Dear Mr. Obama – The Laments of a Pro-U.S. Conservative
TAKUBO Tadae / Professor Emeritus, Kyorin University
March 11, 2014
Having been labeled a "Pro-U.S. conservative" for so long, perhaps I have become oversensitive to each and every move made by the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama. The apparent decline in U.S. global leadership has been scathingly described as an "Absent U.S." by the New York Times and as a "U.S. Retreat" by the Wall Street Journal.
U.S. diplomacy has traditionally been coupled with military prowess. However, the Obama administration in its second term has been opting for dialogue and negotiation with past adversaries, shying away from military intervention. And this has caused alarm in the U.S. media. Such a policy would naturally deteriorate existing alliances and friendly relationships, and it is beginning to have a palpable impact on the Japan-U.S. alliance.
The strength of the Obama administration's desire to "avoid being dragged into another country's war" became apparent in the way it handled the Syrian crisis last summer. While the administration's passive stance is understandably a reflection of U.S. public opinion, we should nevertheless reexamine the consequences of the missed opportunity for military intervention and cancellation of its initial decision to intervene.
U.S. inaction allowed Russia to seize the initiative of resolving the Syrian issue, revived the fortunes of President Bashar al-Assad - who had been facing U.S. and European demands to step down, and provided an impetus to opposition militants affiliated with the international terrorist organization Al Qaeda. In short, the situation has been turned around completely.
And as the U.S. government entered talks with Iran on its nuclear development issue, Iran's longtime adversaries Saudi Arabia and Israel have begun to turn a cold shoulder. Meanwhile, the full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq has left a vacuum that is again being filled by militant groups affiliated with Al Qaeda.
But what defies comprehension is the U.S. policy on Egypt – a sworn Middle East ally to which the United States has consistently provided approximately $1.3 billion in military aid every year. First, it ditched President Hosni Mubarak in favor of the anti-government movement, then enthusiastically supported the establishment of a Muslim Brotherhood government, and has since given de facto approval to the military-led coup d'etat. The bolts that were in place to secure order in the Middle East must have come loose.
To be sure, President Obama has said in his State of the Union address on January 28 that the United States will continue to place priority on the Asia-Pacific region and support its allies. Yet, to steer clear of becoming entangled in any war in Asia, the United States must avoid a buildup of military friction with China.
Senator Max Baucus, who was nominated as the next U.S. Ambassador to China, also expressed his conviction of the importance of "engaging in a constructive conversation" with China during his confirmation hearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In effect, the U.S. side has already shown concordance with the proposal made by Chinese President Xi Jinping to President Obama, of developing a "new type of great power relationship"
When Prime Minister Abe Shinzo recently visited the Yasukuni shrine, the United States expressed its "disappointment," citing that "Japan's leadership has taken an action that will exacerbate tensions with Japan's neighbors." Looking across the world from Washington, U.S. concerns are indeed well-founded.
However, as far as the Yasukuni issue is concerned, I feel the Obama administration is making a mistake. China and South Korea are using "Yasukuni" as a diplomatic tool, knowing fully well how merely evoking the word makes the Japanese panic-stricken The Asia experts in the Obama administration are surely aware of that.
If they should be unaware by any chance, the United States could have at least done Japan a favor as an ally by issuing a statement expressing its "disappointment" at the preposterous action taken recently by China and South Korea of constructing a museum commemorating the assassin An Jung-geun at Harbin Station, the very site where he attacked Ito Hirobumi, ex-Prime Minister of Japan and first Resident-General of Korea.
In contrast to the "Strong Japan" advocated by Prime Minister Abe today, creating a "Weak Japan" was the goal of the General Headquarters of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers. Major General Courtney Whitney and Charles Kades served as the Chief and Deputy Chief of the GHQ's Government Section, respectively, and were key figures in the establishment of the Japanese Constitution. In the United States, there have always been those individuals who would spring at every opportunity to contain Japan under occupational conditions, without even verifying what Japan has done since regaining independence.
