in The Economist about Japanese diplomatic challenges, the Asian aging crisis, and regional soft power.

Japan and Obama

Those of you unconcerned with international diplomacy, or, apparently, the budget might not have noticed that President Obama recently traveled all around Asia. He went to India, his childhood home in Indonesia, South Korea, and Japan. As Jay Leno joked on his show, Obama still hasn't found his birth certificate.

Obama did stop in Japan.

What Obama Did

Rather than deal with actual people due to the complexity of the issues he faces, Obama instead chose to meet with Giant Buddhas and robots.

It would appear he can't even figure the robot out, let alone Japan-US relations.

After he was done meeting with inanimate (no matter how lifelike) objects, the president also stopped over at the APEC economic summit on the sides of which he met with Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, reassuring him of the US commitment to Japan and Northeast Asian security, especially relative to China, and inviting Kan to visit America in the spring all in the course of an hour.

Does it Matter?

If expectations were high running into the trip, it might've been overly optimistic given the current state of our economy and international standing. However, there is no doubt that failure to pass free trade agreements in South Korea, or make significant headway on Chinese currency issues, regional island disputes, or resolve accompanying tensions certainly prevent the trip from being labeled a success. However, expecting Obama to wave away all these complex issues with a magic wand is probably setting the (magical) bar too high.

There might've been a point where an American President could go overseas and have people tell if not give him whatever they wanted. However, as alluded to in the Stephen Walt post referenced above and here, that time has passed. Other nations are aware that America's time as a total superpower has passed, and, especially on regional issues involving players like China, other countries will become crucial and perhaps necessary to forging progress.

That means that even though conservative editorials in Japan will continue to herald the US-Japanese relationship, and although the relationship will probably remain strong, progress will be much slower than if the US could simply impose its will on the region.

Senkaku/Diaoyu

The prompt for this post was to write about a word, so why choose two words?

Well, Diaoyu and Senkaku mean the same things, in different languages. Senkaku is Japanese and Diaoyu is Chinese for (wait for it...) a group of islands!

Geography

Here's a map for those of you not intimately familiar with East Asian geography.

As you can see, the islands are in-between China, Japan, and Taiwan, due west of Okinawa, and for those of you who still haven't got your bearings, due north of the southwest end of the Ryukyu Islands. Helpful right?

The ownership of these islands has been disputed (primarily between China and Japan, but also Taiwan, ironically itself a disputed island) for a long time (going on 40 years), and this territorial dispute has been a source of tension in the alliance.

A Dispute

Recently, tensions have flared up, because of the arrest of a Chinese fishing boat captain by Japanese coast guard ships after the fisherman collided with the Japanese ships. If you're less familiar with the dispute, here is an excellent summary.

The discussion of the implications surrounding the incident has been pretty interesting. Initially, many writers, (primarily right-wingers) thought the incident would increase US power in the region, as Japan and other countries realized they needed each other and the US to check back an aggressive China. To some extent, this has been the case, as countries have grown more wary of China. Yet at the same time, China has rejected the US offer to act as mediator, denying the US credibility as a peacemaker, showing China isn't willing to cede that much ground, even if other countries turn to the US to balance China.

I've taken it upon myself to find various solutions and resolutions to the problem. For those of you who didn't click the links, neither Japan nor China have given up their claim to the territory, and offer the same solution: the islands are theirs. The populations of the countries feel the same way, which has only furthered the problem in the form of numerous protests and spilled over to affect diplomacy by creating tensions.

About the Words

Now back to our word(s). Senkaku, Diaoyu? Does it make a difference? It is probably telling that the members of the media (see links above) all refer to the islands by both names when reporting the dispute, unless they are being blatantly partisan. Each name represents a side on the issue, a stance on which country the territory rightfully belongs to. If Obama were to come out and say "The Diaoyu islands belong to China," it would be a lot more powerful than, "The Senkaku islands belong to China." The second, in fact, would be pretty confusing. This demonstrates the surprising power words and names have in shaping current events. They carry a lot of meaning, and the entire dispute could even be seen as a fight over the right to have the islands be called by a certain name.

So next time you refer to this particular island chain, make sure you call it by two names, unless you want your conversation to become an international incident.

Campaign Money

In Japan, political kingpin Ichiro Ozawa is mired in controversy because his party might've been funded by undisclosed sources with vested interests.

Meanwhile back in the US, the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court has allowed for this, this, this, this, this, and this. In case you don't want to click on the links, anonymous foreign, domestic, corporate, private, and crooked money sources have been funding attack ads nationally.

It might be time for some of this.

Maybe a constitutional amendment is too far. But so is Citizens United.

Which country is practicing American democracy better?

Democracy and Japan

I decided to play with format for this post, hope you enjoy.

What is American democracy and how do we promote it?

Be more specific.

How have American concepts of democracy affected Japanese democracy?

In a number of ways.

Care to name a few?

