Absence of Strategic Foresight – Behind Hatoyama's Diplomatic Fiasco
KANEKO Atsuo / Journalist on International Affairs
May 31, 2010
Under the Bush administration, the United States sought mono-polar rule of the post-Cold War world by wielding its military strength. However, U.S. unilateralism spiraled out of control towards its eventual demise, while U.S.-led globalism also collapsed in the arena of international economics. We are now living in the era of a multi-polar world. Some say we have moved beyond multi-polar, and prefer to call this a non-polar era. Meanwhile, when we turn our eyes to the confusion and media coverage generated by the "revision" of U.S. military bases in Okinawa sought by Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama Yukio, we get an impression that Japan-U.S. relations have remained locked inside a world of its own, far from the changes taking place in international relations.
U.S. military presence in Japan has been highly concentrated in Okinawa Prefecture, in the southernmost region of Japanese territory. In particular, Futenma Base is located amid an urban area, and its transfer outside the Prefecture has been a long-cherished wish of the people of Okinawa. Prime Minister Hatoyama had also advocated transferring the base, but has given up on his commitment. The Prime Minister excused himself by saying he had lacked adequate understanding on the issue of deterrence. A prominent foreign affairs expert had warned that should the U.S. marines based in Okinawa retreat to Guam, Chinese troops would make a move on the Senkaku Islands. A far-fetched scenario at most, but the Prime Minister was apparently convinced. The goal of diplomacy lies in protecting and expanding national interests. Upon consideration of the pros and cons, it is difficult to think that China would benefit from a military occupation of the Senkaku Islands.
Military force constitutes only a part of deterrence, and its importance has declined with the times. Over the past thirty years, China has achieved dramatic economic development and has raised its international profile. Nevertheless, the gap between rich and poor has widened and the gap between regions also remains large. While emphasizing its accomplishments, China is still seeking further development. Its economic relationships with Japan and the United States have become broadly and deeply intertwined to encompass trade, investment, finance and technological exchange, and even affects the daily lives of its ordinary citizens, culture and society.
National security and deterrence can only be discussed within this comprehensive framework of bilateral relations. Ultimately, deterrence boils down to a "guessing game." To be sure, the possibility that China would attack in the event of any weakening in U.S. deterrence may not be zero. Then again, we could also predict that such a possibility was infinitely close to zero. Prime Minister Hatoyama should have pointed this out.
General Secretary Kim Jong-il of North Korea must also be weighing the pros and cons of the use of nuclear weapons. By using nuclear weapons, North Korea would be pushed into a corner - politically, economically and militarily. It would only amount to an act of desperation that takes its people down the path of "national suicide." Japan and the United States would never be so foolish as to force North Korea in that direction.
There is yet another issue for which Prime Minister Hatoyama must seek a response from U.S. President Barack Obama. It is now 65 years since Japan's defeat in World War II, and Okinawa still remains under a state of occupation, with 74% of all U.S. military bases stationed within this small prefecture. In the residential area around the U.S. marines’ Futenma Base several tragic incidents have occurred over the years. Local residents continue to live each day in fear of danger. But their ardent wish for a transfer is met with no recipients either elsewhere in Okinawa or on mainland Japan. Futenma Base is shrouded in powerful Okinawan sentiments against military bases, and we should examine the pros and cons of strongly insisting on retaining this base for a possibility that is "not zero."
Abolishing nuclear weapons is an ultimate goal upheld by the Obama administration, and efforts are being made to review the strategy of nuclear intimidation pursued by the Bush administration. U.S. military-foreign strategy is surrounded by an establishment of colossal interest groups, and its inner circle includes individuals stubbornly set in their ideology, so the review process will take time. Its impact on the Forward Deployment Strategy of U.S. forces remains unclear for the time being. Even so, a transformation is underway, one step at a time. It includes U.S. participation in the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), promotion of Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) with Russia, discontinuation of new nuclear weapons development and a transition to conventional weapons-based deterrence by reducing the role of nuclear weapons.
Prime Minister Hatoyama made a timely move when he advocated shifting the emphasis of Japanese diplomacy to an Asia independent of America. I believe most Japanese support this initiative. However, following through with such a strategy requires an accurate grasp of the direction of U.S. foreign policy and international relations, as well as the guts to say what must be said. These he lacked.
Over a period of roughly twenty years since the end of the Cold War, a select group of high-ranking bureaucrats and politicians on both the Japanese and U.S. sides was formed. This was the group that set the diplomatic, military and economic agenda in bilateral relations. Let's call it the "Japan-U.S. Lobby." They are the architects of today's Japan-U.S. relationship, which was hailed as "one of the most accomplished relationships in history" in a joint statement issued by then Prime Minister Koizumi Jun'ichiro and President Bush in 2006. They will not tolerate Hatoyama's brand of diplomacy, which seeks to review Japan's relationship with the United States, break away from U.S. influence towards a more independent path and gives greater emphasis to Asia. From the start, they had criticized Hatoyama's foreign policy as a threat to the Japan-U.S. alliance. The media on both sides of the Pacific were quick to pick up on their opinions. Yet, is Japan's current relationship with America so good?
