Obama Takes Down (Wrong) Prime Minister
Japan Prime Minister and Democratic Party of Japan leader Yukio Hatoyama, whose amazing electoral victory last year unseating the long dominant Liberal Democratic Party, has announced that he is stepping down from his position for failing to deliver on a key campaign promise to the Japanese people about moving the US Marine Futenma Air Station off of Okinawa.
I will be arriving in Tokyo tomorrow (on Thursday) and will be in Naha, Okinawa this next Monday.
Hatoyama could not withstand the pressure from Obama -- who gave Hatoyama the kind of icy treatment that the White House has also been trying to give Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The problem is Hatoyama wilted, and Netanyahu seems to be thriving.
I recently wrote a piece on the odd dynamic between President Obama and two different Prime Ministers -- Netanyahu and Hatoyama -- for the Kyodo News Service. It has already run in Japanese, but I post the entire English language version here:
Of Presidents & Prime Ministers in the Age of Obama
by Steve Clemons
Jan ken pon. Scissors cut paper. Paper covers Rock. Rock smashes scissors. There is an interesting drama playing out between several world leaders today that reminds of this game.
President Barack Obama seems to be smashing the political fortunes of Japan Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama. On the other hand, Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been rebuffing and constraining Obama. Obama and China's Hu Jintao seem to be stalemated, playing jan ken pon over and over and over again.
"Defining challenges" for leaders and nations are those that represent the highest stakes wins and potential losses. The United States, for example, invested enormous blood and treasure in triggering change in Iraq and the broader Middle East and thus the Middle East today is a self-chosen defining challenge for the country. For Barack Obama, there were other defining challenges that he promised to stand by - including closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, "stopping" climate change, ending the war in Iraq, achieving Israel-Palestine peace and delivering the opportunity of universal health care coverage to American citizens.
Yukio Hatoyama also articulated his own defining challenges - including ending bureaucratic control of government and restoring genuine political leadership, opening up Japan's official records of secret deals done with the U.S., enhancing the quality of life for average Japanese citizens, closing the Futenma Marine Corps Air Station in Okinawa, improving Japan's position and sovereignty within the US-Japan Security Relationship andbuilding stronger relations with China among other challenges.
For Netanyahu, the defining challenge has been to simultaneously protect Israel's security interests and expansion in the Occupied Territories while rallying support to thwart Iran's nuclear pretensions. For Hu Jintao, it has been to incrementally increase China's global economic and geostrategic position while maintaining high economic growth and not destabilizing the country or creating new costly burdens and responsibilities for China.
The interactions between these leaders show how power is deployed and measured, created and destroyed. Netanyahu and Hu Jintao have played their hands best. Obama has been beaten, constrained, but still has global leverage, and Yukio Hatoyama seems to be on the constantly losing end of jan ken pon.
While the United States and China have been testing each other from the earliest days of the Obama White House, with the relationship moving from global economic crisis-focused harmony to tensions recently over the Dalai Lama, Taiwan arms sales, and how to deal with Iran, fundamentally the US and China have moved into a de facto G2 arrangement that doesn't necessarily mean that the US and China run the world but does mean that nearly every major global challenge requires consultation and policy coordination between these two global behemoths. China can veto America's global efforts and the US can veto China's. So far, there is general stalemate - jan ken pon, jan ken pon - as they sort out the realities of emerging Chinese power in an international system over which the US is not willing to forfeit control.
Obama and Hu Jintao are for the moment, tied - which historically speaking, represents a substantial moving up in the ranks for China and diminished power for the U.S.
When it comes to US-Israel relations, Barack Obama started out strong, appointed distinguished former US Senator and Northern Ireland peacemaker George Mitchell to go to work on achieving the same between Israelis and Palestinians, and indicated that Arab states would kick in some normalization-tilting gestures with Israel if Israel would cease all settlement expansion.
Obama's equation for moving Middle East peace forward was just too quaint and simple. Even though Israel is completely dependent on American security guarantees and aid and is genuinely a client state of the United States, the pugnacious prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, flamboyantly rebuffed Obama's call to stop settlements. Obama, with some twisting and modification of his position, has essentially forfeited the match to Netanyahu.
