May 5, 2006; Volume 02, Number 17
of the
Japan Considered Podcast
[Listen to the audio file by clicking here]
Clink Links Below for Today's Topics
Good Morning from the sunny campus of the University of South Carolina. Today is Friday, May 5 th, 2006. And you are listening to Volume 02, Number 17, of the Japan Considered Podcast.
I am Robert Angel, creator and maintainer of the Japan Considered Project here at the University of South Carolina. And creator of this Podcast. Welcome to all. Both long-time listeners and new arrivals. I hope the program meets your expectations. Continue to send your comments and suggestions to me at JapanConsidered@gmail.com. I read them all , and often find useful suggestions for future programs.
Celebrations abound on both sides of the Pacific this week. Here at USC we’re preparing for graduation tomorrow. Students have submitted their papers and have completed their final exams. I have yet to finish grading, but must by tomorrow morning. Calls for celebration all around!
Japan too has been celebrating the annual Golden Week holiday. A week off for most everyone. Kasumigaseki, that district in Tokyo where so many of Japan’s government buildings are located, has been quieter than usual since last weekend. With no Diet sessions scheduled, many of the more ambitious and energetic Members of the Lower and Upper Houses of Parliament have been traveling abroad.
It’s especially hard for Japan’s Cabinet Members to travel very far when the Diet is in session. They have a Constitutionally-mandated obligation to appear for questioning in the Diet when their presence is demanded. This complicates their international travel at times, and sometimes even Japan’s conduct of diplomacy.
The long holiday also means domestic political news dwindles to just a trickle. Those political journalists and their editors left behind at the office have to scramble for stories – or, make as much as they can out of what they have. That’s a public relations person’s dream come true, in many cases. So the prudent political news consumer is especially discriminating during Golden Week. That won’t concern us much today since our focus in this program will be almost exclusively international.
Prime Minister Koizumi’s Golden Week International Tour
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi joined Japan’s international travelers, leaving Sunday, the 29 th, for Ethiopia, Ghana, and Sweden. He returned to Japan today. Quite an interesting selection of countries. But this clearly was a working tour for the prime minister. Not a vacation.
Arriving in Ethiopia on Sunday, Koizumi met with Prime Minister Meles Zenawi for discussion of how Japan can most effectively aid Ethiopian economic development. Koizumi stressed Japan’s interest in providing aid of the sort that will allow Ethiopia, and other African countries, to become independent and self-sustaining. Not just infusions of cash or building projects.
Koizumi spoke the following day at the headquarters of the African Union in Addis Ababa with a similar message. There he asked the 53-member Union to support Japan’s pursuit of permanent membership in the U.N. Security Council. And he pledged Japan’s support for African membership when Council membership is reorganized. This was said to be a major objective of his African visit. During his speech at the African Union Headquarters, Koizumi also pledged 18.7 million dollars toward resolution of the conflict in Darfur, Sudan, and additional Japanese funding and technological cooperation in the battle against infectious disease.
Koizumi was well received during the first leg of international tour. Had there been any major gaffes , the accompanying press corps would have been sure to report them. This is, I believe, his second trip to Africa as Prime Minister. He demonstrated that he knows how to represent Japan effectively in that environment.
Tuesday found Koizumi in Ghana, the second stop on the African leg of his Golden Week tour. There he met with President John Agyekum Kufuor. Koizumi is the first Japanese prime minister to visit Ghana, though Japan remains the largest donor of aid to that country.
Koizumi continued to stress Japan’s support for African independence and self-development during his conversations with Kufuor, with emphasis on measures to conquer infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS and malaria. He surprised the attending press corps with announcement of a major prize to be awarded to African medical researchers that would be named after Japanese infectious disease pioneer, Hideyo Noguchi. Fukushima native Noguchi, died of yellow fever in Ghana in 1928 while there conducting research on a cure. The first award will be granted in 2008.
Koizumi arrived in Sweden Wednesday night, and met the following day with Prime Minister Goeran Persson. Reports of the Swedish meetings were sparse. But Koizumi was said to have encouraged Sweden to support Japan’s U.N. Security Council objectives. Persson expressed “understanding” of Japan’s claim. Perhaps more significant, Sweden has maintained diplomatic relations with North Korea. Koizumi urged Prime Minister Persson to use their influence to persuade North Korean officials to be more cooperative on the abduction issue and nuclear development. Upon returning to Japan, Koizumi commented that Japan can learn from Sweden’s experience in coping with declining birthrates, an aging population, and development of social welfare policies appropriate to deal with those problems. Maybe we’ll hear more about Sweden’s experience in the months to come.
Fall-out From Koizumi’s Golden Week Tour
So, Prime Minister Koizumi’s Golden Week international tour ended with little real news. No stunning successes. But also no major gaffes that would have flooded immediately the parched fields of Japan’s domestic political media this week. Still there were a few developments that may be of interest to the listeners of this program.
