柔能剛制: 'Soft' Power

'Soft' Power

Any aficionado of the Japanese martial art, Judo, will have heard the phrase "柔能く剛を制す"("ju yoku gou o seisu"). In rough translation, this means "skilled softness overcomes brawn." In Judo, a small accomplished competitor can maneuver an opponent's weight in such a way that requires little brute strength to throw them. Originally coined by the Chinese philospher, Lao-zi, and much later recycled by the founder of Judo, Jigoro Kano, this short phrase has become a maxim for life.

In Foreign Policy, too, this proverb has a role. Despite the current US example, effective diplomacy does not have to rely on vast demonstrations of aggressive power. Bottom-up investment in the areas of cultural diplomacy and intelligence, combined with a commitment to multilateral institutions, has the potential to bear greater long-term fruit than unilateral military "shock and awe". Much of the success in Afghanistan, for example, was a result of the human relations built-up by British and American intelligence officers over a considerable length of time. A quick shower of gold, and an imposing military presence have neither secured Iraq in the short, or potentially, the long-term. If the 'brawn' is really necessary, it must only come after mastering the techniques of 'soft' power.

Japan, meanwhile, lingers at the cross-roads with Prime Minister Abe Shinzo screaming for constitutional revision. This is to give the Japanese - read: the Japanese 'Self-Defense' Forces - a clearer-cut role in the world. Yet is this really necessary? It is perfectly possible (if you believe thinkers such as Ozawa Ichiro or Ronald Dore) for Japan to fulfill collective security responsibliltes under the auspices of the UN with the current consitutional arrangement. With US unilateralism languishing in the doldrums, this might be an opportunity for Japan to lead the international community making use of her Constitution, instead of blaming it for somehow acting as a hindrance.

The Japanese often compare 'hard' and 'soft' governance to the "wind and the sun". On a winter's day, it is not the harsh wind that encourages us to take off our coats. Indeed, the more the wind blows the more we huddle our jackets round us. But, when the sun comes out we voluntarily shed our layers. Good governance does not necessarily mean killing things- 'soft' power can be a proactive policy too.

R J F Villar

共生: 'Coexistence'

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