During the early part of the John F. Kennedy administration, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev beat Kennedy in similar challenges and began to doubt Kennedy's resolve and strategic temperament - leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Today, Netanyahu has become the Khrushchev of the Obama administration - and one wonders if a crisis lies ahead in which Obama will have to reassert his primacy lest the world think that Israel runs the United States and the Obama presidency.
But while the Israeli Prime Minister is beating Obama, Obama is clearly smashing the legacy and political position of Japan Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama.
Hatoyama is conceding on a key campaign promise to move Futenma Marine Air Station off of the heavily US-base covered island of Okinawa. Now, some minor functions of Futenma will be transferred off island, but the bulk of the facility will simply be moved to another section of Okinawa.
Barack Obama put huge pressure on Hatoyama, asking him "Can I trust you?" He has maintained an icy posture towards Hatoyama, hardly communicating with him or agreeing to meetings - making the Prime Minister "lose face." Contrasting this with the invitation to former Prime Minister Taro Aso to be the first official head of government to visit the White House and Secetary of State Hillary Clinton's decision to make Tokyo her first foreign destination, one can see that while America seems unable to muster pressure to achieve a "win" with Israel, it is more than able to do so with the leader of a rich nation of 128 million people.
Hatoyama may survive this rebuke of the United States and this policy reversal that has made him appear weak and indecisive before Japan's citizens, but Obama has been unfair in this standoff with Japan's prime minister.
Obama himself promised to close Guantanamo Bay within one year of his presidency. This was a major commitment, and the administration failed to achieve it. But the US is not a parliamentary democracy where executive leadership can rise and fall over a single issue at any time. Presidents get a time period to stack up their wins and their losses so that when re-election comes around, they are measured on a combination of issues. But Hatoyama's government could fall over just this issue - and Obama did little to help the new Prime Minister stack up some wins with the US and the international system before crushing him on Futenma.
Japan, despite all of its considerable strengths and what could have been exciting, visionary new leadership from Hatoyama and his Democratic Party colleagues, is still a vassal of the United States - whereas the United States appears more and more a vassal of Israel's interest - and on China, we'll just have to wait and see how history tilts.
-- Steve Clemons directs the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation, publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note, and is editor-at-large of Talking Points Memo.
excellent piece.i read this over at HuPo.there was also an article on the Guardian.UK about Nick Clegg relationship with US if he won,it was warning him about the situation the JP PM was in.Obama disses allies like JP and cozies to enemies.At the nuclear summit in DC Obama ignored Japan's PM.
"The interactions between these leaders show how power is deployed and measured, created and destroyed. Netanyahu and Hu Jintao have played their hands best. Obama has been beaten, constrained, but still has global leverage, and Yukio Hatoyama seems to be on the constantly losing end of jan ken pon"
"President Barack Obama seems to be smashing the political fortunes of Japan Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama. On the other hand, Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been rebuffing and constraining Obama"
"Obama will have to reassert his primacy lest the world think that Israel runs the United States and the Obama presidency"\// "America seems unable to muster pressure to achieve a "win" with Israel, it is more than able to do so with the leader of a rich nation of 128 million people"
GREAT ARTICLE, OBAMA IS GETTING PUNKED..NOW ITS "BP"
June 2, 2010 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
PM Hatoyama seemed to make a huge mistake in setting expectations, but, as in the US, he was faced with a party of NO! The expectations set for getting relief from the US in the unwelcome multiple bases in Okinawa put him in an unwinnable situation after the futbol oyunları oyna citizens starting chiming in. With upper body elections this summer, bilardo oyunları it's hard to see what the future türkçe bilardo oyunları holds. I hope to see the US come to be good friends with Japan. But since overseas futbol oyunları students and futbol oyunları business people from Japan have decreased precipitately, maybe the future is dim. Probably as has happened with businesses since the strict bilardo oyunları visa and other attitudes of the US, the Japanese futbol oyunları government will start working more closely with their neighbor.... China. Way to play bilardo oyunları it US!
January 24, 2011 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, Obama goes after the left leaning Japanese prime minister while caving to the right-wing Israeli.
But you can't write a post about Obama and Israel without at least mentioning the influence the Israel lobby has in the Congress. And influence that got 76 senators to sign a letter demanding that the administration essentially stop being so mean to Israel.
