HAHA Sneak Preview!

Are “most” of the U.S. Forces getting ready to leave Japan? Actually, this turns out to be my weakest argument. I should have checked the numbers, because I was seriously off the mark. The Marines in Okinawa, “most” of whom are slated to relocate to Guam, comprise less than half (about 43%, actually) of the U.S. military personnel stationed in Japan. Their departure may be delayed somewhat though, because the DPJ is not satisfied with the golden handshake that the Japanese government has agreed to give the US—the bilateral agreement is currently up for ratification in the Diet if I remember correctly—and intends to revisit the matter after it takes power. Now let’s go to Ozawa’s intentions. If you go and actually read his initial statement, you will find that it was closer to an observation than a statement of policy intent on the case in point and that the real takeaway was his reaffirmation of his insistence on equal footing and dialogue. But the media did draw the logical conclusion that something had to be done about the U.S. Air force personnel who comprise about 40% of the total. Every voice in the DPJ including Ozawa immediately backed away from this extrapolation, and that was that. Now I’m actually sure that Ozawa does want “most” of the U.S. troops to leave Japan. But then, so, I assume, do most Japanese. Few people want foreign troops on their soil if they can help it. This requires one of two things though: a) Japan foots the total bill for its national defense; or b) the Koreas, China and Russia do not, will not, pose any threats to Japan’s national security. I suspect that deep in his heart, Ozawa does want to do a), but that’s just a guess. Compared to his oft-stated desire to “turn Japan into a true two-party democracy [and] revolutionize its government”, it is at best a pipe dream, as the Ozawa/DPJ rapid backpedaling demonstrated.

* Incidentally, we saw this same phenomenon regarding Ozawa’s initial statement regarding a supposed proposal to ban all corporate money from political financing. I admit that I was initially taken in by the media’s exaggerations.

Do “Ozawa supporters insist the scandal was cooked up as a last-ditch attempt by the old order to protect itself”? Yes. But note that there is a difference between such accusations—coming most prominently from Ozawa’s faithful if not completely trusted deputy Yukio Hatoyama—and Ozawa’s more modest claims aimed at the Public Prosecutors Office. The first implies a vast conspiracy theory that is at odds with my understanding of the PPO’s role and intentions (about which I have blogged recently), which happens to be consonant to a great degree with Ozawa’s. The difference here is that my conclusions are based on a few testimonies and some observation while Ozawa’s determination appears to be rooted in painful experience. Specifically, the PPO took down his two mentors, Kakuei Tanaka and Shin Kanemaru, two of the most powerful men in the LDP at the time, for taking funny money (Tanaka died while appealing his more serious bribery conviction), and the construction industry relationship that he inherited from the two has come to roost for him. Note also that an embarrassing (for me at least) number of Administrative Vice-Ministers (a neat criminological double entendre here) have received criminal sentences and gone to jail to jail over the years, as have a much greater number of lesser government officials. It’s hard to doubt that, like it or not, the PPO pursues its own agenda at a minimum largely independent of the administration and the rest of the bureaucracy, and Ozawa’s claims, circumspect in scope, indicate that he understands that only too well. Yes, if you subscribe to the view that this is “a last-ditch attempt by the old order to protect itself” and deny that this is “proof that he suffers from the corruption and cronyism that has long poisoned Tokyo politics.” Now Ozawa’s supporters may say that and many of them may actually believe it and it may be true (though I think not), but is it one or the other? Are they the only opinions in play? And don’t Ozawa’s own expressed views figure into this, since this is, after all, an issue in which he has a personal interest and about which he has spoken up?