To give a single example, consider the New York Times. Every time it comes across specific words such as "Yasukuni shrine," "Shinto" or "the Emperor," it is quick to associate them with the frightening notion of "nationalism." How is it that a respectable newspaper that has been a bastion of freedom of speech and journalism has repeatedly turned to such a stereotype as if it were a mantra? Its editorial on Prime Minister Abe's visit to the Yasukuni Shrine was, predictably, "Japan's Dangerous Nationalism." The paper seems convinced that while nationalism when displayed by Japan's neighboring countries is safe, Japan alone requires extra caution.
Perhaps there is no connection between President Obama and this particular newspaper. However, the statement expressing "disappointment" had a similar ring to it. In Japan these days, people who have traditionally held anti-U.S. sentiments are carrying the day, while as a pro-U.S. conservative I frown in private.
In an international community gripped by turbulence, will the Obama administration embrace a "Strong Japan," or opt for a "Weak Japan"? I have no doubt that those wise Americans who have valued the Japan-U.S. alliance will understand my message.
Tadae Takubo is Professor Emeritus at Kyorin University. The article was first published on February 4 in the “Seiron (straight talk)” section of the Sankei Shimbun newspaper.
U.S. diplomacy has traditionally been coupled with military prowess. However, the Obama administration in its second term has been opting for dialogue and negotiation with past adversaries, shying away from military intervention. And this has caused alarm in the U.S. media. Such a policy would naturally deteriorate existing alliances and friendly relationships, and it is beginning to have a palpable impact on the Japan-U.S. alliance.
The strength of the Obama administration's desire to "avoid being dragged into another country's war" became apparent in the way it handled the Syrian crisis last summer. While the administration's passive stance is understandably a reflection of U.S. public opinion, we should nevertheless reexamine the consequences of the missed opportunity for military intervention and cancellation of its initial decision to intervene.
U.S. inaction allowed Russia to seize the initiative of resolving the Syrian issue, revived the fortunes of President Bashar al-Assad - who had been facing U.S. and European demands to step down, and provided an impetus to opposition militants affiliated with the international terrorist organization Al Qaeda. In short, the situation has been turned around completely.
And as the U.S. government entered talks with Iran on its nuclear development issue, Iran's longtime adversaries Saudi Arabia and Israel have begun to turn a cold shoulder. Meanwhile, the full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq has left a vacuum that is again being filled by militant groups affiliated with Al Qaeda.
But what defies comprehension is the U.S. policy on Egypt – a sworn Middle East ally to which the United States has consistently provided approximately $1.3 billion in military aid every year. First, it ditched President Hosni Mubarak in favor of the anti-government movement, then enthusiastically supported the establishment of a Muslim Brotherhood government, and has since given de facto approval to the military-led coup d'etat. The bolts that were in place to secure order in the Middle East must have come loose.
To be sure, President Obama has said in his State of the Union address on January 28 that the United States will continue to place priority on the Asia-Pacific region and support its allies. Yet, to steer clear of becoming entangled in any war in Asia, the United States must avoid a buildup of military friction with China.
Senator Max Baucus, who was nominated as the next U.S. Ambassador to China, also expressed his conviction of the importance of "engaging in a constructive conversation" with China during his confirmation hearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In effect, the U.S. side has already shown concordance with the proposal made by Chinese President Xi Jinping to President Obama, of developing a "new type of great power relationship"
When Prime Minister Abe Shinzo recently visited the Yasukuni shrine, the United States expressed its "disappointment," citing that "Japan's leadership has taken an action that will exacerbate tensions with Japan's neighbors." Looking across the world from Washington, U.S. concerns are indeed well-founded.
However, as far as the Yasukuni issue is concerned, I feel the Obama administration is making a mistake. China and South Korea are using "Yasukuni" as a diplomatic tool, knowing fully well how merely evoking the word makes the Japanese panic-stricken The Asia experts in the Obama administration are surely aware of that.
