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.