Japan and the State of the Union

The word "Japan" wasn't used in President Obama's State of the Union address once. To the consummate followers of this blog, that may come as a surprise, easily explained by Obama's continual focus on domestic policy. Nope. Japan's neighbors made their way into the speech. "China" was used four times, "India" three, "South Korea" five times, "Korean Peninsula" once, and "North Korea" once. Obama didn't say "Japan." The closest he came was referencing that he "strengthened Asian alliances" over the past year. Perhaps that was a way of claiming victory in the Futenma dispute without having to discuss the gritty details.

Not much has been written on the non-mention of Japan. The simplest explanation for this is simply that the US and Japan have such a long lasting alliance, and Japan is such an assumed partner of the US, that a mention wasn't necessary. England wasn't mentioned either. (Along with the United Kingdom and Britain)

While Japanese officials' public reaction was calm, there are some reports of shock among the Japanese government at their non-mention.

As concerning as this may seem, it's important to note that Obama hasn't mentioned Japan in past States of the Union. Additionally, Obama's central message was about US competitiveness, especially against rising powers, and as much as 2011 resembles the 80s, Japan as a rising power isn't a hot idea right now.

The bottom line is that language matters. Which countries Obama mentions and how many times clearly indicate where the United States will expend its foreign energy in the coming year. In some cases, like North Korea, it's to counter a military threat. And in others, like India and China, it's to counter an economic threat. Still, from Japan's internal governmental perspective, it can't be good when the President of the United States mentions every country in the neighborhood except Japan. It's kind of like being one of the last chosen for a pick up game of basketball. Your welcome on the team, but you're not worth a high pick. You probably also won't get passed the ball too much.

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.

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.

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.

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.