Japan, just a puppet of America?

Japan, just a puppet of America?

CLIENT STATE: Japan in the American Embrace, by Gavan McCormack. New York: Verso Press, 2007, 246 pp., $ 29.95 (paper)

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his predecessor Junichiro Koizumi are usually portrayed as assertive nationalists, but come off here as dutiful and submissive gophers carrying out the Bush administration’s agenda. Looking behind the patriotic rhetoric, Gavan McCormack, professor emeritus at Australia National University, argues that the closer embrace of the United States at the opening of the 21st century has widened the gulf between Japan and its neighbors. Japan’s “neocons” are isolating Japan and making it more dependent on the U.S. while pretending to be assertive and charting their own destiny.

In trying to become the Great Britain of Asia, Japan is casting off its security constraints and trying to meet U.S. demands, but in doing so is alienating China and both Koreas. Moreover, despite accommodating U.S. demands, it’s views are ignored and counsel unsolicited on matters of importance. In this unequal alliance, Japan is treated like a vassal and used as an ATM.

“Client State’s” central thesis is that Japan is a puppet state, one that emerged during the U.S. Occupation 1945-52. McCormack points out that the three key issues at that time — the role of the emperor, the role of the military and relations with Asian neighbors — remain “vexed and unresolved.”

Like Noam Chomsky and Chalmers Johnson, McCormack challenges the dominant narrative and underlying assumptions, raising serious questions about the nature of the U.S.-Japan relationship that are often buried behind nostrums about “the most important alliance bar none.” He writes, “The Koizumi-Abe ‘revolution’ actually meant the liquidation of some important residual levers of Japanese autonomy, and the acceptance of an even higher level of submission and exploitation within the U.S. global empire.”

McCormack explains that, “Identity is the fundamental unresolved question of Japan’s modern history.” In this context one can better understand the culture war being waged by Abe in imposing patriotic education, airbrushing Japan’s wartime history and promoting constitutional revision. By allowing the emperor to remain institutionalized as the symbol of the state in the Constitution, embracing the wartime conservative elite and postponing any reckoning over Japan’s shared history with Asia due to the Cold War, Washington has powerfully shaped Japan’s identity. These policies keep Japan aloof from the region and impair moves toward regional reconciliation.

Because Japan has been nurtured as a dependent “superstate” with an American-imposed identity, the author believes that “The symbols and rhetoric of nationalism function as empty conceits, while the substance of nation is denied.” He adds that “prime ministerial visits to Yasukuni Shrine are a sign not of a reviving nationalism so much as an attempt to compensate for an abandoned one.”

“Client State” details the general rightward shift in Japan over the past decade and the spread of violence against critics of this trend. McCormack rightly condemns the shameless silence of then Prime Minister Koizumi and Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe for a full 10 days after the arson attack against Koichi Kato, former Secretary General of the Liberal Democratic Party, in August 2006 following Kato’s criticism of visits to Yasukuni. This eloquent silence was “tantamount to consent” and hardly encouraging about the state of democracy in Japan.

What can Japan do? With inequality rising, employment ever less secure, and 15 percent of the population living below the poverty line, neither Koizumi’s postal privatization or Abe’s emphasis on constitutional revision and patriotic education seem the right prescriptions for what ails the nation. Nor is spending vast sums of money — an estimated $ 26 billion over 10 years — to relocate U.S. bases.

Perhaps the most ominous development from McCormack’s perspective is the “2005/06 agreement to the fusion of command and intelligence between Japanese and U.S. forces.” This agreement effectively subordinates Japan to U.S. strategic leadership and commits it to collective defense, one of the remaining security taboos that Washington has been eager to eliminate. Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of State, is portrayed as a bullying proconsul repeatedly intervening to shape and drive Japanese security policy.

If Japan loosens its security ties with the U.S., won’t it be a sitting duck in a dangerous neighborhood? On the contrary, McCormack thinks that the alliance is dangerous in the sense that it insulates Japan from the need of making headway on reaching accommodation with its neighbors based on a “return to the understanding of history it briefly reached in the mid-1990s.” Without reconciliation, the chances for regional peace and security are limited. McCormack advocates Japan shifting its priority from serving the U.S. to attending to its domestic problems and helping forge an “Asian commonwealth.”

