Our annual summer fundraising campaign is underway. It's important that we are able to maintain the journal free to all. This time, we also ask your support to accomplish a major overhaul of the site and a handsome new web design. The campaign is off to a strong start with $2,000 toward our $12,000 goal. To reach it, we need the support not only of many $25 and $50 contributors, but of everyone able to provide 501 (C) 3 tax-deductible contributions of $100 to $1000. By Paypal or credit card at our home page under Subscribe.
For 1,350 years since then, Japan has carefully nurtured its distance and independence from incorporation in any Sinic world order, alternating between fear of being invaded, as was threatened but did not occur in the late 7th century but then did occur but fail (under the Mongols) in the 12th century, and failed attempts to supplant the Sinic order with one under its own hegemony in the 16th and 20th centuries (led by Hideyoshi in the first and the Imperial Japanese Army in the second). There is no historical model for an inter-state relationship of equality and mutual respect, and negotiation in that direction becomes so much the more difficult, for both sides, the more likely eventual Chinese superiority becomes. Needless to say, this meta-historical view, with its serious implications for constructions of Japanese identity, is not widely discussed in Japan, where China’s current and continuing rise tends to be seen simply as “threat.”
If the China relationship is therefore problematic, so too is the relationship with the United States, though it too is in ways different from common perception. As Japan went to the polls in December 2012, all major parties agreed on the need to confirm, reinforce, or deepen the relationship, while a minority, albeit an influential one, held it to be fundamentally flawed and in need of revision. Where Japan for 1,350 years resisted becoming a Chinese “client state,” many believe that in just over a half-century Japan has embraced precisely that role towards the United States. In this view, Japan’s servility as a US “client state” rests at the heart of Asia’s problems.
The clearest recent expression of this view is to be found in a book published in August 2012, entitled The Truth of Postwar [Japanese] History. Author Magosaki Ukeru is a former head of the Intelligence and Analysis Bureau of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who had also served as ambassador to Uzbekistan and Iran and professor at the National Defense University.4 Magosaki sees the sixty-seven years of Japan’s post-war history in terms of the contest between factions within the state favouring “autonomy”「自主路線 (meaning an independent foreign policy, especially the reduction or elimination of US military bases, and closer ties to Asian neighbours) and “servility”「追従路線」, those who simply followed US instructions. The latter, in his view, had gradually become entrenched and the servile line was followed by government after government and by national and opinion leaders.
No less than eight post-1945 Prime Ministers, he believes, had belonged to the “autonomous” school and been eliminated on instructions or under pressure from Washington, while those in the Servility school had lasted longer, tended to thrive, and left by far the larger mark on the polity. His book plainly touched a nerve because by early October it had soared up the best-seller lists into the 200,000-plus range.
Magosaki’s book confirms and reinforces what I had written in 2007, in Client State – Japan in the American Embrace.5 At that time, my term “Client State,” or in Japanese Zokkoku, was a shocking deviation from mainstream Western and academic writing. It is grim satisfaction, five years on, to find my thesis confirmed in a best-seller by a senior figure from the Japanese bureaucratic establishment. For my zokkoku or client state Magosaki substitutes the essentially identical notion of the tsuiju rosen or servile line.
The division of world states into political science categories of independent (sovereign, nation) states and subject (colonial or neo-colonial) states tends to neglect the increasingly important, in-between category of “client states.” The formal sovereignty of the client state is not in question, but it combines independence and democratic responsibility with renunciation of independence or deliberately chosen submission, such that it is to be described only by oxymoronic terms such as “dependent independence” or “servile sovereignty.” I have suggested a definition that distinguishes it from other, related forms of colonial, conquered, or directly dominated, or neo-colonial territory as
The puzzling but crucial fact is that submission is not forced but chosen. The client state is happy to have its “patron” occupy parts of its territory, and determined at all costs to avoid giving it offence. It pays meticulous attention to adopting and pursuing policies that will satisfy its patron, and readily pays whatever price necessary to be sure that the patron not abandon it. Having some of the qualities of a feudal relationship in the sense of the exchange of fealty for protection, it may therefore also be described as “neo-feudal.” As one scholar puts it, “‘servitude’ is no longer just a necessary means but is happily embraced and borne. ‘Spontaneous freedom’ becomes indistinguishable from ‘spontaneous servitude’.”7
Though there is no agreed social science term to describe it, in common parlance it is what is known as the “poodle” syndrome - the term the UK widely adopted to apply to the government of Tony Blair (PM, 1997-2007) in the United Kingdom. Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard (PM, 1996-2007) was in similar vein often referred to as a US “deputy sheriff.” In Japan some critics referred to Prime Minister Koizumi (PM, 2001-2006) as a “pochi” (pet dog) and within the George W. Bush White House he was known - at least to some - as “Sergeant-Major Koizumi.” For any analysis of the client state phenomenon these three cases deserve close attention.