If they should be unaware by any chance, the United States could have at least done Japan a favor as an ally by issuing a statement expressing its "disappointment" at the preposterous action taken recently by China and South Korea of constructing a museum commemorating the assassin An Jung-geun at Harbin Station, the very site where he attacked Ito Hirobumi, ex-Prime Minister of Japan and first Resident-General of Korea.
In contrast to the "Strong Japan" advocated by Prime Minister Abe today, creating a "Weak Japan" was the goal of the General Headquarters of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers. Major General Courtney Whitney and Charles Kades served as the Chief and Deputy Chief of the GHQ's Government Section, respectively, and were key figures in the establishment of the Japanese Constitution. In the United States, there have always been those individuals who would spring at every opportunity to contain Japan under occupational conditions, without even verifying what Japan has done since regaining independence.
To give a single example, consider the New York Times. Every time it comes across specific words such as "Yasukuni shrine," "Shinto" or "the Emperor," it is quick to associate them with the frightening notion of "nationalism." How is it that a respectable newspaper that has been a bastion of freedom of speech and journalism has repeatedly turned to such a stereotype as if it were a mantra? Its editorial on Prime Minister Abe's visit to the Yasukuni Shrine was, predictably, "Japan's Dangerous Nationalism." The paper seems convinced that while nationalism when displayed by Japan's neighboring countries is safe, Japan alone requires extra caution.
Perhaps there is no connection between President Obama and this particular newspaper. However, the statement expressing "disappointment" had a similar ring to it. In Japan these days, people who have traditionally held anti-U.S. sentiments are carrying the day, while as a pro-U.S. conservative I frown in private.
In an international community gripped by turbulence, will the Obama administration embrace a "Strong Japan," or opt for a "Weak Japan"? I have no doubt that those wise Americans who have valued the Japan-U.S. alliance will understand my message.