June 2, 2010 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see the point of Obama's maneuvers with the Japanese. What is it about him that they don't like and why?
I thought we believed in democracy? Apparently only when it's convenient for us. What a sham.
With China's power growing in the region, we need a strong sense of solidarity with the Japanese. The issue of the base in Okinawa was voted on democratically by the Japanese and that should be the determining factor. If I were the Japanese I would doubly resent Obama and therefore America at this point. By exercising our coercive authority against democratically decided position, our moral authority just declined a big chunk.
If this keeps up, we should just pack up our stuff and move our forward bases to Guam. There's no point in having those bases if the people hate us and will stab us in the back at the moment we would need them anyway.
In regard to Netanyahoo, he simply sniffed inexperience and political cowardice from Obama and simply squashed him. If that was Obama's Khrushchev moment, the situation in Gaza is his Cuban missle crisis moment. Here's a chance for Obama to swat back.
Here is where Obama can beet Yahoo Netanyahoo. America is philosophically a pluralist state. We therefore are most comfortable with pluralism. Pluralism then, in area of Israel/West-Bank/Gaza is what we would most ideologically speaking be comfortable with. A pluralist state in that region would create a Palestinian majority and a Jewish minority in today's demographics.
The two state solution is something we rejected for ourselves during the Civil war. But, we are willing to stretch ourselves for the sake of our affinity for the Israeli people. But, they need to get on with it if they want our support to last for forever.
The single state, minority rule, is basically something we cannot support on any level. This is the position Yahoo Netanyahoo has put Israel in this very moment.
The demographic time bomb is ticking. Netanyahoo is on the up today, but ultimately a minority lead coercive state won't endure. I think, in the long term, historians will look back and see that Israel's big moment was during the closing stages of the 6 day war. They could portray themselves as the smaller, agreved party and in the confussion of war, pushed the palestinians out of, at the very least, the west bank and perhaps Gaza over into the Sinai. It wouldn't have been pretty, but the really ugly part would be over with and over the course of a long time, eventually, healing and acceptance could set in.
Between Israel proper, West Bank and Gaza there are more Palestinians than Jews. Those Palestinians per capita income is about one tenth of the Israeli Jews. If Israel doesn't cook up a two state solution soon they will be increasingly boxed into a diplomatic corner from which even the United States cannot help them get out of.
I feel sorry for Israeli people. They don't have many attractive options, and they are growing smaller by the day. I see Netanyahoo as making those options worse instead of better. How long can we support Israel if it continues along the line of minority rule, and roughshod rule at that, over the Palestinians whose life style is 1/10th that of the minority rulers?
As bad as our situation is these days, over all, theirs seems worse.
June 2, 2010 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
"one wonders if a crisis lays ahead in which Obama will have to reassert his primacy lest the world think that Israel runs the United States and the Obama presidency"
Obama is simply the latest American President to be caught up in the zeitgeist.
This Nov 2004 observation attributed to Michael Oren provides a Israeli? His own? Likud? (?) take on the nature of the American response to Israeli pushback. (Oren is not alown in his views):
*Another observation he made is that every time Israel does not buckle to American pressure, the US government respects Israel more.
Lessons learned and applied.
The above quote is from a very detailed account of a tour, "The Ultimate Mission Seminar" sponsored by the Israel Law Center. Among other experiences, the participants are introduced to high level Israeli personnages. The excerpt that follows is very thorough chronicler's description of the 11/24 presentation by Michael Oren:
.........
June 2, 2010 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel has been an abject failure at countering terror. They have been fighting this war for fifty years and will be fighting it for the next fifty as well.
The UK has successfully disarmed the IRA without conceding anything that they were not prepared to concede in 1967. Germany, France and Italy have eliminated their terrorist groups. Spain/France have largely but not yet completely defanged ETA.
Compare those successes with Israel's history of insecurity leading to escalation and increased insecurity. Hardly a pattern to copy.
June 2, 2010 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just prior to the election win of the Democratic Party (in Japan), the US Dept of State realized they had no contact or insight with the party. It was the 2nd biggest party. I guess Washington felt so confident in what must be called a lapdog party of the SDP. For me, that was so embarrassing for our country. They spent a meeting with the sneaky (my view) Ichiro Ozawa hurriedly trying to get up to speed.