Japan is a rare country that fully supported President Bush's approach of giving priority to military force. Having swallowed whole the U.S. brand of capitalism, Japanese society has come to ruin. The national interests of our two countries do not overlap entirely. That is what Prime Minister Hatoyama should be saying.
The writer is Professor Emeritus of Osaka International University and former Washington Bureau Chief of Kyodo News.
U.S. military presence in Japan has been highly concentrated in Okinawa Prefecture, in the southernmost region of Japanese territory. In particular, Futenma Base is located amid an urban area, and its transfer outside the Prefecture has been a long-cherished wish of the people of Okinawa. Prime Minister Hatoyama had also advocated transferring the base, but has given up on his commitment. The Prime Minister excused himself by saying he had lacked adequate understanding on the issue of deterrence. A prominent foreign affairs expert had warned that should the U.S. marines based in Okinawa retreat to Guam, Chinese troops would make a move on the Senkaku Islands. A far-fetched scenario at most, but the Prime Minister was apparently convinced. The goal of diplomacy lies in protecting and expanding national interests. Upon consideration of the pros and cons, it is difficult to think that China would benefit from a military occupation of the Senkaku Islands.
Military force constitutes only a part of deterrence, and its importance has declined with the times. Over the past thirty years, China has achieved dramatic economic development and has raised its international profile. Nevertheless, the gap between rich and poor has widened and the gap between regions also remains large. While emphasizing its accomplishments, China is still seeking further development. Its economic relationships with Japan and the United States have become broadly and deeply intertwined to encompass trade, investment, finance and technological exchange, and even affects the daily lives of its ordinary citizens, culture and society.
National security and deterrence can only be discussed within this comprehensive framework of bilateral relations. Ultimately, deterrence boils down to a "guessing game." To be sure, the possibility that China would attack in the event of any weakening in U.S. deterrence may not be zero. Then again, we could also predict that such a possibility was infinitely close to zero. Prime Minister Hatoyama should have pointed this out.
General Secretary Kim Jong-il of North Korea must also be weighing the pros and cons of the use of nuclear weapons. By using nuclear weapons, North Korea would be pushed into a corner - politically, economically and militarily. It would only amount to an act of desperation that takes its people down the path of "national suicide." Japan and the United States would never be so foolish as to force North Korea in that direction.
There is yet another issue for which Prime Minister Hatoyama must seek a response from U.S. President Barack Obama. It is now 65 years since Japan's defeat in World War II, and Okinawa still remains under a state of occupation, with 74% of all U.S. military bases stationed within this small prefecture. In the residential area around the U.S. marines’ Futenma Base several tragic incidents have occurred over the years. Local residents continue to live each day in fear of danger. But their ardent wish for a transfer is met with no recipients either elsewhere in Okinawa or on mainland Japan. Futenma Base is shrouded in powerful Okinawan sentiments against military bases, and we should examine the pros and cons of strongly insisting on retaining this base for a possibility that is "not zero."
Abolishing nuclear weapons is an ultimate goal upheld by the Obama administration, and efforts are being made to review the strategy of nuclear intimidation pursued by the Bush administration. U.S. military-foreign strategy is surrounded by an establishment of colossal interest groups, and its inner circle includes individuals stubbornly set in their ideology, so the review process will take time. Its impact on the Forward Deployment Strategy of U.S. forces remains unclear for the time being. Even so, a transformation is underway, one step at a time. It includes U.S. participation in the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), promotion of Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) with Russia, discontinuation of new nuclear weapons development and a transition to conventional weapons-based deterrence by reducing the role of nuclear weapons.
Prime Minister Hatoyama made a timely move when he advocated shifting the emphasis of Japanese diplomacy to an Asia independent of America. I believe most Japanese support this initiative. However, following through with such a strategy requires an accurate grasp of the direction of U.S. foreign policy and international relations, as well as the guts to say what must be said. These he lacked.
Over a period of roughly twenty years since the end of the Cold War, a select group of high-ranking bureaucrats and politicians on both the Japanese and U.S. sides was formed. This was the group that set the diplomatic, military and economic agenda in bilateral relations. Let's call it the "Japan-U.S. Lobby." They are the architects of today's Japan-U.S. relationship, which was hailed as "one of the most accomplished relationships in history" in a joint statement issued by then Prime Minister Koizumi Jun'ichiro and President Bush in 2006. They will not tolerate Hatoyama's brand of diplomacy, which seeks to review Japan's relationship with the United States, break away from U.S. influence towards a more independent path and gives greater emphasis to Asia. From the start, they had criticized Hatoyama's foreign policy as a threat to the Japan-U.S. alliance. The media on both sides of the Pacific were quick to pick up on their opinions. Yet, is Japan's current relationship with America so good?
