The War in Iraq and Japan's Relationship with the U.S.--Facing the Consequences of Short-sighted Policymaking in a World of Divergence--
Magosaki Ukeru / Professor, National Defense Academy
February 16, 2005
The Iraq War is the greatest issue facing the international community today. How countries respond to this war defines their principles. The United States and Europe have taken a different stance towards Iraq. The difference stems from their respective views on moral justice. Neo-conservative polemicist Robert Kagan has written: "Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation… Meanwhile, the United States remains mired in history, exercising power in an anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable, and where the true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might." Such is the divergence in perspectives that lie behind the difference in their Iraq policies. My personal view is that the Iraqi people will continue their resistance in the war, forcing the United States to retreat due to the enormous human and economic costs and in turn causing a fundamental change in its strategy. Nevertheless, U.S. forces are likely to maintain their occupation for the time being. And in that context the current U.S. strategy is consistent with its war in Iraq.
We must now turn to Japan. Why did Japan send its Self Defense Forces to Iraq? Ask the Japanese a question of principle about resolving international conflicts primarily by military force, about unilateralism and international cooperation, and irrespective of whether they are citizens or political, administrative and economic leaders, their answer will be similar to that of Europeans. Why then is Japan on the same track -- albeit with the difference of not engaging in battle -- with the United States instead of Europe, which is closer in principle to Japan?
While there are many explanations, at the core lies Japan's reasoning that staying in line with the United States will have beneficial effects on other fields, particularly on the economic and political fields, or that Japan will incur damage if it strays.
What would be the consequences if Japan continues its habit of giving priority to short-term benefits when deciding national security? Here is some food for thought. On January 26, Japanese newspapers reported that preliminary trade data (customs clearance basis) for fiscal 2004 released by the Ministry of Finance showed that China, including Hong Kong, accounted for 20.1% of Japan's imports and exports combined to become its largest trading partner, surpassing the United States, which accounted for 18.6%. Japan's political relationship with China is admittedly cool at the moment. However, in the mid- to long-term, economic factors should change the political climate between the two countries. I have no definite ideas about China's future. Given today's China, Japan is far closer to the United States in terms of society, politics and economy: from a Japanese perspective, we share the same values. Recently, we have seen rapid progress in Japan-U.S. security cooperation, which is surely to be welcomed. And policymakers are loathe to hear unwanted comments that may hinder this development. However, such cooperation is not based on shared principles but instead on short-term calculation. This is risky indeed, because of the inherent danger of a sudden collapse. It is time we adopted a long-term perspective on Japan-U.S. security and diplomacy, to create a system of cooperation based on what our shared values are, what is most important for cooperation and what measures are the best in terms of feasibility.
The writer is Professor at Japan's National Defense Academy.
We must now turn to Japan. Why did Japan send its Self Defense Forces to Iraq? Ask the Japanese a question of principle about resolving international conflicts primarily by military force, about unilateralism and international cooperation, and irrespective of whether they are citizens or political, administrative and economic leaders, their answer will be similar to that of Europeans. Why then is Japan on the same track -- albeit with the difference of not engaging in battle -- with the United States instead of Europe, which is closer in principle to Japan?
While there are many explanations, at the core lies Japan's reasoning that staying in line with the United States will have beneficial effects on other fields, particularly on the economic and political fields, or that Japan will incur damage if it strays.
What would be the consequences if Japan continues its habit of giving priority to short-term benefits when deciding national security? Here is some food for thought. On January 26, Japanese newspapers reported that preliminary trade data (customs clearance basis) for fiscal 2004 released by the Ministry of Finance showed that China, including Hong Kong, accounted for 20.1% of Japan's imports and exports combined to become its largest trading partner, surpassing the United States, which accounted for 18.6%. Japan's political relationship with China is admittedly cool at the moment. However, in the mid- to long-term, economic factors should change the political climate between the two countries. I have no definite ideas about China's future. Given today's China, Japan is far closer to the United States in terms of society, politics and economy: from a Japanese perspective, we share the same values. Recently, we have seen rapid progress in Japan-U.S. security cooperation, which is surely to be welcomed. And policymakers are loathe to hear unwanted comments that may hinder this development. However, such cooperation is not based on shared principles but instead on short-term calculation. This is risky indeed, because of the inherent danger of a sudden collapse. It is time we adopted a long-term perspective on Japan-U.S. security and diplomacy, to create a system of cooperation based on what our shared values are, what is most important for cooperation and what measures are the best in terms of feasibility.