To such a list some might suggest adding South Korea, Israel, or various Latin American or Middle Eastern counties. However, as for South Korea, since its revolution in 1987 and especially in the presidencies of Kim Dae Jung (1998-2003) and Roh Moo-Hyun (2003-08), it showed a singular independent-mindedness and readiness to contest Washington’s policy prescriptions, unimaginable on the part of Japan. The Israel case is peculiar because in a sense in that relationship the clientilism is reversed, with Israel exercising as least as much influence over US policies as the reverse. As for Latin America and the Middle East it is hard to say more than that recent political changes have transformed and continue to transform both regions, leaving client states in general a diminishing species.
Though he does not systematize or rank them, Magosaki refers to certain distinguishing marks of the autonomous line: objection to payment of the costs of the US occupying forces, demand for the return of US military bases or their drastic reduction, the attempt to tie Japan’s foreign policy to the United Nations and to disarmament causes, the reluctance to be involved in war, from Korea in 1950 to Vietnam in the 1960s and Afghanistan and Iraq later, the attempt to reduce “host nation support” subsidies for US forces in Japan, the call for equidistant diplomacy with China and engagement in construction of an Asian or East Asian community. Adherents of the “servile” line, on the other hand, have insisted on the “alliance” as the charter of the state (with priority over the constitution), on the US presence in Okinawa, and on either constitutional revision or revision of its interpretation (so as to allow “collective security” and “normal” military power). One might now add attitude toward the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) scheme as a contemporary defining issue. Ominously, by 2012 the differences over China policy, collective security, and constitutional revision had narrowed. Eight of the parties contesting the December 2012 election gave prominence to the “Japan-US alliance,” seeking only that it be maintained, reinforced, or deepened, while only the Communist Party and the (now minuscule) Social Democratic Party, neither of which had any prospect of power, would dissolve or renegotiate it.8
Magosaki’s formulation of Japan’s post-1945 history in terms of a binary contest is provocative but perhaps in need of some clarification. First, although he does not address the point specifically, his analysis appears to assume that Japan’s is a unique state formation, rooted in the experience of defeat in war, occupation, and imposition of basic institutional frame by its conqueror between six and seven decades ago. Yet the parallels on the part of other US allied states, notably the “Anglo-Saxon” states of United Kingdom and Australia, neither of which has, at least in modern times, been a US enemy, suggest that defeat and occupation is not a necessary pre-condition. Dependent independence deserves attention as a phenomenon in its own right.
Second, the application of the servile-autonomous formula to the post-war period as a whole tends to obscure its defining criteria and significant transitions. “Servility” surely had different implications and was expressed differently in 1960, 1990, and 2010. Without clear definition, there is an element of capriciousness in the way the labels are applied. Magosaki makes an especially strong case for seeing four early post-war leaders — Shigemitsu Mamoru (Foreign Minister in 1945), Ashida Hitoshi (Prime Minister in 1948), Hatoyama Ichiro (Prime Minister in 1954-5), and Ishibashi Tanzan (Prime Minister in 1955-1957) — together with some of their later successors, notably Tanaka Kakuei (Prime Minister in 1972-74), and Hatoyama Yukio (Prime Minister in 2009-10), as autonomists. However, his inclusion on the same list of Kishi Nobusuke (Prime Minister in 1957-60) and Sato Eisaku (Prime Minister in 1960-64) is such as to raise doubt as to the usefulness of any such inclusive criteria.9 With that reservation, however, Magosaki is plainly right to insist that servile line governments — under which category he includes those of Yoshida (1948-54), Ikeda (1960-64), Nakasone (1982-87), and Koizumi (2001-2006) — have tended to last longer and have a greater impact than autonomous line ones.
Third, Magosaki belittles mass popular protest movements (especially those of 1960 against revision of the Security Treaty) and focusses instead on the bureaucracy. He draws attention, for example, to a “Top Secret” 1969 Ministry of Foreign Affairs document as evincing the strength of the autonomy line. Entitled “Outline of Japan’s Diplomatic Policy” (Wagakuni no gaiko seisaku taiko), it spelled out the need to “gradually reduce and reorganize US bases in Japan (while retaining “a small number”) to cooperate with “countries such as Sweden” on international disarmament issues, and “to avoid at all costs giving the impression of being America’s running dog.”10 However, in the context of the paper as a whole, these are little more than autonomous flourishes in a bureaucratic essay that was secret, resolutely pro-alliance and pro-“security” as it might have been understood by alliance managers. This document was drawn up even as the Ministry (and government) was negotiating Okinawan “reversion” in such a way as to give fullest consideration to assisting the US war in Vietnam and prioritizing future war preparations over the constitution or the interests and desires of the Okinawan people. It is a thin basis on which to construct a significant autonomous strain in ministerial thinking. Furthermore, a decade later, Ono Katsumi, identified by Magosaki as the core figure in this school at that time (Vice Minister in 1957-8) wrote ruefully,
Bureaucratic resistance to servility, as in this “Outline,” was inevitably susceptible to compromise because it was elitist and largely detached from popular, grassroots, democratic movement. Bureaucratic groups such as the authors of the “Outline” equivocated in the attempt to push back at the margins against servility, preferring modest adjustments to frontal challenge and rarely if ever confronted the kernel of the relationship. Not until the rise of the Democratic Party 40 years later did that change, when the “zokkoku question” merged with the “Okinawa question” (on which below).
