Until just recently, I was fairly confident of not being taken by surprise by virtually anything that the ruling Democratic Party of Japan (DPD) might do, since self-contradictions and logical inconsistencies within the party’s policies, including personnel decisions, are nothing new. And yet, I must admit I was truly stunned by the party’s decision on October 16 to allow former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, of all people, to come back as its “senior advisor for foreign affairs.”

　　　Immediately after assuming the premiership in September of 2009, Mr. Hatoyama pursued a much-criticized policy which shook the very foundation of Japan’s vital relationship with the US, resulting in China, Russia, and South Korea stepping up their respective initiatives for territorial aggression. Saying “no” to an already agreed-on plan to relocate the Futenma Marine Air Base to Henoko on the main island of Okinawa and vowing he was determined to “move it out of the country, or at least out of Okinawa Prefecture,” he completely overturned the conclusions reached between the US and Japan over 13 long years of arduous and often heated negotiations.

　　　Hatoyama then went on to state “Japan has so far been too dependent on the US,” making clear his intention to pursue a foreign policy emphasizing the importance of cementing relations with Beijing. And, for that purpose, he made efforts to materialize establishment of an East Asian Community initiative tantamount to creating a new order revolving around China.

　　　After abruptly announcing such an unorthodox basic policy change without laying the groundwork within the DPJ itself, Hatoyama nonchalantly told President Obama, “Trust me,” when asked if he really meant what he was quoted as having said concerning Futenma and his East Asian Community initiative. Hatoyama quickly ended up being called “loopy” in Washington’s political circles, which viewed his “trust me” remarks suspiciously. Consequently, U.S.-Japan relations deteriorated seriously.

　　　It was Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda who called on Hatoyama to serve again, entrusting him with the country’s foreign affairs. A flaw of this magnitude should not be simply brushed aside as poor party personnel management on Noda’s part, as his appointment of so dubious a politician as Hatoyama makes one question seriously if the prime minister may not be beginning to lose the ability to think and act as a true head of state.

　　　The appointment of Hatoyama is yet another example of the party digging its own grave, as was the case with the appointment of former Prime Minister Naoto Kan, who amazingly was named senior advisor to the government’s Energy and Environment Research Council. This after Kan had completely mishandled the nation’s nuclear crisis following the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami. While casting a critical eye, however, I cannot help asking myself: Could these and other scandalous personnel assignments by the DPJ, which absolutely look abnormal to me, by any chance be “nothing abnormal” in light of the party’s own values? May it also be that I have had naive expectations that Mr. Noda is a normal individual, different from either Hatoyama or Kan, when he in fact is functioning exactly as one would expect of a member of a government party that clearly is spinning around an axis which has dangerously slipped out of place?

Missing the Whole Point

　　　Let us try and see how abnormal the DPJ’s values are. In September of 2009, the Hatoyama administration came into being, with Katsuya Okada as foreign minister, who immediately started screening candidates for ambassador to Washington. Although Okada himself has denied it, he reportedly first attempted to appoint Jitsuro Terashima, well-known in Japan as an internationally-recognized intellectual who then was chairman of the Mitsui Global Strategic Studies Institute. But Terashima’s stern anti-US posture was also a well-known fact at the time, as he had for years been rigidly critical of US foreign policy, including the Gulf War. By contrast, Terashima assumed, and still does, a highly conciliatory posture towards China. Behind Hatoyama’s ardent advocacy of establishment of an East Asian Community was the presence of Terashima, who vigorously recommended the scheme to him as his foreign affairs advisor.

　　　But influential Republican sources initially contacted are said to have responded with a “no reply” concerning inquiries put out about possibly appointing Terashima. Atsuyuki Sassa, a top crisis management specialist who once served former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi as Director General for Cabinet Security Affairs Office, has this to say about this “incident”:

　　　“Generally speaking, a lack of a response in such a case means that the receiving nation is ostensibly opposing the selection. In this case, even if the US side viewed Terashima as undesirable, it would not publicly come out and say so, given the importance of US-Japan relations. However, the alleged appointment was effectively rejected with the Japanese side receiving a ‘no reply.’ Whoever actually came up with the appointment of Terashima, it was destined to be rejected.”

　　　Meanwhile, Okada is on record as having made the highly questionable and unpopular appointment of Uichiro Niwa as Ambassador to China. Sassa continues:

　　　“Niwa, who was CEO of Itochu Corporation prior to his assignment to Beijing, must have seen China’s 1.3 billion population as potential customers of Japanese goods and services – 1.3 million customers who are almost like gods to Niwa. In diplomacy, it is of course important to think a great deal of the other nation. At the same time, diplomacy often calls for diplomats to risk their lives to stand in the vanguard of safeguarding the national interests of one’s own country. It would be impossible in the first place to expect a businessman to engage in diplomacy at the risk of his life.”