PM Hatoyama seemed to make a huge mistake in setting expectations, but, as in the US, he was faced with a party of NO! The expectations set for getting relief from the US in the unwelcome multiple bases in Okinawa put him in an unwinnable situation after the citizens starting chiming in. With upper body elections this summer, it's hard to see what the future holds. I hope to see the US come to be good friends with Japan. But since overseas students and business people from Japan have decreased precipitately, maybe the future is dim. Probably as has happened with businesses since the strict visa and other attitudes of the US, the Japanese government will start working more closely with their neighbor.... China. Way to play it US!
June 2, 2010 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why didn't Hatoyama tell Obama to go to hell, and why didn't he just close the base? Is he not allowed to do that?
Seriously, why would a Japanese PM resign rather than implement a popular campaign promise?
(and if he wanted to follow the example of Obama, he should have broken his campaign promises, then stayed in office 4 years)
June 2, 2010 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
And let's not forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The day Japanese decide to take a second look at their alliance with the US and its history, it could get very ugly very fast.
June 2, 2010 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a bit hyperbolic dont you think? They have had 65 years to study that problem from the inside out. You don't think they have thought twice?
Read some history about the occupation and the writing of the modern Constitution and setting up the government when McArthur was pretty much the 'viceroy' of Japan.
Also, spend some time there and ask questions about the 'Pacific War' and you get blank stares. The only thing remembered (besides victory at Pearl Harbor)are the atomic bombings as they only paid a token notice in 1995 in apologizing to the countries under their heels pre-1945. Then go to O'ahu and see the Japanese tours of the Arizona Memorial. In the relationship with the US, to answer your post, there are only the bookends of the war ever considered in the mind's eye of their country; forced into war by the US and the result was Pearl Harbor, the atomic bombings were the end result of American aggression.
June 2, 2010 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have seen your appearances on 'Countdown' and enjoyed some of your print pieces as well. One thing that Obama has no control over is the entirely different mindsets and personalities of the two prime ministers and their respective geopolitical lookouts.
I have lived in Japan, in the late 90's, as a teacher in an International School, and there's no way a person can even get a rudimentary grip on that place without being in it. The fervor for Nationalism is balanced by a malaise of a weaker and almost 60's like rebellion against the establishment that back then was permeating the secondary and prep schools. The push for Nationalism by ex-minister Abe, who was at the forefront of this feeling, has come at a price it would seem in that the promise of it and the use of it as a political tool in uprooting US bases, either airstations or ports is the double-edged sword. The promise of removing the Marines, after a series of crimes committed against Okinawans, is a wedge issue there as much as same sex marriage is here. It's as much a part of the Japanese psyche and in their social outlook as any issue here that divides the populace. That the new prime minister promised that and failed to follow thru is him being hoisted up on his own petard and not really Obama's fault. That promise, met with great enthusiasm, was his failure, not the US. Many want the bases gone, but many who work on the bases and have maintained work as many others have fallen on hard times, dont see it that way. But to make that promise, that was a fool's errand.
Netanyahu is a totally different creature. The posture of Israel and its mindset since inception has been reclaimation and a need to hold the line that is only understood when living in a seige state for that amount of time. The insult of building new homes/businesses in the occupied areas is a form of their manisfest destiny we can't fathom. It goes against all grains of reaching a settled peace or even coming to the table, yet they continue. The defy and still take our goods/money/arms. Israel and Japan are opposite poles and also have leaders who are the same. That it somehow falls in Obama's lap that Japan's minister is weak and cannot live up to the expectations that swept him into power is for me a question mark.
Everyone knew what Netanyahu was about as he has been an actor on that stage a long time, and how hard right he is. His rise to power again can be mirrored against others who were swept into power in problem areas during Bush's tenure. The Irananian president prior to the current one was moderate and offered us help, but was replaced by a hard liner who rode in on anti-Israeli and US sentiments. Hamas won the Gaza elections and no one here saw it coming. The need for a moderate and open minded PM in Israel is paramount...but in the Middle East, there are no moderates post Bush.