Tadae Takubo is Professor Emeritus at Kyorin University. The article was first published on February 4 in the “Seiron (straight talk)” section of the Sankei Shimbun newspaper.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
オバマ氏に啓上、親米保守の嘆き
田久保 忠衛 / 杏林大学名誉教授
2014年 3月 11日
長年にわたり「親米保守派」のレッテルを貼られてきたせいか、オバマ政権の一挙手一投足にはいささか神経過敏になっているのかもしれない。世界的に指導力が衰えてきた様子を、米紙ニューヨーク・タイムズは「米国の不在」（Ａｂｓｅｎｔ ＵＳ）と表現し、ウォールストリート・ジャーナルは「米国の退却」（ＵＳ Ｒｅｔｒｅａｔ）と手厳しい。
≪米不在で同盟と中東秩序緩む≫
米外交は伝統的に軍事力と一体となって展開されてきたが、２期目のオバマ政権は、対立してきた国々とは話し合い、交渉に入るだけで軍事介入を恐れるようになったと米メディアが騒ぎ立てているのである。当然ながら従来の同盟関係や友好関係にはガタがくる。日米同盟にもそれが及び始めたのではないか、と体感する。
「他国の戦争に巻き込まれたくない」とのオバマ政権の願望がいかに強いかは、昨夏のシリアへの対応で露呈されてしまった。米世論の動向ともいえるので、消極的姿勢は理解できるが、軍事介入の時機を失し介入の決断をも取り消した結果、何が起きたか。
シリア問題解決の主導権はロシアに奪われてしまい、米欧諸国が退陣を要求していたアサド大統領は息を吹き返し、反政府勢力側では国際テロ組織アルカーイダ系の武装組織が勢い付き、事態は一変してしまったではないか。
米政府はイランとの間で核問題をめぐる交渉に入ったが、イランを宿敵と見なしてきたサウジアラビアとイスラエルは、米国に白い目を向け始めた。イラクから米軍は完全撤退したが、代わって台頭してきたのは、やはりアルカーイダ系の武装組織である。
年間約１３億ドルの軍事支援を続けてきた中東の盟友であるエジプトに対する米国の政策は、理解を越えている。ムバラク大統領を見放して反体制派を支持したと思ったら、ムスリム同胞団の政権樹立に熱意を傾け、後は軍部によるクーデターを事実上認めている。中東の秩序を固めていたネジが緩んできたとしか考えられない。
≪安重根記念館に失望示さず≫
確かに、オバマ大統領は１月２８日の一般教書演説で、アジア太平洋地域には重点的取り組みを続け同盟国を支援すると述べた。が、アジアで戦争に巻き込まれないようにするには、中国と軍事摩擦を引き起こしてはならない。
次期駐中国米大使に指名されたボーカス上院議員も、指名承認のため同日に行われた上院外交委員会の公聴会で、「（中国とは）建設的な対話を続けていかなければならないと確信している」と証言した。中国の習近平国家主席がかねてからオバマ大統領に提案している「新型大国間関係」に、米側は事実上呼応している。
安倍晋三首相が靖国神社を参拝したことに、米政府は「失望している」と述べ、その理由として、「日本の指導者が近隣諸国との緊張を悪化させるような行動を取ったこと」と説明した。ワシントンから地球全体を俯瞰（ふかん）してみれば、米国の懸念はその通りだろう。
しかし、靖国神社問題に関する限り、オバマ政権は間違いを犯していると思う。中国と韓国は「靖国」と呼ぶだけで日本人が右往左往するのを承知のうえで、これを外交上の道具にしている。オバマ政権のアジア通の当局者たちがそれを知らないはずはない。
仮に知らないとしたら、中韓両国が、初代韓国統監を務めた伊藤博文元首相の暗殺犯、安重根の記念館を、事件現場であるハルビン駅につい最近、開設した非常識に「失望している」との声明くらいは、同盟国として出してくれても良かったのではないか。
≪強い日本か弱い日本かの選択≫
安倍首相が唱える「強い日本」とは正反対に、「弱い日本」を目指したのは連合国総司令部（ＧＨＱ）であった。ホイットニー民政局長とケーディス次長は日本国憲法制定の代表的人物である。独立後の日本が何をしてきたかの検証もしないまま、ことあるごとに日本を占領下の状態に封じ込めておきたいと考えている向きが、米国内には一貫して存在する。
１つだけ例を挙げれば、ニューヨーク・タイムズ紙である。「靖国神社」「神道」「天皇」といった特定の言葉には、すぐ「ナショナリズム」とのおどろおどろしい反応を起こす。言論、報道の自由を守り続けてきた、尊敬すべきこの新聞がどうして紋切り型の表現を十年一日のように繰り返すのか。首相の靖国参拝後に掲げた社説はまた、「日本の危険なナショナリズム」だった。近隣諸国のナショナリズムは安心で、日本だけは要注意だと信じ込んでいる。
