On February 4th, a popular column in the conservative mass-circulation daily The Sankei Shimbun carried a letter to President Obama, reminding him of the importance of the alliance between the US and Japan. Written by Tadae Takubo, Emeritus Professor of Tokyo’s Kyorin University and an international affairs expert, the letter comprised a sharp message, although  stated gently and in a well-balanced manner. I couldn’t agree with Prof. Takubo’s assertions more.

　　　As friction among Japan, China, and South Korea intensifies over issues pertaining to our war-time past, I cannot but feel rather strongly that many Japanese are quite disappointed to realize how shallow the American understanding of Japan really is. As regards the disputed Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, we often hear the US calling on Japan to not change the status quo. And yet most Americans do not seem to understand it is China that is aggressively attempting to change the current geopolitical landscape.

　　　The statement issued simultaneously by the State Department and the US Embassy in Tokyo that the US was “disappointed”—with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to Yasukuni Shrine last December 28th—left me speechless with sheer disbelief.

　　　Abe took the action as head of the state in order to pledge to never again wage war while praying for the souls of the war-dead, thanking them for the sacrifice they made fighting for their country. Such a visit should not be the object of denunciation or the cause of disappointment. If, however, the only real reaction from the US—Japan’s most important ally and trading partner—is outright disappointment with its prime minister, then one is compelled to recall what the US did during its own war with Japan—especially during the closing phase of the bloody conflict.

　　　Specifically, I am referring to the horrendous American bombings of major cities across Japan in 1945, including the bombing of Tokyo in March and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August. Every Japanese understands the inhumanity of the indiscriminate bombings which killed at least half a million ordinary citizens.

　　　Since the end of the war, however, we Japanese have made it a rule to not talk about the bombings. Having been defeated, Japan accepted the judgments rendered by the victors— despite the inconsistencies in logic and fairness those judgments may have exhibited. This we have done—because virtually all Japanese have deeply reflected on the actions our own country took during the war, and because of the innate Japanese character that reminds us that the loser fundamentally makes no excuses.

　　　Here’s what Prof. Takubo had to write in his letter to Obama: If the US government genuinely felt compelled to issue the statement of “disappointment” over the Yasukuni visit by Abe—who only did what any head of state would do—“shouldn’t the US have also issued a statement that it was ‘disappointed’ when a memorial hall honoring Ahn Jung-guen was opened on January 19th at the Harbin Railway Station? [Editor’s note: Ahn assassinated Ito Hirobumi, then the first Japanese Resident General of Korea, in Harbin on October 26th, 1909. Ito was one of the founding fathers of modern Japan, and had served as prime minister four times. The memorial is a collaboration between South Korea and China.]

US Policy of Non-Intervention on World Stage

　　　I find Prof. Takubo’s view quite correct—that the US forged ahead with a military occupation immediately after the war under which it implemented a policy of weakening Japan, seeking to confine it within the US sphere of influence, and that the residue of the basic concept of this so-called “weak Japan” policy still remains embedded in the core of US policy vis-à-vis Japan.

　　　As it has strived to keep Japan from becoming stronger, the Obama administration more often than not turns a blind eye to the Chinese threat. Also shutting its eyes to the role military power plays in international politics, Washington fervently seeks to resolve problems by prioritizing diplomacy.

　　　Washington does not bother to recognize that any nation’s foreign policy is decisively influenced by its military power.

　　　How the Obama administration actually functions was exemplified by its decision to not militarily intervene in Syria.

　　　While explaining why the US had adopted a policy of non-intervention in a nation-wide broadcast last September 10th, Obama twice said “the US is not the world’s policeman.” These days, not a small number of people criticize this type of “non-intervention” on the part of Obama. Professor Jim Auor, Director of the Center for US-Japan Studies and Cooperation at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, is among those who have written about Obama’s lack of interest in foreign policy or national defense matters.

　　　Despite such criticism, however, Obama’s basic posture remains unchanged. As a result, the structure of America’s international relations is undergoing a significant change for the first time in the post-Cold War era. Reacting to America’s non-intervention in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel have already begun to keep some distance from Washington. A notable change of posture toward the US can also be seen within the European Union.

　　　The 50th Security Conference held in Munich on February 1st will have an important bearing on the future of the relationship between the US and Europe. At this annual conference, Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel found themselves compelled to defend the US position.

　　　The International New York Times quoted Kerry as angrily refuting European and Middle Eastern criticism, noting “this narrative… frankly has been published by some people who have an interest in trying to suggest that the US is somehow on a different track” in terms of its foreign and security policies.

　　　However, Kerry’s impassioned speech apparently has not quite succeeded in eradicating doubts on the part of EU nations. Germany’s reaction is worth paying close attention to.

　　　It would be correct to surmise that the bugging of the mobile phone belonging to Chancellor Angela Merkel by the National Security Agency has aggravated German mistrust of the US, even supposing that this type of espionage activities has extensively been practiced in the international community. Despite remarks in Munich by secretaries Kerry and Hagel to the contrary, the US government’s foreign policy is clearly turning more heavily to diplomacy, steadfastly avoiding military actions.

　　　The unfolding crisis in Ukraine concerns EU nations just as seriously as the Syrian situation. While the opposition camp in Ukraine has shown a growing interest in joining the EU, Russia is exerting tremendous pressure in a desperate effort to keep Ukraine within its sphere of influence. And yet, despite the EU’s bitter criticism of Russia, the US has yet to show any readiness to become involved in the crisis.

Japan Amid A Bitter Cold War against China

　　　Against this backdrop, it was noteworthy that German President Joachim Gauck delivered a specially invigorating address at the 50th Munich Security Conference on February 1st.

　　　Germany’s Nazi and Communist past is “no excuse for ducking international duties,” said Gauck.

　　　Noting that today’s Germany is recognized as “a democracy, a reliable partner or ally,” Gauck stressed that his nation “should engage as a good partner earlier, more decisively and more substantially” to play a greater security role on the world stage.

　　　Amid the struggle for democratic change during the “Arab Spring,” Germany refused to participate in military intervention in Libya. Without directly mentioning Lybia, Gauck remarked that such behavior should not be repeated.

　　　Clearly, the international order that has revolved around the US as the world’s lone superpower since the end of the Cold War is undergoing sweeping changes. The world situation has entered a critical phase where we must be agile enough to respond to unexpected development.

　　　In an era ushering in wide-ranging changes, a nation will without doubt be doomed unless capable of promptly perceiving impending crises. Even if it is, it will still be doomed without the real power to cope with each crisis.

　　　Japan has a recalcitrant neighbor called China, whose national strategy is based on fierce denunciation of Japan. South Korea is following China’s lead. These two neighbors blatantly invent history with an unambiguous intent to harm Japan. As the Chinese Nationalist Party once drove Japan into a corner in a persistent propaganda war, so the Communist Party of China, run by the same Han Chinese who once ran the Kuomintang, is resorting to a similar modus operandi in a determined effort to push Japan into a corner.

　　　Today, Japan is right in the middle of a fierce cold war against China. Now is the time for all of us to awaken to this realization.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 594 in the February 13, 2014 issue of The Weekly Shincho)