Integration Not the Way for the Japan Foundation and Japan National Tourism Organization
CHINO Keiko / Journalist
September 26, 2012
For nearly half a year, discussions had been underway for integrating two independent administrative institutions, the Japan Foundation (JF) and the Japan National Tourism Organization (JNTO). The aim was to efficiently manage operations and to eliminate waste. Yet, the discussions ended recently by concluding that these two institutions should remain separate.
As an organ of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, JF engages in diplomacy in the broad sense of the word through culture, while JNTO, under the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, is focused on the tourism business. Integration was an impossible undertaking to begin with, and many felt more time was being wasted entertaining such an idea. It had only come to pass because the overriding imperative was to reduce the number of corporations by reviewing the independent administrative institutions.
The decisive factor against integration was that the demerits outnumbered the merits. In particular, JF’s overseas offices that serve as bases for its operations are bound by agreements and understandings with each country. Japan could not simply use them to promote tourism at its convenience. That would not only create frictions with the other country but may also result in a loss of legal status for the office and its staff, thereby disabling JF from continuing its activities.
Such an outcome would defeat the intended purpose of integration altogether. The government’s budget screening process, which was initially televised nationwide to an enthusiastic audience, has turned out to be nothing but a political performance and now attracts little attention. Recent discussions also revealed the introverted and self-serving nature of the whole screening process.
Although cost cuts and elimination of waste are absolute necessities if we are to address the fiscal situation, our primary focus should be on the content. As an alternative to integration, the panel recommended enhanced collaboration between the two institutions. Considering that both international exchange and international tourism involve other countries, such collaboration and enhancement should be aimed at making these operations more open to the outside world.
Incidentally, this year marks a milestone for the Japan Foundation as its 40th anniversary. A year before its founding, Japan had suffered a diplomatic defeat caused by the two Nixon Shocks – the announcement of the U.S. President’s surprise visit to China and the end of the dollar-gold standard. It was amid efforts for diplomatic reconstruction that the JF was established.
That was four decades ago. Overseas opinions received in the course of the integration debate included many valuable ideas for the future development of the two institutions.
Let me offer an example. This spring, a festival was held in Washington, D.C. to commemorate the centenary of Japan’s gift of cherry blossom trees to the United States. To coincide with this event, three exhibitions of famous Japanese artists including Katsushika Hokusai and Kano Kazunobu were held at national galleries in the U.S. capital.
A museum insider described it as the “perfect example of how the deep spirit of inquiry cultivated by the Foundation’s consistent support contributed to enriching a tourism event,” adding that a dual approach was needed rather than integration.
Today, Japan faces far more difficulties in its foreign relations than when the JF was founded. Furthermore, Japan’s economic might and international standing are not what they were in the past.
Yet, that is all the more reason why diplomacy has a greater role to play, which requires broad and flexible capabilities that transcend the conventional narrow definition of diplomacy and incorporates institutions such as the JF.
One American expert has appraised the JF as a “diplomatic organization with the expertise capable of supporting the Japan-U.S. relationship in all its subtlety and complexity, and maintaining an intellectual dialogue between the two countries. Whether it can live up to this assessment as a genuinely professional institution offering high expertise – that is precisely what the JF needs to prove to ensure its future.
CHINO Keiko is contributing editor at the Sankei Shimbun newspaper.
As an organ of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, JF engages in diplomacy in the broad sense of the word through culture, while JNTO, under the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, is focused on the tourism business. Integration was an impossible undertaking to begin with, and many felt more time was being wasted entertaining such an idea. It had only come to pass because the overriding imperative was to reduce the number of corporations by reviewing the independent administrative institutions.
The decisive factor against integration was that the demerits outnumbered the merits. In particular, JF’s overseas offices that serve as bases for its operations are bound by agreements and understandings with each country. Japan could not simply use them to promote tourism at its convenience. That would not only create frictions with the other country but may also result in a loss of legal status for the office and its staff, thereby disabling JF from continuing its activities.