The first concerns Koizumi’s announcement of plans for the Noguchi Prize in Ghana. I mentioned that the accompanying press corps were surprised by the announcement. They didn’t know it was coming, and therefore were ill-prepared with background on Noguchi and his service. More interesting, later reports from Tokyo revealed that Koizumi and the Kantei had kept their Noguchi Prize plans even from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. To guarantee the information would not leak before the event, was the reason given by the Kantei. But even to the casual observer this is yet another indication of the prickly relationship between the Kantei and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The plan was hardly important enough to require elaborate discussions and bureaucratic staffing. So this failure to notify the involved officials was more along the lines of a spiteful slap. More on Kantei-Foreign Ministry relations in a moment.
A more significant development during the trip was the reaction of Japan’s political media to Koizumi’s comment on Tuesday that there really was no way to prevent both Shinzo Abe and Yasuo Fukuda from standing as candidates to succeed him as LDP President, if they decided to do so. The comment, made in response to a journalist’s question, was reported prominently the following day in Tokyo – as if it was real news.
The reports emphasized how the candidacies of both Abe and Fukuda would affect the Mori Faction, the LDP’s largest, since both men belong to that Faction. As did Koizumi himself before abandoning his membership to run for Party President. Current Faction leader, Yoshiro Mori, naturally opposes Abe and Fukuda running at the same time, rightly fearing such a competition could split the faction and significantly reduce Mori’s power within the Party. Journalists tracked down other LDP leaders and asked for comment. Some of the anonymous commentators suggested Koizumi might have meant to encourage Fukuda to stay in the race. Others thought Koizumi might be taking a calculated swipe at Faction Leader, Yoshiro Mori. Fukuda and Abe both wisely declined direct comment.
I am surprised, however, that Japan’s political press corps and Punditocracy were surprised by Koizumi’s response. If nothing else, Koizumi has been consistent in his opposition to LDP factionism and what I call factionist politics. He has vowed explicitly and unequivocally to destroy the power of the factions. Koizumi believes that the LDP’s factions have outlived their purpose. So, knowing that, why would anyone be surprised when Koizumi casually suggests that something other than faction membership should determine the candidates in the next LDP presidential race? Perhaps it’s because so many earlier LDP prime ministers vowed to disband the LDP’s factions, but subsequently failed to follow through. Perhaps it’s because it’s hard for experienced observers of Japanese national politics to think in terms other than factions when trying to handicap LDP presidential races.
After five years of consistent opposition, I believe that by now we can take Koizumi at his word. And that’s important. During the weeks and months until the LDP’s next president is selected, Koizumi is likely to do everything he can to limit the role of the LDP’s factions in determining the outcome of that selection process. He will encourage at least the appearance, and probably the substance, of a “populist” as opposed to a “factionist” contest. With the hope his successor will assume office capable of providing the political leadership Koizumi himself has provided during the past five years.
Koizumi is likely to continue efforts to influence the way the selection process is conducted. More emphasis on broader Party membership involvement, if not public involvement, as LDP Secretary General Takebe proposed late last year. Less emphasis on LDP Faction boss consultation and negotiation. Faction Leader Yoshiro Mori during an April 14 th TBS television interview suggested that Shinzo Abe and Yasuo Fukuda decide through consultation which of them should stand as LDP president in September. He went on to compare the LDP to a corporation, saying it was bad for a company when two individuals struggled for the presidency. At the time, I thought Mori’s comment on TBS Television was revealing. Japan’s national political parties are quite different from corporations. Different in fundamental objectives; different in the way they pursue those fundamental objectives; and different in the way they select their leaders. Koizumi has come to recognize that difference, even if others – within and without the LDP – have not.
Mainland Chinese reaction to Koizumi’s official visit to Africa and Sweden provides a final point of interest during this past week. PRC President Hu Jintao just completed a week-long tour of Africa the previous week. On May 2 nd the on-line version of the authoritative Renmin Ribao carried commentary on Koizumi’s visit to Africa. For China, Koizumi’s visit represented an effort by Japan to secure votes in favor of Japan’s permanent membership on the U.N. Security Council. Koizumi also visited Africa, according to this Chinese source, to secure supplies of energy and rare metals necessary for manufacturing. But most important for the Renmin Ribao commentator was Japan’s desire to counter Chinese influence in Africa and in the rest of the world. Japan’s diplomacy, in other words, had become less idealistic, and more “pragmatic.” Perhaps recalling President Hu’s recent meetings with African political leaders and businessmen, the Chinese commentator meant to suggest that Japanese diplomacy was becoming more like that practiced by China herself. That probably is true. And Chinese recognition of that change might help to avoid unnecessary friction in Sino-Japanese relations in the future.