In the post-Cold War period, the Hosokawa Morihiro government made a brief attempt in 1993-4 to articulate an autonomous line. A report prepared at its request by Higuchi Kotaro of Asahi Beer noted the slow decline of US hegemonic power and recommended Japan adopt a more autonomous, multilateral, and UN-centred diplomacy. But it was quickly overwhelmed and abandoned following the return of LDP-led government and the US riposte in the form of the Joseph Nye report of 1995 that insisted that East Asian security depended on the “oxygen” of US military presence and the base system had to be preserved and reinforced.12
While Japan itself experienced a series of weak and short-term governments, Japanese policy in Washington was the subject of non-partisan consensus and remarkable consistency. The principles of the relationship were defined in a series of general statements issued from Washington in 1995, 2000, 2007 and 2012 by the group of East Asian specialists centring on Joseph Nye and Richard Armitage. Under their oversight, the legal and institutional reforms to transform the Alliance were adopted, and from their general principles highly specific demands followed — “show the flag,” in the burgeoning Middle Eastern conflict, “put boots on the ground” in Iraq, send the MSDF to the Indian Ocean, buy US missile-defense systems and other military hardware, and construct new US base facilities in Okinawa.
While the US patron thus pressed its client Japan to make the relationship into a “mature” alliance, it also issued parallel economic nostrums under the rubric of “Annual Statement of Reform Desiderata” (nenji kaikaku yobosho) that set out general neo-liberal principles and particular applications, such as the “domestic market expanding (naiju kakudai) measures under which Japan disastrously invested prodigious sums on public works in the 1990s, postal privatisation (adopted in a highly successful electoral campaign by Koizumi in 2005), and the ongoing demands for “opening” of the Japanese markets in finance, insurance, health services and pharmaceuticals. Koizumi Junichiro’s prime ministership (2001-2006), coinciding for much of the presidency of George W. Bush (2001-2009) came to be seen as the “golden years” of the alliance. As Moriya Takemasa (Vice-Minister for Defense in 2002-2006) later remarked, “It is called an alliance, but in practice the US side just decides things unilaterally.”16 “Sergeant-Major Koizumi” (as Bush reportedly referred to him) was much appreciated for the effort he put into implementing the US agenda, and was rewarded as his term of office approached its end in 2006 with a special, presidentially-guided visit to Graceland.
Ozawa, Hatoyama and the Okinawa Factor
The DPJ’s 2005 Manifesto declared a commitment to “…do away with the dependent relationship in which Japan ultimately has no alternative but to act in accordance with US wishes, replacing it with a mature alliance based on independence and equality.” As the credibility of the LDP faded and the star of the opposition Democratic Party of Japan rose in 2008-9, it was Joseph Nye (author in 1995 of the crucial post-Cold War policy document) who emerged at the heart of the Washington mobilization of pressure to neutralize the DPJ before and then after it took power. In December 2008, he spelled out the three acts that Congress would be inclined to see as “anti-American”: cancellation of the Maritime Self-Defense Agency’s Indian Ocean mission, and any attempt to revise the Status of Forces Agreement or the agreements on relocating US Forces in Japan [i.e. including the Futenma transfer],17 repeating the same basic message to the Democratic Party’s Maehara Seiji in the early days of the Obama administration. When Maehara sought to convey his party’s wishes to renegotiate these agreements, Nye warned that to do so would be seen as “anti-American.”18 The Nye frame of thinking, unchanged from his earlier report of 1995 and destined to be restated periodically thereafter, was predicated on two general principles: distrust of Japan and need for US military occupation to continue indefinitely.
On 24 February 2009, Ozawa Ichiro, then the DPJ’s head (representative), suggested that the US 7th Fleet, home ported at Yokosuka, should be adequate to any security purpose in the region, and that other US bases, including notably those in Okinawa, were no longer necessary. To propose equalizing the US relationship and liquidating the bases was to reject servility and challenge Washington fundamentally. It was the clearest imaginable statement of a Japanese foreign and defense policy that would substitute a UN- and East Asia-centre for the long-established US centre. It was therefore intolerable. Just a week after his remarks, Ozawa was arrested on corruption charges and it was not till three and a half years later that he was fully cleared. The point of these long-drawn out proceedings was not so much innocence or guilt as removal of the DPJ’s most effective and courageous leader and rooting out of the “autonomous” faction in Japanese politics.19
Hatoyama Yukio, who took the reins from Ozawa and led the Democrats to electoral victory at the end of August, shared (with him) a similar vision for Japan and tapped a national mood of desire for change. He promised to take back government from the bureaucrats and open it to the people through their elected representatives; to renegotiate the relationship with the US on the basis of equality; to reject “market fundamentalism” and to re-orient Japan away from US-centred unipolarism towards a multipolar world in which Japan would be a central member of an East Asian community, to promote local self-government, and (as a kind of concentrated expression in concrete form of all of the above) to close (by moving somewhere outside Okinawa) the Futenma marine base. Hatoyama described his core philosophical concept of Yuai as something that was “...a strong, combative concept that is a banner of revolution,”20 using the word “revolution” in a way no Japanese Prime Minister had ever used it before. He opened the Diet session in January 2010 with the words.