オバマ政権とこの新聞は何の関係もないかもしれないが、「失望」声明は同じ響きを持つ。日本国内で元気が出てきたのは従来反米的だった人々で、親米派の私はひそかに眉を顰（ひそ）めている。
激動する国際社会の中でオバマ政権は「強い日本」を支持するのか、「弱い日本」を選ぶのか。日米同盟を大切に扱ってきた賢明な米国人は私が何を言いたいか分かってくれると信じている。
（筆者は杏林大学名誉教授。本稿は２０１４年２月４日付産経新聞 正論に掲載された。）
≪米不在で同盟と中東秩序緩む≫
米外交は伝統的に軍事力と一体となって展開されてきたが、２期目のオバマ政権は、対立してきた国々とは話し合い、交渉に入るだけで軍事介入を恐れるようになったと米メディアが騒ぎ立てているのである。当然ながら従来の同盟関係や友好関係にはガタがくる。日米同盟にもそれが及び始めたのではないか、と体感する。
「他国の戦争に巻き込まれたくない」とのオバマ政権の願望がいかに強いかは、昨夏のシリアへの対応で露呈されてしまった。米世論の動向ともいえるので、消極的姿勢は理解できるが、軍事介入の時機を失し介入の決断をも取り消した結果、何が起きたか。
シリア問題解決の主導権はロシアに奪われてしまい、米欧諸国が退陣を要求していたアサド大統領は息を吹き返し、反政府勢力側では国際テロ組織アルカーイダ系の武装組織が勢い付き、事態は一変してしまったではないか。
米政府はイランとの間で核問題をめぐる交渉に入ったが、イランを宿敵と見なしてきたサウジアラビアとイスラエルは、米国に白い目を向け始めた。イラクから米軍は完全撤退したが、代わって台頭してきたのは、やはりアルカーイダ系の武装組織である。
年間約１３億ドルの軍事支援を続けてきた中東の盟友であるエジプトに対する米国の政策は、理解を越えている。ムバラク大統領を見放して反体制派を支持したと思ったら、ムスリム同胞団の政権樹立に熱意を傾け、後は軍部によるクーデターを事実上認めている。中東の秩序を固めていたネジが緩んできたとしか考えられない。
≪安重根記念館に失望示さず≫
確かに、オバマ大統領は１月２８日の一般教書演説で、アジア太平洋地域には重点的取り組みを続け同盟国を支援すると述べた。が、アジアで戦争に巻き込まれないようにするには、中国と軍事摩擦を引き起こしてはならない。
次期駐中国米大使に指名されたボーカス上院議員も、指名承認のため同日に行われた上院外交委員会の公聴会で、「（中国とは）建設的な対話を続けていかなければならないと確信している」と証言した。中国の習近平国家主席がかねてからオバマ大統領に提案している「新型大国間関係」に、米側は事実上呼応している。
安倍晋三首相が靖国神社を参拝したことに、米政府は「失望している」と述べ、その理由として、「日本の指導者が近隣諸国との緊張を悪化させるような行動を取ったこと」と説明した。ワシントンから地球全体を俯瞰（ふかん）してみれば、米国の懸念はその通りだろう。
しかし、靖国神社問題に関する限り、オバマ政権は間違いを犯していると思う。中国と韓国は「靖国」と呼ぶだけで日本人が右往左往するのを承知のうえで、これを外交上の道具にしている。オバマ政権のアジア通の当局者たちがそれを知らないはずはない。
仮に知らないとしたら、中韓両国が、初代韓国統監を務めた伊藤博文元首相の暗殺犯、安重根の記念館を、事件現場であるハルビン駅につい最近、開設した非常識に「失望している」との声明くらいは、同盟国として出してくれても良かったのではないか。
≪強い日本か弱い日本かの選択≫
安倍首相が唱える「強い日本」とは正反対に、「弱い日本」を目指したのは連合国総司令部（ＧＨＱ）であった。ホイットニー民政局長とケーディス次長は日本国憲法制定の代表的人物である。独立後の日本が何をしてきたかの検証もしないまま、ことあるごとに日本を占領下の状態に封じ込めておきたいと考えている向きが、米国内には一貫して存在する。
１つだけ例を挙げれば、ニューヨーク・タイムズ紙である。「靖国神社」「神道」「天皇」といった特定の言葉には、すぐ「ナショナリズム」とのおどろおどろしい反応を起こす。言論、報道の自由を守り続けてきた、尊敬すべきこの新聞がどうして紋切り型の表現を十年一日のように繰り返すのか。首相の靖国参拝後に掲げた社説はまた、「日本の危険なナショナリズム」だった。近隣諸国のナショナリズムは安心で、日本だけは要注意だと信じ込んでいる。
オバマ政権とこの新聞は何の関係もないかもしれないが、「失望」声明は同じ響きを持つ。日本国内で元気が出てきたのは従来反米的だった人々で、親米派の私はひそかに眉を顰（ひそ）めている。
激動する国際社会の中でオバマ政権は「強い日本」を支持するのか、「弱い日本」を選ぶのか。日米同盟を大切に扱ってきた賢明な米国人は私が何を言いたいか分かってくれると信じている。
（筆者は杏林大学名誉教授。本稿は２０１４年２月４日付産経新聞 正論に掲載された。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