It's not a measure of crushing one and acquiescing to the other, they both have their own agendas and 'base' that we have to deal with. In the one country, you have this gap of knowledge concerning the responsibility of what is called 'The Pacific War' and the worship at Yasukuni Shrine of convicted war criminals, while in the other country, the memory of war crimes is never forgotten, and is a constant fuel that drives them, with a prime minister who lost a brother at Entebbe, and sees it as his mission to make sure that all stops.
Dealing with these two different outlooks isnt an easy day. Is it Obama's fault that he appears to be a Chamberlain to one and a Churchill to the other? Perhaps yes, but not an easy balancing act by any means.
Thanks for your work.
June 2, 2010 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Many want the bases gone, but many who work on the bases and have maintained work as many others have fallen on hard times, dont see it that way."
No. The people of Okinawa want the bases gone. They have just voted for a governor (and a mayor) who oppose the bases.
Okinawa is tired of "hosting" so many above-the-law US soldiers, so if anybody in Japan want those bases, it is not them.
June 2, 2010 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
In my statement about the bases, by pluralizing it I meant the consolidated bases and not just the open wound that is Okinawa. I'm retired navy and know only too well about the problems there; gangrape of a 12 year old, murder of a taxi driver over a verbal disagreement, motor accidents resulting in death involving DoD members and civilians...it's not a pretty list. On mainland Japan, the ex-governor of Tokyo also wanted to get rid of Yokota AFB and Yokusaka NS.
Your statement about Okinawans wanting the air station closed is exactly correct.
June 2, 2010 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is Hatoyama's fortune's Obama's fault? Isn't this a very US-centric view of the world. Hatoyama quite unwisely put a lot of stock in being anti-American and cozying up with China, and talking about a "post-American" world. It's a radical shift that scared Japan's neighbors and unnerved many in Japan. He then backed down and looked wishy washy. The whole exercise was unwise. Japanese don't necessarily like the US relationship or the bases, but everyone knows that changing the chessboard in Asia is not to be taken lightly. Hatoyama should have focused on DOMESTIC issues, and left the US-bashing to the rightwing.
Also, please note that Okinawa shouldn't have the burden of all these bases. Japan conveniently pushes most of the hardship onto Okinawanas as second class citizens (Okinawa was a separate kingdom until Imperial Japan annexed them). That said, Japan severing ties with the US and getting rid of all the bases abruptly is undesirable: Asia is afraid of an unrestrained go-it-alone Japan, China might overreact, and there's always potential for war between the two. North Korea might also use the opportunity to fire missiles into a Tokyo not under the US security umbrella. Many Japan also like remaining pacifist and keepign their constitution which renounces war.
The bottomline is that US bases should be minimized on Okinawa but the US-Japan relationship needs to evolve slowly and deliberately. Hatoyama was talking big changes and then ran right into the brickwall of reality. And North Korea started sinking ships, reminding everyone in the region why the US is needed. NK has in fact fired missiles over Japan in recent years. Without the US, it could easily strike Japanese cities and has threatened to do so for reasons totally unrelated to the US presence.
June 2, 2010 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
ps. Also don't forget that Japan has always been more comfortable with US Republican presidents than Democrats. They view Republicans as anti-China and therefore pro-Japan. Democrats often want a better relationship with China, and this is taken as a zero sum game.
For instance, Reagan was well liked in Japan and had a good relationship. Bush got along with Koizumi. It's a bit of "opposite land" for anyone familiar with European or Israeli politics.
Japanese public was not particularly favorable to Obama, and the Japanese DJP took an anti-US position, even though it definitely had a more flexible and accomodating partner in the WH. It was furstrating to watch Hatoyama (and Ozawa's -- the real leader behind the scenes) missteps vis a vis the US. I support the DJP but found the US-bashing tiresome. Surely they could have worked together and not taken a Gerhard Schroeder style approach to picking a fight with their closest ally.
June 2, 2010 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
>Also don't forget that Japan has always been more comfortable with US Republican presidents than Democrats.
As a Japanese citizen, I would like to point out that this view does not represent a consensus of Japanese public opinion.
Since the end of the WWII until last summer, Japan has been governed almost solely by the LDP (Liberal Democratic Party, which is vaguely similar to the U.S. Republican Party) which is pro-business and right-wing. As you would expect, LDP politicians and business people loved U.S. Republican presidents. However, many "normal" Japanese people, including me and a great many friends, always liked and preferred the policies of Mr. Carter and Mr. Clinton, for example.