Such pronouncements disturbed Washington. To speak of “protecting life” seemed bizarre dreaming to those for whom readiness to take it was rather the mark of seriousness. Richard Armitage observed scathingly that the Democratic Party was “speaking a different language” and that he and his colleagues were “shocked by its platform,” and Joseph Nye referred to it as “inexperienced, divided and still in the thrall of campaign promises,” by which he meant that attempts to renegotiate the agreement on the Futenma replacement base plan would not be tolerated. 21 Defense Secretary Robert Gates, demanding Hatoyama’s submission, added insult to ultimatum by refusing to attend a welcoming ceremony at the Defense Ministry or to dine with senior Japanese Defense officials. The Washington Post described Hatoyama as “the biggest loser [among world leaders]…, hapless, increasingly loopy,” i.e., in effect, it was saying, Hatoyama was mad. The challenge to Japan’s status as “client state” was proof of his madness.
No other major ally – or, for that matter, no enemy either – had ever been subjected to the sort of advice, abuse and intimidation that was directed to Hatoyama, Japan’s Prime Minister. The Hatoyama crisis coincided with revelations from Wikileaks and from domestic Japanese sources attesting to persistent lying, deception, secret deals, cover-up, and manipulation by governments in Japan in order to serve Washington. Servility was incompatible with democracy and therefore required deception, secrecy, and manipulation. Hatoyama threatened to untie the alliance knot.
Hatoyama’s isolation grew as the bureaucrats of the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Defense launched a “rollback” operation to force his submission,22 refusing cooperation and instead conspiring to bring him down. Hemmed in by his faithless bureaucrats and torn between the pressures of Washington on the one hand and Okinawa on the other which he lacked the courage or clarity to confront, his political position crumbled. The national media blamed him for the deterioration in the country’s key relationship, insisting that he cease offending and irritating the US.
Late in May 2010 Hatoyama surrendered, announcing that he had given up on his attempt to relocate Futenma base outside Okinawa. Already before this he had yielded to US pressure by abandoning his proposal for an East Asian Community (by the time he left office he had expanded his conception of East Asia to include the US). When he handed the reins of government to Kan Naoto, Kan’s task was described throughout the national media as to heal the “wounds” that Hatoyama had caused to the alliance, restore Washington’s trust and confidence, and resolve the Okinawa problem by “persuading” Okinawa to accept the new base. In contrast to the paean to life with which Hatoyama began his government, Kan’s introductory policy speech to the Diet promised the “steady deepening of the alliance relationship.” By that he meant he would do as required. The “servile line” was thus restored. What Magosaki refers to as the ascendancy of the tsuiju rosen under the Democratic Party governments from this time is what may also be seen as the “mature” Client State.
The Hatoyama vacillation and surrender, however, had fundamentally altered one major element of the equation. It left an outraged, aroused, determined Okinawa. Unlike elite bureaucrats and vacillating politicians, the Okinawan people have since proved not susceptible to compromise. The fault lines of struggle for an autonomous national polity, for justice and democracy, thereafter bisected Okinawa. Hatoyama’s resignation, at one level a major defeat, at another, therefore, signalled a deepening of resistance.
As for Nye, Armitage, and other “handlers” of the relationship, despite their overweening attitude and assumption of the prerogative of dictating to Japan, they were respected, even revered, as “pro-Japanese.” One well-placed Japanese observer recently wrote of the “foul odor” he felt in the air around Washington and Tokyo given off by the activities of the “Japan-expert” and the “pro-Japan” Americans on one side and “slavish” “US-expert” and “pro-American” Japanese on the other, both “living off” the unequal relationship which they had helped construct and support.23 Minister of Foreign Affairs Gemba expressed his profuse thanks for these interventions when greeting Armitage, Nye and other guests in 2012, expressing his gratitude at “the advice proffered by Japan’s true friends.”24
United Kingdom －Poodle Power
Great Britain, like Japan, hosts major US military facilities and has provided basing sites and cooperated in numerous fighting wars ever since 1939. Unlike the defeated enemy, Japan, Britain was and is, of course, the closest of allies, for which alone the terms “grand alliance,” and “special relationship” have been coined. In war zones from the First World War to the ongoing declared and undeclared wars of the Middle East and Africa, Britain and the US have stood together, consulting and collaborating closely (though on occasion Britain has acted alone, as in Suez war of 1956 and the Falklands war with Argentina in 1982, and in the Vietnam War in the 1960s it resisted pressure to have its soldiers engaged in a fighting role, sending only training forces). Consultation, and shared responsibility, has been the characteristic of Anglo-American wars. In that respect, British complicity is deeper and stronger than Japan’s. Whatever reservations within the frame of the “special relationship” existed in the late 20th century were swept away under Tony Blair and in the “global war on terror” from 2001.
Clare Short, looking back ruefully in 2010 on her part in the Blair cabinet’s role in the war on Iraq, referred to Prime Minister Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, his attorney general, as having misled parliament and the cabinet before Britain, to its "eternal shame", joined the US-led invasion of Iraq. She told the Chilcot enquiry into the UK's involvement in the Iraq war and its aftermath that the process had been chaotic and fraught.
