“BREXIT” WILL BRING BRITAIN’S DECLINE
In the so-called “Brexit” referendum held on June 23, pro-exit Britons defeated those in favor of remaining in the European Union by a 4% margin—52% to 48%.
“Like the Arab Spring, the result of Britain’s referendum took Washington by surprise,” noted the June 28 edition of The New York Times.
How should we Japanese view the British decision in terms of our own national interests? The important thing to watch is whether Britain will head for a decline, and how the players we must exercise strict vigilance against—China and Russia—will now act.
I suspect that, over the long downturn that is now expected to follow, the outcome of the referendum could deprive the old empire of whatever glitter and pride it had managed to retain.
For such a vital turning point for the UK’s future, the referendum was conducted in a dreadfully carnival-like atmosphere of populism. Those favoring to remain in the EU, from Prime Minister David Cameron on down, warned of devastating losses to the UK’s economy and vast increases in unemployment. Meanwhile, those advocating an exit emotionally resorted to the simplistic claim that Britain could resolve many of its problems by excluding immigrants and escaping the control of the EU bureaucracy.
Those pushing for an exist have completely failed to propose specific policies on how to revitalize the economy once Britain leaves the EU; how to realistically regain its prestige and affluence; or what new international strategy for Britain to pursue. They have failed to make such proposals because they themselves have no idea.
The world started to change drastically immediately after Britain made the decision to withdraw from the EU. Steps are being taken, starting with American banks, to shift their European headquarters out of Lombard, Britain’s financial center in London which accounts for 10% of its GDP. It was the desire to remain one of the world’s financial centers that drove Britain to join the Chinese-proposed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), brushing aside strenuous American objections. Weren’t Britons aware that an exit from the EU would automatically crush such aspirations?
Linchpin of Diplomacy
It appears Britons also failed to take into consideration the predictable reaction from Scotland, whose desire to remain in the EU is very strong. Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland and head of the Scottish Nationalist Party, called a news conference immediately after the referendum, declaring that it is clear that “people in Scotland see their future as part of the European Union.” She vowed to hold another independence referendum—the second since 2014.
Scotland’s possible departure from Great Britain, with its land mass accounting for some 30% of Britain’s, would decisively weaken the national power of the United Kingdom. The North Sea oil fields—the backbone of the British economy—are located in the Scottish seas. So is Her Majesty’s Clyde Naval Base, home to Britain’s nuclear submarine fleet. Great Britain without Scotland will be reduced to Little England, as The New York Times put it.
Responding to such concerns, more than 3.2 million Britons had signed a petition by June 25, demanding a second Brexit referendum. At their meeting in Berlin on June 26, the foreign ministers of the EU’s founding states—Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxemburg, and the Netherlands—immediately brought pressure to bear on Britain, urging her to begin talks on the exit promptly. Although German Chancellor Angela Merkel herself appears critical of hasty responses from the EU side such as this, the outlook for Britain’s future looks dark.
The relationship between the US and Britain will also be compelled to change. The US has until now exercised influence on European nations through its special ties with Britain. No other nation has shared a more similar outlook on the world with the US, or cooperated more closely with the US in matters regarding international security, intelligence, and promotion of free trade.
Without Britain, America’s relationship with the EU will be much more complicated. The US has often had strained relations with France; Italy and the Netherlands are too weak economically to exercise leadership; and Germany, the giant in the EU, cannot readily remove its deep-rooted suspicion of the US. As American ties with Europe weaken, Russia and China will very likely slip into the vacuum created.
Simultaneously, the “dreadful populism” that we saw in the UK vote will spread further to other countries.
Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump and Jean-Marie Le Pen, head of the French ultra-right-wing National Front party, are cases in point. Both have already extolled the “Brexit” decision to the skies.
Dubbing the UK referendum “the People’s Spring,” similar to the “Arab Spring” in the Middle East, Le Pen asserts that this marks a point of departure from which there is no turning back. The negative effects of this new wave of change on Japan and the rest of the world will be immeasurable if the new isolationism advocated by Trump influences the next US administration to take steps to precariously shrink or withdraw American armed forces from overseas.
“Money to Kill People”
Meanwhile, China and Russia are closely watching the ongoing changes in Europe, seeing them as a golden opportunity to pursue their respective national interests. Xi Jin-ping and Vladimir Putin met in Uzbekistan on June 23 and then again in Beijing on June 25. It is unusual for heads of states to confer in such rapid succession. It was an indication of just how important the two leaders felt it was that they spend time together to assess the rapidly changing situation. China and Russia obviously position the US as their common adversary, going so far as to collaborate on pursuing military expansion in outer space.
It is not immediately clear if Russia supports the Chinese position on the South China Sea, but Russia has made it clear it feels any territorial disputes in the region should be resolve through talks between the interested parties, not through the International Court of Arbitration in The Hague. We ought to view the two nations as ultimately standing on the same side when it comes to disputed territory in the South and East China Seas, including the Senkakus.
The US and the European nations, as well as China and Russia, are frantically analyzing the changes in the international situation triggered by Brexit. Against such a backdrop, Japanese politicians are campaigning for the Upper House election slated for July 10. Without question, the most important campaign topic ought to be how Japan should fend for itself amid these rapid global changes. But it is highly questionable if our politicians or our voters are fully aware of the importance of this topic.
Needless to say, what we fundamentally need to safeguard our security is an all-out effort to strengthen our economic and military power, particularly our military capabilities. Under our constitution, the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) are not viewed as normal military forces, with deployment severely restricted under the rigid rules and regulations of our “peace” constitution. The current constitution must be revised, but prior to that the JSDF’s capabilities as a fighting force must be significantly upgraded in order to secure our survival.
How does the Japan Communist Party (JCP), with which Japan’s leading opposition Democratic Party (DP) has committed to forming a united front for the coming election, view the JSDF? On June 19, Yasufumi Fujino, head of the party’s policy committee, called the government’s defense budget “money to kill people” on a nation-wide TV news show. Fujino later retracted his statement, but I suspect the lawmaker inadvertently had merely revealed his and his party’s true feelings about the JSDF.
The JCP maintains a policy of putting up with the JSDF for the time being—albeit as an unconstitutional entity. If it is the party’s view that the JSDF is an organization aimed at “killing people,” as one of its key officials insinuated, they will inevitably move to disband it in due time. How could the DP have agreed to cooperate with the JCP with such views when the world is undergoing such drastic change and China is dead set on dominating the South and East China Seas? I find the DP’s decision absolutely unacceptable by any stretch of the imagination.
(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 711 in the July 7, 2016 issue of The Weekly Shincho)