Japan Making Decisions Independent from Britain about Iraq

source: http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070222/kyodo/d8nej4001.html

At an individual level of analysis, one can see that Japan is continually being steered by the nationalist values of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

In response to British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s decision to withdraw troops from Iraq, Abe asserts Japan’s determination to decide its own foreign policy concerning Iraq.

Abe has the goal of creating a greater global presence of Japanese troops, and will have to decide by July whether to create a law that allows for the deployment of Japanese troops to Iraq.

 

Japan has been one of the main supporters of the United States in Iraq, providing airlifting for U.S. and other allies between Kuwait and Baghdad and aid reconstruction works in southern Iraq under former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.

However, with key allies such as Britain pulling out of Iraq, Japan remains one of the only remaining supports of the U.S. in Iraq.

 

Japan can be perceived as a “band-wagoning” country, joining the United States and accepting its values and institutions. In terms of remote causes, perhaps the United States’ shaping of Japan after WWII by forcing Western democratic and capitalist values on its society has made Japan into a product of Westernization, and thus Japan is eager to cooperate with its post-WWII creator, the United States.

Japan seeking Permanent Seat on the United Nations Security Council

Source: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070221a7.html

Japan has tried in the past, and is making an effort once again, to gain support for its ambition of becoming a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

In 2005, Japan had collaborated with Brazil, Germany, and India, known collectively as the G-4, and had requested that the number of seats on the UNSC be increased from 15 to 25. However, this proposal lacked sufficient support and was vetoed by China and the United States.

 Japan, India, Germany, and Brazil are all striving to become permanent members of the U.N. security council, yet have yet been able to realize that goal.

photo: The United Nations Security Council meeting is pictured in this general view at the 60th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images) source: http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-10-9/33117.html

Japan’s approach towards the UNSC up until now has been to collaborate with the other three countries of the G-4, however, because of continual lack of support, Japan has recently began to change the means by which it is attempting to realize its goal of gaining a permanent seat on the UNSC. Japan has shifted to a policy of diplomacy solely with the United States, hoping to gain support particularly from the United States.

This aspiration of Japan reflects its underlying value of sovereign power. However, in order to effectually gain the support of other countries currently seated in the UNSC, Japan will need sufficient soft power, a good image and reputation that will allow a favorable perception of its motivations.

Note: For more information about the UNSC, visit this News Article by the Epoch Times International, http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-10-9/33117.html. I find this article to be informative and concise in its description of the UNSC; therefore, I will add this news source to my blog roll and will be looking for other articles from this website from which to blog about.

Yasukuni War Shrine’s Influence in Southeast Asian Politics

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070215/afp/070215051844int.html  – This article refers to Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing’s recent visit to Japan and the importance of Japanese Prime Minister Abe’s deciding not to visit the Yasukuni war shrine during his term in office as a major reason for his visiting.

The Yasukuni shrine in Tokyo is dedicated to about 2.5 million people who have died in Japan’s conflicts between 1853 and 1945.  (source: http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/08/13/japan.shrine/)

Because this shrine honors those who have fought and died in Japanese wars, including Kamikaze pilots and those who have fought against countries such as Korea and China, naturally, the Prime Minister of Japan’s visiting of this shrine would be a cause of alarm for those countries whom Japan has fought against in the past.

Former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi had prayed at the Yasukuni war shrine several times during his rule in office.

On one occasion of visiting the war shrine, former Prime Minister Koizumi told reporters, “I don’t go there to repeat the past war and justify the war. We should not forget the sacrifices made by those who fell for the country.”

 -Former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi praying at Yasukuni war shrine.

Japan’s relations with China and Korea have been strained for the past five years because of Koizumi’s frequent visits to the Koizumi Shrine. Prime Minister Abe, however, is taking a new approach to the Yasukuni war shrine and has not yet made a visit during his term in office. 

Abe’s new attitude can be seen as one reason for Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing’s arrival in Japan, today, February 15 2007.  He is planning to prepare the scene for Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao’s coming to Japan in this coming April to discuss with Japan the recent North Korean pact that was agreed upon yesterday.

Overall, because of Abe’s insightful decision to not visit the controversial Yasukuni war shrine during his time in office, meetings like this with countries that view the war shrine as a symbol of Japanese aggression may be more likely to take place.

Analyzing Japan’s Attitude towards recent North Korea Pact

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/world/asia/15japan.html?_r=1&oref=slogin and

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/world/asia/14korea.html?n=Top%2fNews%2fWorld%2fCountries%20and%20Territories%2fNorth%20Korea note: may need to register on the New York Times website to view this article

On Teusday February 13, 2007 a pact resulting of a six-nation summit meeting in Beijing was made with North Korea that will require North Korea to freeze its production of plutonium at its nuclear facility in Yongbyon and to allow international inspectors to monitor and verify its compliance. In exchange, North Korea will receive  food and fuel aid from all the other countries present at the Beijing summit, except Japan.