>Japanese public was not particularly favorable to Obama
Many, many Japanese people are delighted to see Mr. Obama elected. More than 60% of the Japanese people were in favor of him -- which is a higher percentage than found in the U.S. To the contrary of your suggestion, I do not know anyone among my family, relatives, friends or colleagues--not a single person--who liked Mr. Bush.
>the Japanese DJP took an anti-US position
This is not true either, and probably stretched or exaggerated by the media. Democratic Party in Japan respects U.S., but they just don't want to be a lapdog of U.S. (unlike Mr. Koizumi was for Mr. Bush).
Mr. Hatoyama tried to pull small portion of U.S. base from Okinawa (which was his election promise), and collected the governors of all prefectures in Japan and asked them which prefectures could take a part of U.S. base. In the meeting, no governor raised a hand. (No one in Japan wanted to have a military base in his or her community. Me neither.) Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton stopped in Tokyo (on the way to China) and met with Mr. Hatoyoama for three hours. I don't know what she said exactly, but after a short while, he decided to keep that portion of the base in Okinawa.
I personally wrote to Mr. Obama to beg him to move the base outside Japan by listening to the democratic outcry in Okinawa, but all was apparently in vain.
I still hope that U.S. will move some portion of their base from Japan, perhaps little by little.
June 3, 2010 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you know more liberals in your social circles. But still, Japan is induspitably a center-right country that consistently votes for the LDP -- some 5 decades in power. DJP has made some amateurish mistakes, but overall I think the press is overly negative towards them and is helping to drive down polls numbers. (Newsweek agrees: http://services.newsweek.com/id/238561) I'm willing to bet the public gives up very quickly on the DJP and runs back to the LDP, like some sort of battered spouse.
"This is not true either, and probably stretched or exaggerated by the media. Democratic Party in Japan respects U.S., but they just don't want to be a lapdog of U.S. (unlike Mr. Koizumi was for Mr. Bush)."
Perhaps it is exaggerated by the hostile (right-leaning) news media, but he sent some bad signals to what is still Japan's closest ally. Here's Hatoyama's English op-ed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/opinion/27iht-edhatoyama.html?_r=1
While his analysis might good or bad, he's not a columnist or just anybody. A prime minister saying those things means something! If Obama penned an article in the Yomiuri Shimbun saying that Japan was doomed to decline and the US should cozy up to China, how would that look? Not very diplomatic.
And as you point out, none of the governors in Japan want to take on the bases. Basically, Honshuu just washes its hands of the problem and lets Okinawa bear the burden. Okinawans are mad at the US but also mad at Tokyo. Mainland Japan pretends to be sympathetic but isn't sympatheic enough to actually move the bases out of Okinawa.
This is a NIMBY problem.
June 3, 2010 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll dispute most of that.
1. Japan has not been involved in a major military conflict in 60 years. Their pacifism is admirable. Military conflict is proscribed by their Constitution. I'd call that a left-of-center position.
2. Gun laws. Handguns are illegal. I'd call that a left-of-center position.
3. They have an excellent environmental record (except for that whaling quirk). I'd call that a left-of-center position.
4. The tax code is far more progressive than the U.S.
Lower income people pay less tax than their counterparts in the U.S. and higher income people pay far more. I'd definitely call that a left-of-center position.
5. Medical care and health insurance are largely socialized. I'd call that a left-of-center position.
6. The literacy rate is far higher than in the U.S. An educated populace tends to vote more liberal. I'd call that left-of-center.
7. In the Hatoyama editorial you referenced, Hatoyama wrote: "How can we put an end to unrestrained market fundamentalism and financial capitalism, that are void of morals or moderation, in order to protect the finances and livelihoods of our citizens?" That would make US Republicans freak out big time.
I'd definitely call that a left-of-center position.
8. Hatoyama wrote: "In terms of market theory, people are simply personnel expenses. But in the real world people support the fabric of the local community and are the physical embodiment of its lifestyle, traditions and culture."
I'd call that a left-of-center position.
