|
Thanks to the OP for starting the thread. Japanese politics generally somehow manages to be both incredibly dull and ridiculously crazy at the same time, and I'm glad it's finally got its own section here.This Jacket Is Me posted:As an example, I remember a lot of hand wringing when the DJP came to power over Okinawa. There was a spat between the new PM and Obama, then the new PM resigned and the issue hasn't come up since. If it was a matter of party conviction to bring up the Okinawa bases, then I would assume that the conviction would pass to the new PM, but that clearly isn't the case. I recently finished my undergrad dissertation on the Fukushima issue, the DPJ's organisation and Japan-US relations more generally. My take on the issue is that Hatoyama (the first DPJ PM), who originally made a big election promise out of moving the US Marine bases on Okinawa away from residential areas, didn't really realise the deep-seated opposition the US government would put up against such a move. Before the 2009 election, the DPJ were very much a "permanent opposition" party- they felt able to criticise the LDP and make all kinds of promises that sounded great, but once they got elected they were swiftly faced with the realities of government. My impression of Hatoyama is as a rather wide-eyed idealist who genuinely wanted to make a change, but found himself unable to due to Japan's bureaucratic structure, factionalism (just as much a problem in the DPJ as in the LDP), and above all the US government's insistence that Japan continue to play the defence role expected of it. The reason it's not been brought up as an issue since Hatoyama resigned is down to DPJ factionalism and its own lack of any real identity besides "well, we're not the LDP!" Hatoyama and other smaller factions skew left and are more willing to openly criticise the US, but Noda, Maehara and others are far more conservative, clinging to the tradition of prioritising American relations above pretty much anything. The base issue was essentially one of Hatoyama's pet projects, and now the status quo has returned, the dominant conservative blocs within the DPJ are loathe to do anything to risk another falling out. At the risk of derailing this thread away from Japanese politics, the US' continued influence on Japanese politics- particularly defence issues- cannot be overestimated. Though their occupation officially ended in the 1950s (technically later when you consider that until the early 70s Okinawa remained entirely under American military control), Japanese policy ever since has always had to toe the line in regards to the US' geopolitical goals. Gavan McCormack, author of Client State: Japan in the American Embrace, goes as far as calling Japan the "client state" of the US, where politicians continues to put US geopolitical goals ahead of the interests of their own citizens. Take the example of the Okinawa bases- there seems to increasingly be a sense that Japan's Self Defence Forces, at this point, should be responsible for the country's security, yet politicians insist their presence is necessary to protect against a potential invasion from North Korea. Never mind that NK can barely feed themselves, and that invading Japan (whose defence spending, despite the nominally pacifist constitution, is larger than NK's entire GDP) would be suicide. The Marines are in any case an attack force, not a defensive one. They need to remain there so as to continue projecting US power across Asia. The real threat to the US here is China, whose military expansion has been the subject of paranoid rants by Japanese politicians for some time now. Sorry for the wall of text. I'm really interested in Japan's politics, especially relating to international affairs and security questions- if anyone wants any more information don't hesitate to ask! I can maybe also provide a bit of historical context for Japan's political structure as relates to the Occupation etc. Grey Dynamite fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Jun 28, 2012 |
#
¿
Jun 28, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 01:31 |
|