While, the United States, China, South Korea and Russia agreed to provide North Korea with the food and fuel aid promised in the pact, Japan did not agree to the aid package, saying that it first needs to work out the issue of North Korea’s past abductions of Japanese citizens, an event that took place in the 1970’s.

In effect, Japan has caused unrest between states as a result of its demanding that this issue of abduction, not even related to the nuclear pact, be addressed at the summit.

At an individual level of analysis, the background of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s rise to power can help to explain Japan’s current stubbornness concerning the abduction issue. Abe has won the support of the Japanese people in large part by focusing on the abduction of Japanese citizens throughout his political career. Because Abe’s popularity depends on this issue, it is not likely that Japan will be satisfied with compromise.

A brief summary of the issue is that North Korea has acknowledged kidnapping a dozen Japanese in the 70’s and returned five survivors four years ago, saying the rest had died,  but Japan says more survivors remain and that it will not normalize relations with North Korea unless the abducted Japanese were accounted for.

Japan’s unwillingness to fulfill its part in the pact with North Korea is the result of the narrow agenda in foreign policy as directed by Shinzo Abe. Japan used this international summit as an opportunity to focus on the abductions, despite their complete irrelevance to the pact at hand.

Yet, I see Japan as the one whose losing in this picture. After all, four other countries have agreed to supplying the food and fuel supplies owed to North Korea in the pact; thus Japan really has become isolated on the issue.

 Photo by Andrew Wong: Closing Ceremonies of Korea Pact

Abe Seeking Greater Sovereignty in Japan

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070209/kyodo/d8n674f85.html

This is a link to a news article from “Yahoo! Aisa News”, which quotes Kyodo News as the source. I went to the Kyodo News website to see if I could find their source or perhaps the same article. However after investigating into the Kyodo website, it came to my attention that Kyodo only gives subscriptions of full news articles to newspapers, magazines, trade publications, research institutes, government and international organizations. Nevertheless, the site does have a twenty-four hours newsfeed giving two paragraph descriptions of daily events in Japanese politics. I added the site to my blog roll for future reference.

In short, Yahoo! Asia News wrote this story; the source is Kyodo News, but the general public is not able to view the full stories on the Kyodo News website.

I will now proceed to comment on the content of this article.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s goal is to attain permanent legislation for the mobilization of Japan’s Self Defence Force (SDF) overseas. Presently, Japan must create legislation for each individual deployment of troops due to its pacifist constitution. Abe, however, claims to be seeking perpetual legislation for troop deployment to promote peace.

Abe said, “In order (for Japan) to make further contributions toward the peace and stability of the world, I hope to deepen public discussion and consider” creating such a law. Abe made this statement at a budget committee discussing policy of the next fiscal year starting April 1.

I view this as an attempt by Abe to increase the level of sovereignty in Japan. With the current restrictions placed on Japan’s deployment of the SDF, Japan will not be able to respond quickly to possible foreign threats. Japan is also suspicious of nuclear weapon possesing Korea. By attending a six-country summit to discuss nuclear disarment in Korea, Japan is expressing values of peace and national security.

If you look at this other article I found on the Kyodo News website, however, http://home.kyodo.co.jp/modules/fstStory/index.php?storyid=297750,

you will also see that Japan was not as focused on nuclear disarmament as they claim to be. Instead, Japan continual brought up the issue of the Japanese who were abducted by Korea in the past.

So while Abe seeks to gain support of his idea to gain greater freedom of troop deployment by attaching the values of peace and security, his ultimate goal may not be just nuclear disarmament nor self-defense. As Abe is the Prime Minister of Japan, I think his policies are ultimately directed towards increasing Japanese power. He is much a realist in his suspicious nature and desire to be able to defend Japan without the current and restrictive processes necessary to deploy troops.

Shinzo Abe Claiming Right to Disputed Territory

http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20070207p2a00m0na033000c.html

This is a link to a news article translated from the Mainichi (Daily News) newspaper from Japan. It describes Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s attempt to gain support for his assertion that four islands to the north of Japan are actually Japanese territory as defined by an 1855 Japan-Russia friendship treaty which gave Japan rights to these northern islands.

 

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe

By taking a more assertive approach to military and foreign policy, Abe displays the importance of a leader’s character traits in politics. Although the remote causes for this claim Abe is asserting on territory date back the end of WWII and even the treaty signed in 1855, without a Japanese leader taking action, the islands would simply remain disputed, or more accurately, in Russian possession.

