The first story had Japan’s Finance Minister Naota Kan, described as a “straight-talking fiscal conservative,” appeared to emerge as the next prime minister. This should not be a surprise given that the former Prime Minister Hatoyama pledged to bring Japan to the negotiating table with the United States as more of an equal partner in the foreign policy arena.
Japan does not hold the cards when it comes to its national security posture due to its pacifist constitution as it is wholly dependent on the United States for its defense. It should follow then that Japan cannot and could not be treated as “equals” in this regard as it was a false premise to begin with but one which the people nevertheless bought into.
Now there will be a shift in focus from defense, where the center-left leaning Democratic Party of Japan, cannot do much at this time, to the economy, where it can do something at this time, hence the rise of Naota Kan’s prospects to become the PM. Japan has been improving its market-share overseas in exports even during this period of global economic turmoil but domestic demand remains weak. Hence the risk of deflation where prices keep falling.
The second headline was a surprise as the Grand National Party, the conservative ruling party led by President Lee Myung Bak, won only six of the 16 key mayoral and gubernatorial posts when they were expected to win at least nine. The surprise comes from the fact that the South Korean president is a pro-U.S. and pro-business president and the recent sinking of a South Korean ship by the North, allegedly, had analysts predicting a consolidation of power for the ruling party.
In summary, the Japanese people placed the DPJ into power because they wanted Japan not to be subservient to the U.S. but elected officials ended up being that way anyway. On the other hand, the Korean people, despite tensions in the peninsula, had a pro-U.S. party in office which suffered electoral defeats, unexpectedly.
What I read from these two headlines is that the people in those nations, by and large, want their leaders to represent them first, and “kow-tow” to other nations such as the U.S., secondarily, if need be. So the DPJ now shifts its focus to the economy for the time-being and the GNP despite being close allies to the U.S. were stung in defeat.
The lesson for Guam is similar. Guam does not call the shots on national security and it remains an unincorporated territory, but a sovereign American territory, none the less.
We can make our voices heard on the environmental impact statement, but if there is a crisis somewhere in the Pacific, the United States will not hesitate to move its military assets here without our consent.
As for Guam’s leaders who are elected by the people here, they are caught in a paradox, much like the Japanese and Korean leaders. The elected officials have to listen to the concerns of the people on an issue such as the military buildup but at the same time swear allegiance to the flag and the Constitution.
MATT PHILIPS
Mangilao, Guam