Although Prime Minster Blair had assured parliament on 29 January 2003 that "We do know of links between al-Qaeda and Iraq . . ." in July 2010 the former head of British intelligence, (MI5) Eliza Manningham-Buller contradicted him, telling the inquiry: "There is no credible intelligence to suggest that connection . . . [it was the invasion] that gave Osama Bin Laden his Iraqi jihad." Asked to what extent the invasion exacerbated the threat to Britain from terrorism, she replied: "Substantially."25
And, on the impression conveyed by Tony Blair that Britain, through him exercised an important influence on Washington, Short said,
The implication, as John Pilger puts it, is that Blair conspired in and executed an unprovoked war of aggression against a defenceless country, which caused the deaths of more than a million people, the flight of another four million and the suffering of countless others, including a generation of children, from malnutrition, trauma, and the poisons introduced to their environment by banned weapons such as those using depleted uranium (1.9 tons of which were used in Iraq by British forces, according to Defence Secretary Liam Fox in July 2010).
In June 2010 the International Criminal Court made the landmark decision to add aggression to its list of war crimes that can be prosecuted and in July Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, formally stated in the House of Commons that the invasion of Iraq had indeed been illegal. By late 2012, the British inquiry had been underway for three years and release of its final report was withheld till mid-2013 at the earliest.
Despite the strong prima facie case that his determined support of war and resort to deception to persuade parliament to follow him warranted charges of war crimes, since his retirement in 2007 Blair has remained a “respected” international statesman, and been well rewarded financially.27 Whatever responsibility Britain might bear for war crimes at this time must be presumed shared also by Japan and Australia, neither of which had yet launched an inquiry comparable to Chilcot.
However, despite the indications that Britain under Blair sank into servility, it seems that governments post-Blair may have attempted to recover a measure of autonomy. In 2012, Britain was reported to have rebuffed US pleas for the right to use its bases in the UK and on Diego Garcia, and British bases on Cyprus, to support the build-up of forces in the Gulf with a view to possible hostilities against Iran. Any preemptive strike on Iran, according to secret government legal sources, could be in breach of international law. "The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." 28
Australia－Pacific Deputy Sheriff
Australia is a country familiar from its history with one or other kind of dependence, till 1941 primarily oriented towards what it knew as its “mother country” (Great Britain) and since then to America. As Prime Minister John Curtin put it in late 1941, on the advent of war with Japan, “Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.
Australia, secure in the American embrace, would, he insisted, be kept as “a citadel for the British-speaking race.”29
Subsequently, the highest importance attached to maintaining and reinforcing those war-time ties. On major issues, from the very start of the post-war era Australia abandoned its own positions and adopted those on which Washington insisted. To cite only two early examples, in 1946, under strong American pressure it agreed to grant exemption from indictment to the Japanese emperor despite having included him in the top group of those it believed should be subjected to war crimes trial. Two years later it acted against the advice of its diplomats on the ground in Korea and endorsed the American-imposed division of the country, the imposition of harsh military rule and the suppression of democratic and nationalist forces (a harsh occupation for a supposedly liberated people that contrasted sharply with the soft occupation for the defeated enemy, Japan). By so submitting, and accepting (even with reluctance) the conduct of separate elections which then led to separate states, under conditions in the south that Australian officials at the time described as those of police state terror,30 it helped set the scene for war. When war came, in June 1950, it rushed to get its forces to Korea as quickly as possible, principally out of the concern to show loyalty and win gratitude from the US. As then External Affairs (Foreign Affairs) Secretary John Burton wrote later: “facts and even direct Australian interests were thrown aside and the guiding instruction was to ‘follow the United States.’”31
A half-century later, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard boasted (10 March 2011) that Australia had “stuck together” with the US in its war on Iraq. The independent M.P. Bob Katter remarked that it was so important to Australia that,
Australia today, following Katter’s principle, is well known for its support for US wars, no matter how geographically remote or how fragile the legal basis. It hosts major US bases (especially intelligence, spying, and missile target-related), has just opened its Darwin door to a US Marine contingent and is considering substantial US naval expansion in Western Australia (an “Eighth” or Indian Ocean carrier fleet).33 When fiscal pressures in 2012 led to a cut in defence spending from 1.8 percent of GDP to 1.56 percent,34 the US government signalled to Australia that such a cut was unacceptable, military spending should, if anything, be expanded.35
Along with other US “client states,” Australia bears a responsibility, rarely acknowledged, for the often devastating consequences of diplomatic choices adopted out of the belief that, at all costs, the interests of their super-power ally had to be given priority.
Three former Prime Ministers have recently issued sharp warnings to Australia on what they see as a steepening path downwards into servility: Malcolm Fraser, conservative Prime Minister between 1975 and 1978, referred to the “past twenty years,” in which
“we seem more and more than ever to be locked into the United States’ purposes and objectives. … Unconditional support diminishes our influence throughout East and South-East Asia. It limits our capacity to act as an independent and confident nation. It limits our influence on the United States herself.