Japan is a rare country that fully supported President Bush's approach of giving priority to military force. Having swallowed whole the U.S. brand of capitalism, Japanese society has come to ruin. The national interests of our two countries do not overlap entirely. That is what Prime Minister Hatoyama should be saying.
The writer is Professor Emeritus of Osaka International University and former Washington Bureau Chief of Kyodo News.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
時代を見通す「戦略」が欠如--鳩山外交の失態の背景
金子敦郎 / 国際問題ジャーナリスト
2010年 5月 31日
軍事力を振りかざして冷戦後世界の一極支配を試みた米ブッシュ政権の単独行動主義が暴走のすえ破綻し、国際経済でも米グローバリズムが崩壊して、世界は多極化時代に入っている。多極を通り越して無極時代だという人もいる。鳩山外交の沖縄・米軍普天間基地移設計画の「見直し」をめぐる混乱とその報道を見ると、日米関係はこうした国際関係の変化とは無縁の世界に閉じこもっているように思える。
鳩山首相は高く掲げていた「県外移転」断念の理由として「抑止力への理解が不足していた」と言い訳した。ある著名な外交評論家は、沖縄海兵隊がグアムに引き下がると中国軍が尖閣列島に出てくると警告している。荒唐無稽な話だが、鳩山首相はこれを信じたらしい。外交の目的は国益をいかに守り、広げるかにある。中国が尖閣列島を軍事力で占領するとして、中国は損得勘定で、得をするとは思えない。
抑止力において軍事力はその一部にすぎず、その割合は時代とともに低減している。中国はこの30年、急速な経済発展を遂げ、国際的地位も高めた。だが、貧富の差は拡大し、地域間の格差もまだ大きい。成果を大事にしながら、さらなる発展を求めている。日本や米国との経済関係は貿易、投資、金融、技術交流、さらには庶民の日常生活や文化、社会のあらゆる面で深く絡み合った。それは発展の土台になっている。
安全保障や抑止力は、こうした包括的な国家関係のなかでしか論じられない。「抑止」とはそもそも「ゲス（推理）ゲーム」だ。米国の抑止力が弱まれば中国が攻めてくる可能性は確かにゼロではないかもしれない。だが、「ゼロに限りなく近い」と推測してもおかしくはない。鳩山首相はそう言うべきだ。
北朝鮮の金正日総書記も核を使うとどうなるか損得勘定をしているはずだ。使うとすれば政治的、経済的、軍事的に追い詰められて、国民を道づれにした自暴自棄の「国家自殺」しか考えられない。日本や米国がそんなところに追い込む愚を冒すことはない。
鳩山首相はもうひとつ、オバマ大統領に問いかけるべきことがある。沖縄は敗戦後65年経っても占領状態が継続し、在日米軍基地の74％がこの小さな県に集中している。中でも海兵隊普天間基地は市街地の真ん中にあって過去何回も悲惨な事故が起き、周辺住民は日々危険におびえている。移転して欲しいと言っても県内はもちろん、本土でも引き受け手はない。沖縄住民の「基地はもうごめん」の思いに包囲されている沖縄基地を、「ゼロではない」可能性のために「絶対に手放さない」と固執することの損得勘定だ。
オバマ政権は「核廃絶」を最終目標に掲げて、ブッシュ政権の（核）威嚇戦略の見直しに取り組んでいる。米軍事外交戦略の周辺には巨大な利益集団が形成されており、中枢にはイデオロギーに凝り固まった人もいるので、見直しは簡単には進まない。米軍の「前進展開戦略」にどう及んでくるかもまだわからない。それでも包括的核実験禁止条約（CTBT）への参加、米ロ核削減交渉（START）の推進、新型核兵器開発の停止、通常兵器による抑止への移行（核兵器の役割を減らす）などの転換が一歩一歩進んでいる。
鳩山首相が米国から自立したアジア重視の外交を掲げたのは時宜にかなっている。国民の多くは支持していると思う。だが、この外交を貫くには米国外交および国際関係の流れをきちんと把握し、言うべきことは言う腹を決めてかからなければならない。それが欠けていた。