This wide-ranging and perceptive book also explores the unhappy triangle of Tokyo, Washington and Okinawa, Japan’s hypocrisy in its dealings with North Korea, the implications of Japan’s nuclear-energy program and many more hot topics. We are fortunate to have such a lucid and compelling commentary on our very own Truman Show.

Jeff Kingston is Director of Asian Studies at Temple University, Japan campus.

Calling Japan an American-puppet state is an interesting argument despite being extremely offensive to Japanese nationalists and Japanophiles. The argument suggests that Japan’s intensifying embrace of America in the political arena is actually undermining its national identity, its autonomy in national defence, and damaging regional ties.

The author suggests that the increasing nationalism promoted by both Koizumi and Abe are actually done to overcompensate for their decision to increasingly relinquish their national autonomy to become a better servant of the American Empire. At the same time, by backing the the right-wing Liberal Democratic Party, allowing for a continuation of key institutions from World War II, and sheltering Japan from her neighbours, America actually created many problems that are presently manifesting in the Japanese national identity as well as allowing historical baggage to remain among Japan’s neighbours by discouraging it from mending ties in the region.

The author makes an interesting assertion that the Yasukuni Shrine visits by Koizumi were actually done to mourn the loss of Japanese identity rather than glorify past militarism/nationalism since that is the only real Japan which was known. It’s an interesting assertion since the average Japanese seems to only know of two Japans in the twentieth century: the Imperial Japan that modernised and ravaged much of Asia in World War II before being defeated by the Americans and a postwar American Japan that is still confused over its identity and trying to find a place in the world while at the embrace of the American Empire.

For all its flaws, the Japan during the Imperial era was confident in its national identity and its national independence compared to the American Japan that is trying to run a government using rules from an American-drafted and American-imposed Constitution, and with a power structure that is increasingly undermining its own independence while still having the nerve to promote nationalism.

It was really shocking to learn that the American and Japanese military command structures are now merged with the Japanese Self-Defence Forces subordinate to the military of the United States at a time when the Republic of Korea is trying to dismantle the joint US-Korean military command created after the Korean War. For all intents and purposes, the military of Japan is practically the United States Armed Forces with a Japanese Self-Defence Force that is only used for national defence and at the request of the United States.

Again these assertions of Japan as an American puppet state will only fuel support to keep Japan from becoming a Permanent Member in the UN Security Council for fear that it would only serve American interests, it would increase right-wing movements in Japan, and it would allow for anti-American attitudes to spill over to Japan. It would also come at the expense of the average Japanese since their government is only there to largely serve the interests of the United States at their expense.

The only way for Japan to ever get out of this sad state of American dependence, according to the author, is to first end its current arrangement with the US, resolve outstanding domestic problems, bring closure to lingering historical baggage into a the region by creating an Asian equivalent of the European Union. It’s time Japan asserts itself as a liberal democracy and the second largest world economy in the right way instead of being a subservient American puppet state.


4 thoughts on “Japan, just a puppet of America?

  1. Bringing closure to historical baggage will only happen with an honest to goodness, parliamentary ratified apology for the young women that they forced to become sex slaves during their invasion of many countries -which they refer to as an act of self defense. I still wonder how forced sex can be referred to as an act of self defense.

    Bring closure to historical baggage also includes a stop to historical revisionism.

    Can Japan do that?

  2. Even Sony took a page from their government’s repeated denials when they lied about the Playstation 3’s price drop in America contrary to reports and proof of such a price drop around retail outlets in America…

    These people need to grow a pair and a brain

  3. All this time i thought japan was “ok” with being a puppet state for America. Afterall, we in America protected her from her neighbors after WW2, we give them security to this day, we even gave them culture (deny this all you want but its the truth).

    In turn all we ask is we place a few military bases on japan, treat her like an “ATM machine,” join us “willingly” in any and all future conflict we want to fight and test out shitty products in which the successful ones get sold in the United States.

    Why would japan be insulted by that?

  4. When you will be happy that a foreign army use your soil for their bases and dictate to you what to say and what not to say then we will be happy too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s