The choice for Australia to make is not for China or for the United States, but independence of mind to break with subservience to the United States. Subservience has not and will not serve Australia’s interests. It is indeed dangerous to our future.36
In another lecture, months later, Fraser added, “America is in charge of our destiny and that fills me with concern.”37
Paul Keating, Labour Prime Minister between 1991 and 1996, was if anything more forthright.
''Our sense of independence has flagged, and as it flagged we have rolled back into an easy accommodation with the foreign policy objectives of the United States … More latterly, our respect for the foreign policy objectives of the United States has superimposed itself on what should otherwise be the foreign policy objectives of Australia.''38
The problem had become acute, said Keating, during John Howard's prime ministership.
''After playing the deputy sheriff, John Howard had us dancing to the tune of the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan,''
He was also fiercely critical of his successor, Julia Gillard, for allowing [in December 2011] US President, Barack Obama, to make ''an oral and policy assault on China and its polity from the lower chamber of our Parliament House.”
Kevin Rudd, Labour Prime Minister between 2007 and 2010, although a China scholar and Chinese speaker known for his hawkish views on China, nevertheless called in 2012 for a cooperative, multilateral Pax Pacifica to replace the current Pax Americana (or any possible Pax Sinica) as the security frame for the coming era.39 There is no precedent for the issue of such high-level warnings on the future of the country.
The zokkoku, dependent-independent, servile state syndrome is not confined to Japan and needs to be studied from a comparative perspective, both across regions and across time. Globally, it may be, and probably is, a diminishing phenomenon but in Australia, the United Kingdom and Japan it remains strong.
The truth is that the US does not admit of “equality” in its relations with any other state. “Allies” tend to be appreciated for their servility. The most warmly welcomed leaders are those most ready to follow the (Tony) Blair path, even if it means becoming known in their own countries as “poodles.” Where Blair was a regular and feted visitor to the White House, dissenters from the servile line are frozen out and ridiculed, as Hatoyama found in 2009. Client states, tied vertically to their “patron,” are structurally incapable of dissent and thus complicit in acts by which their patron abuses international law and engages in criminal acts of aggression, war, and torture. They bear a responsibility for the consequences of their support for the US and the consequences that followed, terrible for Koreans (and later for Vietnamese), and catastrophic still later for Iraqis, Afghans and others. They thus help sustain a vertically framed global order incompatible with universal principles. For Japan and East Asia, the self-abnegation and servility at the heart of the Japanese state serves to subvert any project for Asian community and to destabilize rather than stabilize the region.
Japan, Australia, and Great Britain insist that the US military is the source and guarantor of freedom and source of the “oxygen” that guarantees peace and security to the region, but the fact is that the same oxygen has commonly been experienced as poison, visiting catastrophe on country after country, from Korea, Iran, and Guatemala in the 1950s through Vietnam (1960s to 70s), Chile (1973), the Persian Gulf (1991), Afghanistan (2001-), and Iraq (2003-), and that now threatens Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and (again) Iran. As Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser to the Gerald Ford and George H. Bush administrations put it recently referring to the US invasion of Iraq, “I don’t think the President would have done it absolutely alone. He needed some cover, and you and the British gave it to him.”40 If he is right, Australia (together with United Kingdom and Japan) shares responsibility for the consequences of collusion in an illegal act of aggressive war.
As between the three servile countries, Japan is distinctive in that it is subjected to greater derision, contempt, overt and comprehensive direction, than either of the US’s two “old allies.” It took 20 years before the relationship between the US and Japan under the 1960 Mutual Security treaty was first referred to as an “alliance,” and the comprehensive statements of desiderata issuing from Washington on everything from hours of the working week to constitutional reform, humbly received in Tokyo, would be unimaginable in US relations with, either Great Britain or Australia.
As Clare Short remarked of the British case, the delusion that it might be possible to influence, or to moderate, US policy was significant, and it is a delusion that was probably shared by Australians. But in the Japanese case it seems unlikely that any Japanese leader seriously contemplates such a possibility. Yet, ironically, the more abject the fealty professed by Japanese leaders, the greater appears to be the contempt with which they are met in Washington. The adoption of such patron-client or master-servant relations militates against formation of any regional or global community, because it inclines concerned parties to think of diplomatic relations in terms of superior/inferior, master/servant, and to reproduce those inequitable and unequal relationships both domestically and internationally.
In the 50th year of the Ampo relationship between the US and Japan, a more unequal,
misrepresented, misunderstood bilateral relationship between two modern states would be difficult to imagine. However, where all challenges to the dominant servile line had been beaten back through the six and a half decades of post-1945 Japan, the equation has now altered. All attempts by governments in Tokyo and Washington to persuade, buy off, or intimidate Okinawa into submission have failed. Unequal though the contest is, the fact is that the people of Okinawa have successfully resisted the governments in Tokyo and Washington for sixteen years. The Hatoyama betrayal of 2010 reinforced their determination and widened the crisis from Okinawa to the Japan-US relationship. It goes without saying that the Japanese state could resort to force against Okinawa to resolve it, but that would be to expose the nature of the zokkoku relationship and undermine it, perhaps fatally.