9. Hatoyama boldly referenced "the failure of the Iraq war." I'd call that a left-of-center position.
10. Hatoyama wrote: "we must overcome excessive nationalism." I'd call that a left-of-center position.
Socially, Japan is fairly conservative. Drugs are illegal. The business world is even more sexist than the U.S.
But to pretend that Japan is a "right of center" nation suggests
that you don't know very much about Japan at all, answerfrog.
I think Shrewsbear has a far deeper understanding of the cultue and policies of that beautiful country.
"Induspitably."
June 4, 2010 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is what happens when you take American style politics and overlay it on another country.
Japan does have a strong community mentality, but don't mistake that for leftism. Leftism was crushed postwar -- literally crushed during the anti-red 50s -- so it has none of the unionization or even activism that say Europe has. It was always staunchly anti-communist and allowed the right free reign. It's community oriented but anti-communist, if that makes sense.
Social cooperation is more of a cultural factor, not a political one based on socialist ideas. I think it's great that Japan has a pretty good national health care system (people pay a flat 30% of their health care bills, so it's not quite as nice as Britain's NHS where you pay none), but it in no way makes Japan "left" in any way.
Japan is dominated, yes DOMINATED, by the rightwing. Even that US-written pacifist constitution is threatened with being abolished as the rightwing marches along on its agenda.
A good example of how extreme rightwing has gone mainstream is Ishihara Shintaro. Tokyo's rabid mayor has used racial slurs towards Chinese, called the Nanjing Massacre a "lie" and told police to look for anyone speaking foreign languages. When Japanese were kidnapped by North Korea, he simply said he wanted "revenge". He uses earthquake drills to bluster about how foreigners may riot and police need to be prepared to crackdown. He's an angry maniac, and yet he's popular enough to get elected again and again and is one of the most prominent politicans in Japan.
Environmental records? Are you kidding? Blue fin tuna are going to be fished to death, not to mention whaling. Domestically, there is also all that dioxin from burning trash and pollution like Minamata.
Another example is how all of Japan's major cities have black trucks filled with rightwing thugs running around the city, blaring propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyoku_dantai
The Uyoku threaten politicians, news media and anyone else who gets in their way or isn't patriotic enough. They are a rough crowd and may have mob ties. Police turn a blind eye. Ask anyone who has lived in Japan long enough, and they are all astonished by the scary rightwing blaring WWII music.
Japan meets most of the criteria for rightism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics):
* 3.3 Nationalism - whaling, war apologists
* 3.4 Economics - corporate media conglomeration
* 3.5 Populism - Ishihara, anti-immigrant
* 3.6 Religion - PM visiting Yasukuni Shrine! attempts to revive State shinto
* 3.7 Anti-communism - crushed unions and leftists groups postwar
I'm critical of Japan on all of these fronts because I wish it would change. Apologetics, and excuse making, don't change anything.
Indeed, DJP and Hatoyama's troubles come because it is almost the only time in 6 decades that a non-LDP party has run the show. And sure enough, a hostile press and public give it no honeymoon and jump on every tiny misstep. Sure enough, in 6 months or a year, the public will have tired of its experiment in democracy and go running back into the safe arms of the rightwing LDP.
June 4, 2010 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
p.s. I'm not picking on Japan. It's a wonderful country that is unfortunately dominated by the Right, much like the US is still dominated by the Right. Obama won and election and the Dems got 4 years in power, but the press and public is far less trusting and tolerant of the inept left.
You reference several of Hatoyama's positions as if they apply to Japan. Hatoyama is center-left, sure. But nobody is buying his anti-capitalist rhetoric -- he has Cheney like popularity around 20% and was just fired.
You also mention Japan's pacifist constitution, which was written by the US, not the Japanese. It's actually the crux of the issue vis a vis Okinawa. Japan cannot constitutionally defend itself if attacked, a real possibility with North Korea and perhaops someday China. Yet how reliable is the US as its defender? Japanese don't trust the US, and frankly, the US is spread a little thin. But if all the bases were gone, Japan would have to change its constitution and remilitarize, to the dismay of its neighbors and its pacifists. Some even discuss acquiring nuclear weapons. This is a huge dilemma that Hatoyama didn't have the answer for either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution
June 4, 2010 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this post, while providing some interesting perspective, fails to note a common sense explanation for Obama's "success" with Hatoyama and "failure" with Netanyahu. In both cases, a leader failed in trying to get the leader of another sovereign country to do something that that leader didn't want to do (Natanyahu didn't want to stop settlement expansion in East Jerusalem; Obama didn't want to close the base in Okinawa).