冷戦終結後の約20年で日米双方に、外交・軍事および経済の両国関係を取り仕切ってきた上級官僚や一部政治家からなるグループが形成された。仮に「日米ロビー」と呼ぶ。「歴史上最も成熟した二国間関係」と小泉・ブッシュ共同声明（06年）が謳ったいまの日米関係を作り上げた人たちだ。その日米関係を見直し、米国追随から自立し、アジアを重視するという鳩山外交を彼らは許すわけにはいかない。鳩山外交は日米「同盟」を危うくすると当初から彼らの批判の的にされた。日米メディアはもっぱら彼らの発言を取り上げた。しかし、今の日米関係はそんなに「いいもの」だろうか。
日本はブッシュの軍事優先路線を全面支持した珍しい国だ。米国式資本主義を丸呑みして、日本社会は荒廃した。米国と日本の国益はすべて重なり合うわけではない。鳩山首相はそれを言うべきだ。
（筆者は大阪国際大学名誉教授。元共同通信ワシントン支局長）
鳩山首相は高く掲げていた「県外移転」断念の理由として「抑止力への理解が不足していた」と言い訳した。ある著名な外交評論家は、沖縄海兵隊がグアムに引き下がると中国軍が尖閣列島に出てくると警告している。荒唐無稽な話だが、鳩山首相はこれを信じたらしい。外交の目的は国益をいかに守り、広げるかにある。中国が尖閣列島を軍事力で占領するとして、中国は損得勘定で、得をするとは思えない。
抑止力において軍事力はその一部にすぎず、その割合は時代とともに低減している。中国はこの30年、急速な経済発展を遂げ、国際的地位も高めた。だが、貧富の差は拡大し、地域間の格差もまだ大きい。成果を大事にしながら、さらなる発展を求めている。日本や米国との経済関係は貿易、投資、金融、技術交流、さらには庶民の日常生活や文化、社会のあらゆる面で深く絡み合った。それは発展の土台になっている。
安全保障や抑止力は、こうした包括的な国家関係のなかでしか論じられない。「抑止」とはそもそも「ゲス（推理）ゲーム」だ。米国の抑止力が弱まれば中国が攻めてくる可能性は確かにゼロではないかもしれない。だが、「ゼロに限りなく近い」と推測してもおかしくはない。鳩山首相はそう言うべきだ。
北朝鮮の金正日総書記も核を使うとどうなるか損得勘定をしているはずだ。使うとすれば政治的、経済的、軍事的に追い詰められて、国民を道づれにした自暴自棄の「国家自殺」しか考えられない。日本や米国がそんなところに追い込む愚を冒すことはない。
鳩山首相はもうひとつ、オバマ大統領に問いかけるべきことがある。沖縄は敗戦後65年経っても占領状態が継続し、在日米軍基地の74％がこの小さな県に集中している。中でも海兵隊普天間基地は市街地の真ん中にあって過去何回も悲惨な事故が起き、周辺住民は日々危険におびえている。移転して欲しいと言っても県内はもちろん、本土でも引き受け手はない。沖縄住民の「基地はもうごめん」の思いに包囲されている沖縄基地を、「ゼロではない」可能性のために「絶対に手放さない」と固執することの損得勘定だ。
オバマ政権は「核廃絶」を最終目標に掲げて、ブッシュ政権の（核）威嚇戦略の見直しに取り組んでいる。米軍事外交戦略の周辺には巨大な利益集団が形成されており、中枢にはイデオロギーに凝り固まった人もいるので、見直しは簡単には進まない。米軍の「前進展開戦略」にどう及んでくるかもまだわからない。それでも包括的核実験禁止条約（CTBT）への参加、米ロ核削減交渉（START）の推進、新型核兵器開発の停止、通常兵器による抑止への移行（核兵器の役割を減らす）などの転換が一歩一歩進んでいる。
鳩山首相が米国から自立したアジア重視の外交を掲げたのは時宜にかなっている。国民の多くは支持していると思う。だが、この外交を貫くには米国外交および国際関係の流れをきちんと把握し、言うべきことは言う腹を決めてかからなければならない。それが欠けていた。
冷戦終結後の約20年で日米双方に、外交・軍事および経済の両国関係を取り仕切ってきた上級官僚や一部政治家からなるグループが形成された。仮に「日米ロビー」と呼ぶ。「歴史上最も成熟した二国間関係」と小泉・ブッシュ共同声明（06年）が謳ったいまの日米関係を作り上げた人たちだ。その日米関係を見直し、米国追随から自立し、アジアを重視するという鳩山外交を彼らは許すわけにはいかない。鳩山外交は日米「同盟」を危うくすると当初から彼らの批判の的にされた。日米メディアはもっぱら彼らの発言を取り上げた。しかし、今の日米関係はそんなに「いいもの」だろうか。
日本はブッシュの軍事優先路線を全面支持した珍しい国だ。米国式資本主義を丸呑みして、日本社会は荒廃した。米国と日本の国益はすべて重なり合うわけではない。鳩山首相はそれを言うべきだ。
（筆者は大阪国際大学名誉教授。元共同通信ワシントン支局長）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