Such an outcome would defeat the intended purpose of integration altogether. The government’s budget screening process, which was initially televised nationwide to an enthusiastic audience, has turned out to be nothing but a political performance and now attracts little attention. Recent discussions also revealed the introverted and self-serving nature of the whole screening process.
Although cost cuts and elimination of waste are absolute necessities if we are to address the fiscal situation, our primary focus should be on the content. As an alternative to integration, the panel recommended enhanced collaboration between the two institutions. Considering that both international exchange and international tourism involve other countries, such collaboration and enhancement should be aimed at making these operations more open to the outside world.
Incidentally, this year marks a milestone for the Japan Foundation as its 40th anniversary. A year before its founding, Japan had suffered a diplomatic defeat caused by the two Nixon Shocks – the announcement of the U.S. President’s surprise visit to China and the end of the dollar-gold standard. It was amid efforts for diplomatic reconstruction that the JF was established.
That was four decades ago. Overseas opinions received in the course of the integration debate included many valuable ideas for the future development of the two institutions.
Let me offer an example. This spring, a festival was held in Washington, D.C. to commemorate the centenary of Japan’s gift of cherry blossom trees to the United States. To coincide with this event, three exhibitions of famous Japanese artists including Katsushika Hokusai and Kano Kazunobu were held at national galleries in the U.S. capital.
A museum insider described it as the “perfect example of how the deep spirit of inquiry cultivated by the Foundation’s consistent support contributed to enriching a tourism event,” adding that a dual approach was needed rather than integration.
Today, Japan faces far more difficulties in its foreign relations than when the JF was founded. Furthermore, Japan’s economic might and international standing are not what they were in the past.
Yet, that is all the more reason why diplomacy has a greater role to play, which requires broad and flexible capabilities that transcend the conventional narrow definition of diplomacy and incorporates institutions such as the JF.
One American expert has appraised the JF as a “diplomatic organization with the expertise capable of supporting the Japan-U.S. relationship in all its subtlety and complexity, and maintaining an intellectual dialogue between the two countries. Whether it can live up to this assessment as a genuinely professional institution offering high expertise – that is precisely what the JF needs to prove to ensure its future.