The Okinawan movement, were it to occur anywhere in a state not part of or affiliated to the Western world’s major powers, would be acclaimed, given the name of a flower, and its proponents treated as heroes. But Okinawa’s leaders are unknown, international solidarity is minimal, and the super-power “proponents of democracy” in Washington and Tokyo concentrate on finding ways to neutralize or crush them. Today, therefore, although Okinawa, seen as the zokkoku of a zokkoku, is treated with contempt in both Washington and Tokyo, it constitutes the “immovable obstacle” confronting the client state relationship.
On the eve of the 2012 US presidential election, the Ryukyu shimpo posed a question for candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney: “Why does the US that upholds the high ideals of freedom and democracy and respect of basic human rights and the rule of law not implement them in Okinawa?”41 Later, announcing the election result, it repeated the question, “Isn’t it time now for democracy and human rights in Okinawa?”42 To respond to that plea would be to begin to renegotiate the US-Japan relationship. To ignore it is to deepen the crisis and make more likely that the eventual scale of renegotiation will be greater. The attention that Magosaki’s shocking thesis (and in more modest ways my own) now attracts suggests, however, that the parameters of political analysis and debate are shifting. Sooner or later, the “US question” and the Japan-US relationship will have to be faced.
Gavan McCormack is emeritus professor at Australian National University, a coordinator of The Asia-Pacific Journal – Japan Focus, and author of many works on Modern East Asia including Resistant Islands – Okinawa versus Japan and the United States, (co-authored with Satoko Oka Norimatsu), Rowman and Littlefield, 2012, of which the Japanese edition was published early in 2013 by Horitsu Bunkasha.
This essay was published in Japanese under the title “Zokkokuron” as chapter 2 (pp. 18-38) of Kimura Akira and Magosaki Ukeru, Owaranai ‘Senryo’ (The Unending Occupation), by Horitsu Bunkasha in Kyoto in June 2013. It was written in December 2012 and slightly revised in June 2013.
Recommended citation: Gavan McCormack, "Japan’s Client State (Zokkoku) Problem," The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol 11, Issue 25, No. 2, June 24, 2013.
• Gavan McCormack and Satoko Norimatsu, Ryukyu/Okinawa, From Disposal to Resistance
2 1990 and 2030 figures from Mitsuru Obe, “Focus – Japan to refocus on US-led trade pact amid troubles with China,” Wall Street Journal Online and OECD 2060 estimates from Jiji, “OECD forecasts Japan's share of global GDP will halve by 2060” Japan Times, 11 November 2012.
4 Magosaki Ukeru, Sengoshi no shotai, 1945-2012, Sogensha, 2012. For this author’s discussion in Tokyo with Magosaki in September 2012, see Magosaki Ukeru and Gavan McCormack, “Nihon wa itsu made Beikoku no zokkoku ni amanjite iru no ka,” Shukan kinyobi, 28 September 2012, pp. 18-20. An even more recent book by Magosaki was published in September 2012, under the bold title Amerika ni tsubusareta seijikatachi (Politicians crushed by the US), Shogakukan, 2012.
5 Client State – Japan in the American Embrace, New York, Verso, 2007. (Zokkoku – Amerika no hoyo to Ajia de no koritsu, Tokyo, Gaifusha, 2008).
6 See the revised Japanese, Korean and Chinese editions of Client State: Japan in the American Embrace (New York, Verso, 2007, Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing, 2008).
7 Nishitani Osamu, “Jihatsuteki reiju o koeyo – jiritsuteki seiji e no ippo,” Sekai, February 2010, p. 126.
8 “Shuin sen: ‘Kokubogun’ tomadou Yonaguni,” Okinawa taimusu, 11 December 2012.
9 Magosaki, pp. 167-8. (Kishi is included for his “successful renegotiation of the Security Treaty with the US in 1960 and his (unsuccessful) attempts to renegotiate the Status of Forces Agreement and Sato for negotiating the reversion of Okinawa from the US to Japan in 1972, but a case could equally be made for seeing both as belonging essentially to the “servile” camp, giving priority to US policies and interests and to serving and deepening dependence through major transition moments, and Kishi devoted much of his political energy to attempting to revise the constitution, a major American objective. Magosaki also includes Fukuda Yasuo (Prime Minister, 2007-08) and Miki Takeo (Prime Minister, 1974-1976) among the servile, both dubious judgements but space precludes me dealing here with them.
10 Gaimusho, Gaiko seisaku kikaku iinkai, “Nihon no gaiko seisaku taiko,” 25 September 1969. http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/kaku_hokoku/pdfs/kaku_hokoku02.pdf, pp. 65, 71. For Magosaki’s discussion, see Sengoshi no shotai, p. 257.
12 McCormack and Norimatsu, p. 64.
13 Richard Armitage and Joseph S. Nye, “The US-Japan Alliance: Anchoring Stability in Asia,” CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies), August 2012, (link). This report, published months before the 2012 presidential election, lays out the position expected to be the kernel of East Asian policy for the incoming administration.
14 Kebin Mea (Kevin Maher), “Amerika to Kanada no kyokun,” Bungei shunju, October 2012, p. 169.
15 Gavan McCormack and Satoko Oka Norimatsu, Resistant Islands: Okinawa confronts Japan and the United States, 2012, pp. 193-6
16 Quoted in Sunohara Takeshi, Domei henbo – Nichibei ittaika no hikari to kage, Nihon keizai shimbunsha, 2007, P. 64.
17 Quoted in Narusawa Muneo, “Shin seiken no gaiko seisaku ga towareru Okinawa kichi mondai,” Shukan Kinyobi, 25 September 2009, pp. 13-15.
18 Asahi shimbun, 25 February 2009. See also Maeda Tetsuo, “Juzoku” kara “jiritsu” e – Nichibei Ampo o kaeru, Kobunken, 2009, pp. 17, 25.
19 Kimura Akira, ”Kenryoku no boso to Amerika no katan – Ozawa mondai to mejia no katan – Ozawa mondai no imi o tou,” Doshisha University, 18 October 2012 (courtesy professor Kimura).
20 For detailed sources on the Hatoyama government see McCormack and Norimatsu, chapter 6.
22 “Interview - Fukushima Mizuho zendaijin,” Shukan kinyobi, 18 June 2010, pp. 14-17.
23 Terashima Jitsuro, quoted in McCormack and Norimatsu, pp. 69-70. Terashima refers to Japanese intellectuals by the term, “do-gan” (literally “slave face”, a term he invents based on his reading of a savagely satirical early 20th century Chinese story by Lu Hsun).
24 “Yiyo na kokei, Genba gaisho, Bei kara koto shimon?” Akahata, 28 October 2012.
25 Quoted in John Pilger, “Blair must be arrested,” New Statesman, 4 August 2010.
26 Clare Short, formerly International Development Secretary, “Clare Short: Blair misled us and took UK into an illegal war,” The Guardian, 2 February 2010.
27 John Pilger, “Blair must be arrested,” cit.
28 “Britain rejects US request to use UK bases in nuclear standoff with Iran,” The Guardian, 25 October 2012.
29 “John Curtin,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Curtin
30 See my Cold War Hot War: An Australian Perspective on the Korean War, Sydney,, Hale and Iremonger, 1983, resumed in Target North Korea: Pushing North Korea to the Brink of Nuclear Catastrophe, New York, Nation Books, 2004.
31 J.W. Burton, The Alternative, Sydney, 1954, p.90.
32 Quoted in Michelle Grattan, “Brown wants exit line from Afghan ‘stuff-up’,” The Age, 26 October 2010.
33 Malcolm Fraser, "Australia-US relations in the ‘Asian Century’,” Asialink lecture, University of Melbourne, 25 September 2012, See also Richard Tanter "Australia in the Pacific Pivot; national interests and the expanding 'joint facilities’,” NAPSNET, Policy Forum, 27 November 2012.
34 “Australia should be spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence: Fitzgibbon,” Sydney Morning Herald, 11 November 2012.
35 Peter Hartcher, “US alarm at defense budget cuts,” Sydney Morning Herald, 10 November 2012.
36 Malcolm Fraser: 2012 Gough WhitlamOration, 6 June 2012 , “Politics, Independence and the National Interest: the legacy of power and how to achieve a peaceful Western Pacific,” 37 Fraser, “Australia-U.S. Relations,” op. cit.
38 Paul Keating, quoted in Mark Baker, “US alliance comes at cost of regional status – Keating,” Sydney Morning Herald, 15 November 2012.
39 Kevin Rudd, “Principles of Pax Pacifica - Building the East Asia Security Order,” Shangri La Hotel, Singapore, 21 September 2012.
40 Quoted in Peter Hartcher, “America’s choice, our future,” Sydney Morning Herald, 8 February 2008.
41 “Bei daitoryo sen kanetsu, shomen kara Okinawa mondai ronjiyo,” Ryukyu shimpo, 11 October 2012.
42 “Obama shi saisen, kichi mondai no ‘zenshin’ nozomu, Okinawa ni mo jinken, minshushugi o,” Ryukyu shimpo, 8 November 2012.
gregory clarkAn excellent piece of research but I am surprised by the lack of interest in Australia's role not just in supporting but in encouraging the US into Vietnam, a detail which I and some others have gone to some pains to establish. Maybe the evidence of Canberra actually being to the right on the US on some issues undercuts the concept of Australia as a US client state. Gregory Clark
gregory clarkTo add to my previous comment, it is possible that readers, and even Gavan McCormack, are not aware of Canberra's extraordinary 1964 attempt, possibly with US backing, to persuade Moscow to join the US in Vietnam to prevent China's southward aggression. It highlights the extreme ignorance and conservatism on which much Australian foreign policy is based. While US pressure explains elements of that policy it is not the entire explanation. A large degree of gut stupidity is also involved. Since I was actually there at the Kremlin meeting, facing Kosygin and Gromyko, where this farcical event occurred I can vouch for its authenticity. See my: http://www.gregoryclark.net/jt/page104/page104.html for further details. Gregory Clark