Even with Abes assertion, however, Japan’s lack of military capabilities which are constricted by their consitution and physical separation from the islands themselves, Japan’s actual regaining of these disputed islands depends largely on Abe’s ability to negotiate well with the government of Russia.

As Japan is a democratic state Abe also needs the support of his people to follow through with his nationalist assertions. Thus he is trying to reform school policy to promote nationalism and foster an “accurate” understanding of the situation surrounding the islands. As in the past, the promotion of nationalism is an attempt by the Japanese government to get people to agree and act upon Japan’s foreign policy.

From Russia’s point of view, perhaps it has Japan’s good favor to gain by returning the disputed territories. Even still, from a realist view, Russia should be worried about making itself weaker by giving territory to a state that could become a future enemy. On the other hand, from a liberalist point of view, if Russia were to instead allow Japan to co-possess these islands, rather than take total control over them, perhaps a relationship of reliance upon one another will develop, thus resulting in peace.

Since there is no government telling Russia and Japan how to deal with the disputed territory, this situation is a prime example of how international relations takes place in the state of anarchy.

China’s Reputation at Stake: AIDS-Activists

Source: ALEXA OLESEN, “AIDS activist stopped from visiting U.S.,” Associate Presss, Sunday February 4, 2007,  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070205/ap_on_re_as/china_aids_whistleblower

This article is about a Chinese doctor who was prevented from attending a fundraiser in Washington by the Chinese government. In the past, she has made efforts to alert people of AIDS being spread by tainted blood transfusions.

The Chinese government has viewed heractions as subordination and have confined her to her home so that she does not leave the country.

Apparently, this woman represents to the Chinese government, the AIDS problem the government created when allowing HIV patients to sell their blood in the past. It seems to me that China is worried about its reputation in terms of human rights. If this woman was to go to Washington and speak about the transgressoins of China, it would result in negative public opinion of China. Thus, China is acting liberal in the sense that it wants to maintain a good reputation with other countries as to maintain respect from the international community.

 http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070205/481/bej10102050346;_ylt=AkhbEI7srWwt3Z8W4DIHYmr9xg8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA3bGk2OHYzBHNlYwN0bXA

The above is a photo of the woman described in the article. Click on the link to the right of the photo for a detailed caption as well as information about the photographer, etc.

China’s Liberal Approach in Sudan’s Darfur Conflict

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_re_af/sudan_china This is a link to an article concerning Hu Jintao’s, the current President of China, recent visit to Sudan concerning the Darfur conflict and the commercial influence of China on the situation.

 http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070202/481/nn10102021219;_ylt=AngIuzOZeakGyXrS5rBg0SMV6w8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA3bGk2OHYzBHNlYwN0bXA

AP Photo:Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, left, and Chinese President Hu Jintao 

– This is a link to a larger version of this photo as well as a detailed caption.

On Jaunary 26, 2007, President Hu Jintao held a closed-door meeting with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to urge Sudan to cooperate with the U.N. in allowing 20,000 U.N.  forces to join the African Union troops in Darfur. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had urged Chinese ambassador Wang Guanya to persuade Sudan to accept U.N. peacekeepers.

China’s ability to influence Sudanese policy lies in its strong commercial ties with the country. China purchases more than two-thirds of Sudan’s oil exports annually, and in this most recent meeting gave a generous grant of $5.1 million dollars, a loan of $12 million dollars, and agreed to build new public buildings in Sudan. I view these actions taken by China to be an example of a commercial liberalist approach to exerting influence of Sudanese political policy. By building strong business ties with Sudan, the two countries are more likely to cooperate and agree on policy measures.

In the own words of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, “China is more fair than the West in dealing with Sudan and its policy has helped boost both business and peace in the country.”

The words of Sudanese Foreign Minister Lam Akol also reflect this attitude of friendship saying that “Sudan and China were “in complete agreement” over Darfur.

My view is that China is not necessarily concerned about the humanitary issues of the Darfur conflict rather than its own economic interest in the country. If Sudan had no oil to offer China, then China would not have anything to gain from promoting peace in the Sudan.

In the words of prominent realist Krauthammer “Ignoring one’s interests, squandering one’s resources in fits of altruism is the fastest road to national disaster.” (Quote taken from Kegley and Raymond’s The Global Future, pg. 25)

I think China’s encouraging the Sudan to cooperate with the U.N. is really to maintain the well-being of their oil investment. Sudan is more likely a representation of a long term commercial investment rather than a long term friend. While commercial liberalism is in line with China’s current agenda, perhaps it is merely a selfish move.

Please leave a comment if you can add more insight in this situation.