Developments in Negotiations with South Korea over Takeshima, or Dokto
Late last month, on Saturday the 22 nd, vice-ministerial-level negotiators from Japan and South Korea reached a stop-gap agreement that defused a potentially explosive territorial issue between the two countries. The area in question, Takeshima in Japanese and Dokdo in Korean, lies between Korea and Japan in what Japan calls the Sea of Japan and Korea calls the East Sea. If you’re getting the impression that names and ownership are at the heart of this most recent spat, you are correct. These are not trivial issues when sovereign states are involved. Unfortunate conflicts have erupted over bits of territory far less significant than Takeshima – or Dokdo – or whatever.
This issue has been a thorn in the diplomatic flanks of both Korea and Japan since the end of World War Two. Which also brought Japan’s colonial domination of Korea to an end. Bringing to mind the a similar dispute between Japan and China that continues to fester, with even more explosive potential.
The islands in question fall within the Exclusive Economic Zones claimed by both Japan and South Korea. Japan, as I understand it, bases its claim on agreements reached at the time of decolonization. South Korea considers that claim illegitimate, and a leftover of Japan’s colonial mentality. The Shimane Prefectural government further complicated the issue in March of last year. It designated February 22 nd as “Takeshima Day,” in commemoration of a February 22, 1905 Prefectural proclamation claiming Takeshima as part of their prefectural territory. Neither Tokyo nor Seoul was pleased to learn of the Shimane initiative.
After failing to reach agreement on ownership of the islands, Japanese and South Korean negotiators agreed to shelve that particular issue when they normalized diplomatic relations in 1965. Since then the issue has flared periodically. But both governments have tried to avoid an emotional confrontation in the spirit of larger cooperation.
I should note that the islands have value beyond the symbolic. The area surrounding them is a rich fishing ground. Though this problem was settled in 1998 with a bilateral agreement that allows fishing by both countries in the area. Perhaps more important, or pressing, is the possibility that the region includes important natural resource deposits, especially energy-related. And that ownership of the islands would gain or lose access to those resources. But for the time being, the symbolic value of the islands is at the core of the problem.
The latest bilateral fracas erupted on April 14 th when Japan announced plans to dispatch Japan Coast Guard survey ships to conduct seabed surveys around the islands. This was done, Japan said, because South Korea had announced plans to propose name changes for seafloor topographical features at an international conference to be held in June. More of the Sea of Japan vs East Sea sort of thing, it seems. Japan claimed that Korea had been surveying the seafloor surrounding the islands for the past four years, while Japan had not conducted their own survey for 30 years.
News of Japan’s survey intentions elicited immediate and unequivocal official response from South Korea. Korea, a spokesman said, would take “stern” measures to protect their territory in the event a Japanese ship attempted to intrude. Korea then dispatched 18 patrol vessels to guard the region surrounding the islands.
Both sides then engaged in a “calming contest.” A “calming contest” is a struggle for contending parties to occupy the high moral ground in a public dispute. Each side urges the other to work to settle the dispute “calmly.” This, of course, is a hackneyed rhetorical device that implies the other side isn’t behaving calmly, or responsibly. Such contests remain quite popular in East Asian diplomacy.
Charges and counter-charges flew back and forth as South Korean vessels steamed around the disputed islands and two good-sized Japanese Coast Guard vessels stood ready to approach the area at a moment’s notice.
Then late Saturday, April 22 nd, announcement came that negotiating teams led by Vice Ministers of Foreign Affairs from both countries had reached a last-minute agreement that defused the controversy. Japan would withdraw plans to survey the area. South Korea would refrain from proposing seabed name changes from Japanese to Korean during the June international conference in Germany. Nobody was pleased. But the agreement did take the pressure off. At least for the time being.
Then, on Tuesday the 25th, just three days after the stop-gap agreement had been reached, South Korea’s President, Roh Moo-hyun, delivered a fiery speech on national television in which he promised to defend the islands against the Japanese, and described Japan’s claims as an act that denied Korea’s complete independence. Very inflammatory stuff, given the historical background.
And there the issue remains, further enflaming relations between Japan and South Korea. Both countries are democracies, whose governments must consider seriously public opinion when making decisions. Especially decisions about issues that can be described as affecting national sovereignty. Dictatorships have a real advantage here in the conduct of foreign affairs. Their governments are able to turn “public opinion” on and off, pretty much at will. Neither Seoul nor Tokyo enjoys that luxury.
Recent news reports from Tokyo suggest that the Koizumi Kantei is upset with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for their handling of the negotiations that resulted in the April 22 nd stop-gap agreement. Details here are murky. But they do suggest continued tension between Prime Minister Koizumi’s Kantei and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Perhaps the best we can hope for here is another round or two in the international “calming contest.”
That’s all we have time for again this week. Lots more international developments to cover, but they’ll have to wait until next week. Until then, here are a few bars of David Grisman and Tony Rice’s “I am a Pilgrim,” from the first volume of their Tone Poems, recorded in 1993 and 1994 for Acoustic Disk. Listen to what these two artists dowith just a mandolin and a guitar.
[bluegrass]
Goodbye all. Until next week.