CHINO Keiko is contributing editor at the Sankei Shimbun newspaper.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
統合が見送られた国際交流基金と国際観光振興機構
千野 境子 / ジャーナリスト
2012年 9月 26日
事業の効率的運営や無駄の廃止などを目指し、独立行政法人の国際交流基金（ＪＦ）と国際観光振興機構（ＪＮＴＯ）の統合が約半年にわたって検討されてきたが、先ごろ統合せずとの結論が出た。
もともと文化を通して広義の外交を行うＪＦ（所管は外務省）と観光ビジネスが主眼のＪＮＴＯ（同じく国交省）を一緒にするのは無茶な話で、そんなことに時間を使うのこそ無駄ではないかと思った人は少なくない。独法の見直しで法人数の削減がいわば至上命令という事情があってのことだった。
見送りを決定的にしたのは、統合はデメリットの方が大きいことだった。とくにＪＦが活動の拠点とする海外事務所は相手国との協定や了解の下に置かれており、自国の都合で勝手に「明日から観光も一緒です」とはいかない。相手国との信頼関係にヒビが入るのはもとより、事務所も職員も法的地位を失い活動が出来なくなることさえ懸念された。
これでは何のための統合かとなってしまう。当初はテレビ中継され、華々しい注目を集めた事業仕分けも結局はパフォーマンスに終始し、いまでは関心を払う人は少ない。それとともに今回の議論を通してあらためて分かったことは、仕分けがいかに内向きで自国本位の発想に基づいていたかということでもある。
財政事情を考えれば経費削減や無駄の廃止は不可欠だとしても、考えるべきはまず中身。統合に代わり検討会議が打ち出した連携強化も、国際交流と国際観光がともに外国を相手とする以上、外に開かれたものにするための連携であり、強化であるべきだろう。
折しも国際交流基金は今年が４０周年と節目の年にあたる。設立の前年に日本を襲った２つのニクソン・ショック（訪中の発表と金ドル兌換停止）に日本外交は敗北感を味わい、再構築を図る中でＪＦも発足した。
それから４０年。統合をめぐる論議で海外から寄せられた意見には、両法人の今後を考える上で傾聴に値する内容が少なくない。
例えばワシントンで今春行われた桜寄贈１００年祭に合わせて、同じワシントンの国立美術館では葛飾北斎や狩野一信ら日本を代表する芸術家の３つの展覧会が企画された。
美術館関係者はこれこそ「基金の継続的な支援により育まれた深い探究精神によって、観光イベントが豊かさを増すという完璧な実例」と述べている。そしてそのためには統合ではなく、両方からのアプローチが必要なのだとしている。
今、対外関係はＪＦ発足当時より厳しい。しかも日本の経済力も国際的地位ももはや往時とは異なる。
しかしだからこそ外交が一層重みを増し、伝統的な狭義の外交にとどまらないＪＦを含む広範囲でかつ自在な外交力が求められている。
米国のある有識者は基金を「機微で複雑な日米関係と日米間の知的対話とをサポートできる外交的で専門性を持つ組織」と評価する。その評価に真に値する高い専門性を有したプロフェショナルな機関でありうるかーＪＦの未来もまさにそこにかかっているのではないだろうか。
（筆者は産経新聞客員論説委員）
もともと文化を通して広義の外交を行うＪＦ（所管は外務省）と観光ビジネスが主眼のＪＮＴＯ（同じく国交省）を一緒にするのは無茶な話で、そんなことに時間を使うのこそ無駄ではないかと思った人は少なくない。独法の見直しで法人数の削減がいわば至上命令という事情があってのことだった。
見送りを決定的にしたのは、統合はデメリットの方が大きいことだった。とくにＪＦが活動の拠点とする海外事務所は相手国との協定や了解の下に置かれており、自国の都合で勝手に「明日から観光も一緒です」とはいかない。相手国との信頼関係にヒビが入るのはもとより、事務所も職員も法的地位を失い活動が出来なくなることさえ懸念された。
これでは何のための統合かとなってしまう。当初はテレビ中継され、華々しい注目を集めた事業仕分けも結局はパフォーマンスに終始し、いまでは関心を払う人は少ない。それとともに今回の議論を通してあらためて分かったことは、仕分けがいかに内向きで自国本位の発想に基づいていたかということでもある。
財政事情を考えれば経費削減や無駄の廃止は不可欠だとしても、考えるべきはまず中身。統合に代わり検討会議が打ち出した連携強化も、国際交流と国際観光がともに外国を相手とする以上、外に開かれたものにするための連携であり、強化であるべきだろう。
折しも国際交流基金は今年が４０周年と節目の年にあたる。設立の前年に日本を襲った２つのニクソン・ショック（訪中の発表と金ドル兌換停止）に日本外交は敗北感を味わい、再構築を図る中でＪＦも発足した。
それから４０年。統合をめぐる論議で海外から寄せられた意見には、両法人の今後を考える上で傾聴に値する内容が少なくない。
例えばワシントンで今春行われた桜寄贈１００年祭に合わせて、同じワシントンの国立美術館では葛飾北斎や狩野一信ら日本を代表する芸術家の３つの展覧会が企画された。
美術館関係者はこれこそ「基金の継続的な支援により育まれた深い探究精神によって、観光イベントが豊かさを増すという完璧な実例」と述べている。そしてそのためには統合ではなく、両方からのアプローチが必要なのだとしている。
今、対外関係はＪＦ発足当時より厳しい。しかも日本の経済力も国際的地位ももはや往時とは異なる。
しかしだからこそ外交が一層重みを増し、伝統的な狭義の外交にとどまらないＪＦを含む広範囲でかつ自在な外交力が求められている。
米国のある有識者は基金を「機微で複雑な日米関係と日米間の知的対話とをサポートできる外交的で専門性を持つ組織」と評価する。その評価に真に値する高い専門性を有したプロフェショナルな機関でありうるかーＪＦの未来もまさにそこにかかっているのではないだろうか。
（筆者は産経新聞客員論説委員）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