Yeah. First is the constitution. After World War II, the US occupied Japan and used this power to reshape Japanese government in its image. Militarism in pre-WWII Japan had damaged hopes at a more traditional parliamentary democracy, so the US took it upon itself build one after.

Is that all?

Nope, we also wrote Article 9 of their Constitution which banned Japan from developing aggressive military capabilities. Although the exact meaning is contested, the gist is that they can't build armed forces unnecessary for defense. No war allowed.

That can't be all that bad.

Beyond the restriction on Japanese freedom of action, the clause has also hindered relations with countries like Indonesia, and, to a lesser extent, the European Union, because the constitution is often interpreted as banning arms exports which many allies would love to get from Japan. Obviously, there are always exceptions when Japan wants to export arms to just the US. Japan's domestic military industrial base would also like to make some money, so they don't always like the ban. Interestingly, the ban has traditionally been popular in Japan, because it led to the three non-nuclear principles which prohibit Japanese nuclear activity of all kinds. Of course, the US still secretly visits Japanese ports with nuclear-armed ships. The Japanese public generally likes the pacifist sentiment. It might have something to do with WWII.

Does this have to connect with English class?

But of course.

How does it?

In Poisonwood Bible, our current book, there is an election. After months of missionary preaching and services, the Congolese village chief finally puts Christianity to a vote. The villagers are asked to democratically decide whether Christianity could be practiced in the village. Christianity looses. Immediately, the preacher declares the process blasphemous and rejects the results. Another example of American democracy internationally.

Bring it all together.

In both cases, we see America telling and forcing a foreign people to adopt democracy in America's image. Yet, rather than allow for the foreign people to have votes and control their own policies, we go by the outcome that suits us most, and, when that outcome isn't the will of the people, we do what we wanted to. Want a nuclear-free country? We'll base missiles in your harbor. Want a Christianity-free village? Elections over Jesus are blasphemous, the show will go on.

So what?

Maybe we shouldn't write ourselves into constitutions. Maybe we shouldn't force ourselves into spiritual lives. Maybe democracy is letting people do what they want to do, not forcing them to do what we want them to want to do.

African Aid and Japan

In English class the other day we talked about how the media represents Africa through language and what that says about our perceptions of the continent, and what is emphasized in the way we give aid to Africa. The context for this discussion is our reading of Poisonwood Bible.

We found that American news sources tend to focus on images of instability, disease, corruption, and a lack of opportunity. This fits nicely with US goals of using aid to decrease each of those problems in Africa. Our rhetoric matches our priorities.

Japan also has a deep history of aid in Africa. Although we won't approach that history from the same angle as explained above (representations-> policy), I thought it would be interesting to investigate what types of aid Japan gives and how, how that reflects on American/Japanese cultural differences and priorities framed in terms of national interest. As I say that I realize I don't have time tonight to write a doctoral thesis. Might as well give it a (brief) try.

The main forms of aid Japan gives to Africa are monetary and economic. To avoid funky economic/aid terminology, that simply needs to be understood as money targeted at infrastructure development to stimulate economic growth. Japan ideologically bases this model on Post-WWII policies in Japan that allowed the country to recover from devastation by focusing on rebuilding systems like transportation to attract private investment, instead of trying to build businesses in a vacuum. This by itself reflects a fundamental cultural difference between Japan and the US, in that Japan is able to empathize with African countries on the level of development, and offer perhaps more targeted and effective aid as a consequence. The focus on economic development also showcases a belief, which may emanate from the post WWII experience, that economic help is the best kind of help. Along the lines of the Maimonides quote, give a country infrastructure to develop its own economy, and it will translate into sustainable prosperity, instead of aid-driven booms.

More significantly, an economic focus shows that Japan is seeking economic gains from cooperation with Africa. Japanese policymakers recognize that Africa is a vital emerging market and want to get inroads by helping to bring the market into existence. Japan isn't the largest donor of aid to Africa, but the amount is still substantial, and, along the lines of China, Japan leverages it to an economic end.

The analysis above also explains why Japan provides food aid to countries when it's necessary. Japan views relief and direct aid policies as last ditch efforts to prevent backsliding. Food aid isn't the primary strategy, but when price spikes threaten to unravel years of progress, Japan will do what is necessary to maintain it's strategic advantage.

Countries give aid according to domestic cultural and international narratives. A country that believes it has a responsibility to provide global public goods by stemming endemic diseases like hunger, lack of education, corruption, and, of course, disease is more likely to use forms of foreign aid that directly address these problems, while a country that developed from devastation into the world's third biggest economy and views itself as an economic rather than military power is likely to attempt to share and further an economic narrative by growing emerging markets, and seeking to reap the benefits of that growth.