One nation's leverage over another is severely circumscribed by the internal politics of the nation against whom the leverage is being exercised. and, as someone noted above, in the case of Israel, it is even more complicated by the fact that two-thirds of our own elected government is always willing to promote Isra4el's interests at the expense of America's.
June 2, 2010 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a superb piece. Thank you. I've been watching the Okinawa situation with horror. So much hope being crushed -- on that island, in Japan, and in the United States.
June 2, 2010 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Superb piece" it is not. It is a huge stretch, to put it mildly, to link two totally different bilateral relationships. I always hate when Americans pretend to be "critical" by putting the US in the position of agency and foregin nations in the position of passive object. All politics is local. Hatoyama and DJP are solely responsible for their success at the ballot box.
Also not noted -- Hatoyama is stepping down to avoid being a liability to his party in upcoming elections. He's personally unpopular, but his party still has a shot if they find a better PM.
June 3, 2010 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, Janinsanfran. Definitely a superb piece.
June 4, 2010 3:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is definitely the 700 pound gorilla in the room. As sickening as it is, our Congress places Israel's interests above the interests of the US. My own Senator Boxer is in the forefront of those who do that.
June 2, 2010 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. This was supposed to be a reply to MNPundit above. TPM's signup system really sucks now.
June 2, 2010 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The interactions between these leaders show how power is deployed and measured, created and destroyed. Netanyahu and Hu Jintao have played their hands best. Obama has been beaten, constrained, but still has global leverage, and Yukio Hatoyama seems to be on the constantly losing end of jan ken pon"
Stop Foreclosure
February 6, 2011 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
He uses earthquake drills to bluster about how foreigners may riot and police need to be prepared to crackdown. He's an angry maniac, and yet he's popular enough to get elected again and again and is one of the most prominent politicans in Japan. Auto insurance quotes online | Life insurance ratings
February 13, 2011 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The United States, for example, invested enormous blood and treasure in triggering change in Iraq and the broader Middle East and thus the Middle East today is a self-chosen defining challenge for the country. Trinity Arcade St Georges Terrace Perth Albedo Photography Perth Wedding Photographer. For Barack Obama, there were other defining challenges that he promised to stand by - including closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, "stopping" climate change, ending the war in Iraq, achieving Israel-Palestine peace and delivering the opportunity of universal health care coverage to American citizens.
February 24, 2011 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I’ve read your things before and you are just too awesome.
Logo Design | Custom logo design
March 22, 2011 6:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The single state, minority rule, is basically something we cannot support on any level. This is the position Yahoo Netanyahoo has put Israel in this very moment. Business Logo | Label Design
March 22, 2011 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really love this great website. Thanks
Corporate Logo
March 22, 2011 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Japan has its own problem now. The natural disaster. Los Angeles Self Storage Hope the situation can be under control soon.
March 28, 2011 3:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone doubt that Goldman Sach shorted their own stock options on the way down with their early pre-release news of charges by the SEC?
Dogs for Sale
March 28, 2011 5:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is a great experience towatch ants working, moving and collecting food from here to there. They are very good teacherd who teach us to not to consider ourselves small and weak from others.
refinance mortgage
April 5, 2011 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what she said exactly, but after a short while, he decided to keep that portion of the base in Okinawa. mesothelioma | creare site
April 7, 2011 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
They fit so well with what youre trying to say. Im sure youll reach so many people with what youve got to say.
humankind
April 20, 2011 4:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The talent is out there, and certainly the will. And best of all, that the audience is screaming for change. Never before have they been so hungry for the type films that we are determined to offer.thanx....:)
Costume Wigs
April 25, 2011 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great article, is wasn't really "Obama taking down wrong prime minister" but a lack of intel.
DRTV agency
May 2, 2011 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is having a miserable failure at countering fear. They have been combating this war for many years and will be combating it for the next coming years also.
Online loans | Cash today
May 6, 2011 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink