Kyousei
Those who have been following the changing flow of Ozawa Ichiro's rhetoric will have noticed the theme of kyousei, or 'coexistence' cropping up with regularity.
"I want to build a Japan where people can live in harmony together," Ozawa said in his speech at the beginning of this Diet Session, "in Diplomacy, a person-to-person, country-to-country 'coexistence' where peace in Japan and the international community are secured, and the 'coexistence' between man and nature...are the raisons d'Etat that I want Japan to continue to prioritise."
These are noble words. They also appeal to the Japanese people, touching on what many see as the essence of Japanese identity: nature, the seasons and the innate ability of the Japanese people to harmoniously coexist with their environment. The truth of this aside, the man on the street will often say that kyousei, rather than conflict, is the natural Japanese Way.
Sensible or Simple?
Yet, by touting 'coexistence' as his party's Foreign Policy, Ozawa may be painting the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) a shade of simple. Is kyousei actually a 'policy', or is it just good rhetoric?
As I follow the developments of current US foreign policy, four famous lines by the British poet, W H Auden (from the poem 'September 1, 1939'; full text here), often leap into my mind:
"I and the public know,
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil are done,
Do evil in return."
The black-and-white approach to foreign policy, which led to the top-down handling of Iraq and the lack of mid-term planning for the invasion of Afghanistan, has provided ammunition for a new generation of hatred. The Iraq fiasco, built on an idealistic vision of Democracy, has, as one commentator warned before the invasion, "opened the jaws of hell". The bottom-up campaign for people's 'hearts and minds' has been forgotten, or at least mislaid. In this context, a bit of pragmatic 'coexistence' would not be a bad thing at all.
But what does this 'coexistence' actually mean for policy? Does it mean pragmatic realpolitik? Does it mean cultural diplomacy? Does it mean a greater commitment to collective security? Kyousei is an interesting base, but without a bit more flesh on the bones, it will never be anything but a bare skeleton of a Foreign Policy. But then this is perhaps asking for too much from Japanese politics. In a system where the media rarely deconstructs policy and politicians rarely make it, maybe asking for a bit more substance is going way, way over the top.
R J F Villar
Those who have been following the changing flow of Ozawa Ichiro's rhetoric will have noticed the theme of kyousei, or 'coexistence' cropping up with regularity.
"I want to build a Japan where people can live in harmony together," Ozawa said in his speech at the beginning of this Diet Session, "in Diplomacy, a person-to-person, country-to-country 'coexistence' where peace in Japan and the international community are secured, and the 'coexistence' between man and nature...are the raisons d'Etat that I want Japan to continue to prioritise."
These are noble words. They also appeal to the Japanese people, touching on what many see as the essence of Japanese identity: nature, the seasons and the innate ability of the Japanese people to harmoniously coexist with their environment. The truth of this aside, the man on the street will often say that kyousei, rather than conflict, is the natural Japanese Way.
Sensible or Simple?
Yet, by touting 'coexistence' as his party's Foreign Policy, Ozawa may be painting the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) a shade of simple. Is kyousei actually a 'policy', or is it just good rhetoric?
As I follow the developments of current US foreign policy, four famous lines by the British poet, W H Auden (from the poem 'September 1, 1939'; full text here), often leap into my mind:
"I and the public know,
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil are done,
Do evil in return."
The black-and-white approach to foreign policy, which led to the top-down handling of Iraq and the lack of mid-term planning for the invasion of Afghanistan, has provided ammunition for a new generation of hatred. The Iraq fiasco, built on an idealistic vision of Democracy, has, as one commentator warned before the invasion, "opened the jaws of hell". The bottom-up campaign for people's 'hearts and minds' has been forgotten, or at least mislaid. In this context, a bit of pragmatic 'coexistence' would not be a bad thing at all.
But what does this 'coexistence' actually mean for policy? Does it mean pragmatic realpolitik? Does it mean cultural diplomacy? Does it mean a greater commitment to collective security? Kyousei is an interesting base, but without a bit more flesh on the bones, it will never be anything but a bare skeleton of a Foreign Policy. But then this is perhaps asking for too much from Japanese politics. In a system where the media rarely deconstructs policy and politicians rarely make it, maybe asking for a bit more substance is going way, way over the top.
R J F Villar
No comments:
Post a Comment