Myths and Japan

In English class, which will provide topics for some posts, we're reading Barbara Kingsolver's Poisonwood Bible. I would recommend it as a good read (at least through page 124). For a full plot summary, click here. The book tells the story of an American family led by a missionary father who goes to the Congo (prior to independence) in the 1960's. There they encounter an Africa strangely closed to their missionary manner of imposing openness, and not eager to be Christian. While reading the book, we've talked about myths that we have about the cultures we interact with, and how they influence our interactions. In this case, priorly held assumptions about Africans as backwards, incapable, and pliable lead to the mission's failure. I thought it would be instructive to contrast this to America's colonial experience with Japan.

The US pried Japan open. Japan had evicted Westerners after some exposure to early industrial ideas from Dutch missionaries, but as Western presence expanded, Japan evicted all Westerners except for a Dutch enclave at Nagasaki. This period of self-imposed isolation lasted until 1853, when Commodore Perry came and forced Japan to join the global economy. For a good recounting of these events, see this. If you have access to more databases than I do, you might find this interesting.

The question of myth in the Japanese context is very different than American myths in Africa. Because the US simply opened (versus settled) Japan, myth creation simply wasn't as necessary. Yes, there was probably racism towards the Japanese like there was towards most minority groups during that time period, but the government didn't need to create an image of the Japanese as needy, backwards, or inferior to support their mission. As long as the public was aware the Japanese market held great economic potential, an economic mission was justified. If, for the growing empire, the means justify the ends, then so do the myths.

Obama and Japan

Stephen Walt recently posted about President Obama's foreign policy successes, or lack thereof. His thesis relates to Obama's failing (to this point) to successfully address the main issues he set out to deal with, especially in light of mounting public dissatisfaction with the administration due to the economy. Moreover, Walt explores the idea that you don't get credit for preventing crises - like an economic collapse, Israeli strike of Iran, or global war. Obama's lack of success on big-ticket items- like Afghanistan, Middle East Peace, and Iran, also makes it harder for him to get credit with the public.

Walt doesn't mention Japan. When seen in light of two wars, a collapsing economy, and tanked soft power, Obama's inheritance in Japan doesn't seem too bad. The US has underwritten Japan's security, and that of the Northeast Asian region, since the end of World War II, and Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan and Obama recently reaffirmed the value of the alliance as a "cornerstone of security." It isn't that simple. A recent dispute over a set of islands between China and Japan actually may have provided an opportunity for the US to increase it's influence in the region, but at the same time the dispute may also be a prelude for an increasingly belligerent and assertive China, as it grows its sphere of influence. The US-Japan alliance will obviously need to adapt to or accommodate China's rise in some way, and therefore will become even more integral. Still, there are major issues like relocating the Marines stationed at Futenma that need to be resolved before the alliance can begin to deal with newer issues.

Here we come back to Walt. Although he never addresses the issue of Japan in his post, I think it would be interesting to apply his argument to our relations with that country. The exmaple supports his thesis. While Obama has made some progress in figuring out what to do with the Marines, his administration has already seen one prime minister resign over the issue, Congress threaten to defund relocation efforts, and now a reaffirmation of the original plan by the new administration. Obama definitely has an agenda, he's definitely been working on it. When it comes down to it, Obama has avoided a collapse in relations (however significant the risk of that ever was), but he hasn't really helped the cause.

To be fair, it's been a full 15 years since we first began discussing relocating Futenma, but a promise of change shouldn't translate to the continuation of a progress-less status quo.

Welcome

Greetings to my loyal readership!

I know both of you (three if you count Ms. Nelson) have long awaited the debut of this fascinating new blog. Hopefully, in months or days I'll look back on this post and laugh at how naive I was to only be addressing my comments to a small group of people I'm familiar with, versus hundreds if not thousands of readers across the internet.

Regardless, I'd like to start off by introducing the concept behind this blog. The general goal is to talk about Japan. I'm interested in majoring in International Relations next year in college, and one of the areas of the world that intrigues me is East Asia, so I figure the sooner I start studying it, the sooner I'll know if I want to devote considerable academic energies to it. Within this general framework, I'll be talking about Japan's culture and politics, and how language is used in both of these contexts to explain history or move towards common goals. Also, I'll be comparing these trends to those in our own country. (Hence the name: Japan and Us.) I thought I was being clever because "US" could be United States or us.

The natural question to answer now is "Why Japan?"

Three reasons-

1. Japan is fascinating. They've had five prime ministers in the last five years, and just completed an election in which the architect of the long time opposition party which seized power last year challenged the current prime minister from his own party and lost.

2. Japan is relevant. They're our cornerstone ally in Northeast Asia, and in many ways have, since World War II, allowed the US to underwrite regional stability that has facilitated economic prosperity, and even the rise of China.

3. Japan is different. When Ichiro Ozawa (the architect) announced that he was going to challenge Naoto Kan (current prime minister) he said, "I am of humble ability and not worthy of the post." Can you imagine any American politician saying anything like that ever?

I hope I've gone some way towards persuading you about how fascinating Japan is. More importantly, I hope you enjoy reading this blog.