　　　On August 27, two Chinese men attacked a government car carrying Niwa in Beijing, one of them ripping a rising sun Japanese flag from it. However, the two were given a light administrative punishment and detained for just five days before being released on September 5. Nothing can diplomatically be more contemptuous to Japan than this “punishment.” The Chinese side did not bother to take the necessary steps in adjudicating the case, which was declared closed at the end of a perfunctory hearing almost as casually as giving somebody a speeding ticket.

　　　Whatever happened to the Japanese flag in the absence of any real punishment for the attackers? Comments an indignant Sassa:

　　　“The Japanese side has yet to retrieve the flag, which was snatched from the ambassador’s official vehicle. The Chinese side simply treated it as a ‘thing’ that had been lost. Allow me to stress that a national flag is more than just ‘a thing.’ Those at the Japanese Embassy in Beijing from the ambassador down, as well as those at the Foreign Ministry in Tokyo, apparently have simply satisfied themselves with the Chinese explanation that the flag snatched from the embassy car is merely ‘a thing’ after all and that it has unfortunately been lost.”

　　　This is missing the whole point and unpardonable. Like Japanese territory, the official car of our ambassador is automatically granted extraterritorial rights. A Japanese flag hoisted on his car is a national flag which symbolizes Japanese sovereignty. What neither Ambassador Niwa nor Foreign Ministry officials fail to understand is that it is different from an ordinary Japanese flag. Among those who are the most ignorant of this fact, I suspect, are the top echelon of the DPJ, including Messrs. Okada and Hatoyama.

The Nation’s Foundation Is Crumbling

　　　Many crucial diplomatic errors have been committed during the past three years of DPJ rule. Rui Abiru, political reporter for the conservative mass-circulation daily The Sankei Shinbun, did a superb job summing them up in his recent book entitled Destructive Diplomacy (Sankei Shimbun Publishing Co.) Reading through it, one is vividly reminded of various acts of Russian, Chinese, and South Korean provocation, which makes one flush with anger. These have all resulted from the DPJ’s failed diplomacy.

　　　On September 7, 2010, a Chinese trawler (Minjinyu 5176) violated Japanese territorial waters near the disputed Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, ramming a Japan Coast Guard patrol boat. What the then Prime Minister Naoto Kan and Yoshito Sengoku, who was then Chief Cabinet Secretary, did following the incident can truly be called a national disgrace. After kowtowing to the Chinese, they evaded responsibility as top government leaders and attributed the release of the Chinese trawler captain to a decision by the District Public Prosecutor’s Office in Naha, Okinawa.　Also, Kan and Sengoku attempted unsuccessfully to deny the existence of the videos showing the actual scene of Chinese violation of Japanese waters, claiming that keeping them from the public would serve Japanese national interests. Even today, Sengoku audaciously asserts that the government’s actions were “all proper.”

　　　As regards the disputed Takeshima Island (called Dokdo in Korean), none of the DPJ members has been willing to assert that Takeshima has been “illegally occupied” by South Korea. This includes Okada; Yukio Edano, Minister of Economy, Trade, and Industry; and Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura. On October 25, 2011, Hideo Hiraoka, who served one term as justice minister, was asked during a lower house justice committee meeting by Ms Tomomi Inada, a member of the leading opposition party, the Liberal Democratic Party (LPD): “Takeshima is being illegally occupied by South Korea. Do you think this situation can be allowed to continue?”

　　　Hiraoka had this to say: “The present situation of the island is so delicate one cannot precisely describe it…Characterizing the island as being ‘illegally occupied’ carries extremely political nuances…so I do not consider it appropriate to answer your question at this juncture.” In a desperate effort to evade the question further, Hiraoka then appallingly passed the buck to the bureaucracy, claiming “it is the sort of question that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be charged with answering,” and asserting he was in no position to reply. Is this how the justice minister entrusted with the nation’s laws should behave? Can a person like this qualify as a minister?

　　　Unfortunately, this is always the case with the DPJ, which has this time named Yukio Hatoyama its senior advisor for foreign affairs. Bluntly, I view his appointment only as a ploy by Noda to solidify his power base within his party. Unfortunately, however, even if Noda’s foothold is somewhat strengthened, this type of personnel decision – as well as this type of approach to foreign affairs – will only serve to corrode the very foundation of this nation. No administration has a raison d’etre if its leadership puts their own interests before the nation’s.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 532 in the October 25, 2012 issue of The Weekly Shincho)