The writer is Professor at Japan's National Defense Academy.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
イラク戦争と日米関係
孫崎 享 / 防衛大教授
2005年 2月 16日
イラク戦争は今日国際社会の最大案件である。この戦争への対応が各国の生き方を示す。米欧の対イラク政策は異なる。それは欧米が何を道義的正義とみるかの異なりに起因する。ネオコンの論客ロバート・ケーガンは「欧州は力の世界を超え、法律と規則、国際交渉と国際協力という独自の世界へ移行した。他方米国は安全を保障し自由を拡大するには軍事力の行使が不可欠の世界にいて力を行使する」と記している。この差が対イラク政策の異なりとなる。個人的には「イラク戦争で、イラク住民の抵抗は続く。米国は莫大な人的経済的コストから撤退作戦が避けられない。その時米戦略は根本的に変化する」とみているが、当面米軍駐留は継続しよう。その中、米国の現戦略とイラク戦争には整合性がある。
問題は日本である。何故日本は自衛隊をイラクに派遣しているか。日本人に「国際紛争を軍事力優先で解決するか」、「単独主義か国際協調か」を理念として問えば、市民であれ、政治、行政、経済の指導層であれ、答えは欧州に近い。しかし、何故イラクでは理念的に近い欧州的対応でなく、米国と同じ方向にいるのか（戦闘に従事しないのは異なるが）。
いろんな説明がある。核心は、「米国と同一行動をとれば、他分野特に経済政治分野で利益がある」、或いは「米国と同一行動をとらなければ被害に会う」との判断による。
日本が今後も短期的利益を最大の要因として安全保障を考えるという習性を継続するとどうなるか。いい材料がある。1月26日、日本の新聞は「財務省が発表した平成十六年の貿易統計速報（通関ベース）によると、香港を含めた対中貿易総額（輸出入額の合計）は全体の20.1％を占め、これまで最大の貿易相手国だった米国の18.6％を抜き逆転した」旨報じた。確かに今、日中間には政治面で冷たい関係がある。しかし、中長期的には経済要因が日中間の政治的雰囲気を変えるだろう。私は将来の中国について確たる考えはない。現在の中国を前提とすれば、社会、政治、経済で日本ははるかに米国に近い。日本人からみれば日米に共通の価値観がある。今、日米安全保障協力は一気に進んでいる。歓迎すべきだろう。政策当事者は『無駄な発言でこの流れに棹差すな』とみている。しかしこの協力は理念の共有でなく、短期の損得計算による。脆い。一気に崩れる危険を持つ。日米の安全保障・外交で、何が共通の価値観か、協力で何が最も重要か、何なら無理なく実施できるかを長期的視点で考え、協力体制を作る時に来ている。
（筆者は防衛大学教授。）
問題は日本である。何故日本は自衛隊をイラクに派遣しているか。日本人に「国際紛争を軍事力優先で解決するか」、「単独主義か国際協調か」を理念として問えば、市民であれ、政治、行政、経済の指導層であれ、答えは欧州に近い。しかし、何故イラクでは理念的に近い欧州的対応でなく、米国と同じ方向にいるのか（戦闘に従事しないのは異なるが）。
いろんな説明がある。核心は、「米国と同一行動をとれば、他分野特に経済政治分野で利益がある」、或いは「米国と同一行動をとらなければ被害に会う」との判断による。
日本が今後も短期的利益を最大の要因として安全保障を考えるという習性を継続するとどうなるか。いい材料がある。1月26日、日本の新聞は「財務省が発表した平成十六年の貿易統計速報（通関ベース）によると、香港を含めた対中貿易総額（輸出入額の合計）は全体の20.1％を占め、これまで最大の貿易相手国だった米国の18.6％を抜き逆転した」旨報じた。確かに今、日中間には政治面で冷たい関係がある。しかし、中長期的には経済要因が日中間の政治的雰囲気を変えるだろう。私は将来の中国について確たる考えはない。現在の中国を前提とすれば、社会、政治、経済で日本ははるかに米国に近い。日本人からみれば日米に共通の価値観がある。今、日米安全保障協力は一気に進んでいる。歓迎すべきだろう。政策当事者は『無駄な発言でこの流れに棹差すな』とみている。しかしこの協力は理念の共有でなく、短期の損得計算による。脆い。一気に崩れる危険を持つ。日米の安全保障・外交で、何が共通の価値観か、協力で何が最も重要か、何なら無理なく実施できるかを長期的視点で考え、協力体制を作る時に来ている。
（筆者は防衛大学教授。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