The New Asianism

Since the Democratic Party of Japan won in the country's August national election, Japan watchers have worried the new government might try to upset the status quo and ease away from the United States. The DPJ is implementing a new paradigm -- but not the one people think.

BY DANIEL SNEIDER, RICHARD KATZ | OCTOBER 13, 2009

Even before the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) took power, the defeated Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and its American allies started running a media campaign in both countries describing the new administration as "anti-capitalist" and "anti-American."

Critics cited an essay by new Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama in which he criticized "U.S.-led market fundamentalism" and spoke of a world in which the United States struggles to retain its dominance as China strives to become a global power. Mourning the loss of a half-century of LDP rule, these doomsayers accused Hatoyama of wanting to dump free market economics, shift Japan's international economic center of gravity from the West to Asia, and adopt a security stance "equidistant" between the United States and China.

This characterization is as accurate as labeling U.S. President Barack Obama a socialist. Hatoyama is hardly unique in blaming excessive deregulation for the economic crisis. Far from wanting to disengage from the United States, the DPJ has endorsed a bilateral free trade agreement -- something the LDP never dared. And DPJ leaders are not naive advocates of abandoning the United States only to be left to the mercies of an ascendant China. Rather, the DPJ wants a paradigm shift in Japanese foreign policy, one which makes it a more equal partner to the United States and puts greater emphasis on Japan's ties to the rest of Asia, particularly China and South Korea.

Let's call it the New Asianism. This ideology was on full display this weekend at a Beijing summit for leaders from China, South Korea, and Japan. It was only the second time this group of three has met. And the meeting was far more substantive than in the past, covering everything from coordinating on North Korea and economic stimulus policy to taking initial steps toward the formation of an "East Asian Community," modeled on the European Union.

The New Asianism pushes back against, but does not entirely reject, Japan's prioritization of its alliance with the United States. Too often, the DPJ thinks, conservative governments lined up with Washington even when they believed its policies to be misguided. For instance, former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi dispatched troops to Iraq and refueled U.S. vessels in the Indian Ocean not out of support for U.S. policy, but to ensure the United States' favor in case tensions arose with China or North Korea.

When it comes to a rising China, the DPJ rejects containment, advocated by neoconservatives in both Tokyo and Washington, as doomed to failure. Given the United States and China's increasing economic interdependence and overlapping strategic interests, Washington will never form an anti-Beijing front, DPJ thinkers say. Nor can Tokyo rely solely on the U.S.-Japan security alliance to counter any Chinese bid for regional hegemony. On the contrary, the greater fear in Tokyo is that the United States will abandon Japan by forming a U.S.-China "Group of Two," relegating Japan to second-level status in the region. In the DPJ's view, Japan needs to draw China into broader regional engagement instead.

This paradigm shift -- articulated by Hatoyama and other DPJ heavyweights, in the Japanese press and in interviews with the authors -- has three broad elements.

First, as Hatoyama told Obama in September, the U.S.-Japan alliance will remain "the cornerstone" of Japanese foreign policy. It makes no sense for Tokyo to distance itself from Washington on security or economic grounds, even if a few Japanese wonks entertain such fantasies.

Realistically, Japan and the United States will need each other to counterbalance China, encouraging it to become a responsible world power in terms of trade, the environment, and other issues. Plus, it would be impossible for Japan to cope with a nuclear North Korea without a strong alliance with United States (and China). Some difficult bilateral security issues -- such as the long-standing problem of U.S. military bases on Okinawa -- remain. But DPJ leaders, stronger negotiators than their LDP counterparts, are seeking compromise on this issue and others ahead of Obama's November visit to Japan.

This realism has deep roots. For instance, Hatoyama and other DPJ party leaders supported expanding Japan's security role within the framework of a strong U.S. alliance from the days when they were still members of the LDP. In 1992, they spearheaded Japanese participation in overseas peacekeeping operations. Earlier this decade, they backed a dispatch of Japanese naval forces to the Indian Ocean in response to the September 11 attacks. And this week, an envoy from Tokyo visited Afghanistan and Pakistan, a clear sign that Tokyo will continue to provide assistance on that front (though via economic, not military, aid).

Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: JAPAN, EAST ASIA
 

Daniel Sneider, associate director for research of Stanford University's Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, is a former foreign correspondent who covered Japan and Korea for the Christian Science Monitor and the San Jose Mercury News. Richard Katz is the editor of the Oriental Economist Report and the author of Japanese Phoenix: The Long Road to Economic Revival.

GRANT

8:41 PM ET

October 14, 2009

Frankly, while interesting I

Frankly, while interesting I feel that this article looks solely to the best in Asia to make its argument. Asia is hardly made up of South Korea, China, and Japan despite what the news pundits may think. You would have to consider Thailand, the Philippines, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Burma, to name but a few. An Asian Union without them would essentially be an economic alliance of the strong, and hardly a fitting counterpart to the European Union.
Also you cannot convince me that it would match the EU in peacefulness between nations. Recently Thailand and Cambodia had military clashes over a border dispute that could have escalated easily. Many of the nations mentioned have authoritarian governments, lethal diseases, insurgencies, great dependence on good ecological conditions, and other problems to add to disputes.
By all of this I do not mean to state that peace in East Asia is impossible, simply that I do not believe the current Asia would allow a Pax Asia and certainly not the growth of authority in the Union's leadership.

 

KEROL LUNDY

10:01 PM ET

October 14, 2009

The New Asianism

I think there is hope and prospect for Asia to be united like the EU. It took centuries of the worst bloodshed and atrocity before the European reach the stage they are at today. I do not think it is necessary to go over the whole story/history of the EU, which started amid the ruin of WWII as an economic organization.
The giants of Asia speaking of China, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, India etc... have all the ingredients necessary to create a powerful economic bloc for now and politic later. If they were united as the EU, they would be by far the most powerful regional organization in the world; they would reach a global power status shortly because they met all the conditions for being one.

An Asian revival would be threat to the US and the EU. Since Russia has 65% of its territory in Asia, they could have an observer status, or the EU would have to allow Russia and Turkey to join in as fast as they could to solve their energetic problem.