In a week in which the P-3C Orions of the JMSDF and Gulfstream aircraft of Japan’s Coast Guard bid farewell to RAAF Base Pearce (J) following the Australian government’s announcement that the search for MH370 would shift to underwater scans, the probability of closer Australia-Japan defence cooperation grew following a meeting held on Monday in Perth between Japanese Defence Minister Onodera and Australian Defence Minister Johnston.  Although the press release from Senator Johnston didn’t give too much away as to what was discussed during the meeting, it clearly noted that marine hydrodynamic technology was ‘likely’ to be an item on the agenda of the Australia-Japan 2+2 meeting in June (an event which is also ‘likely’ to become an annual occurrence).   While this development received some attention in the Japanese media (namely here and here ), it was lost on Australia’s domestic media, who were otherwise preoccupied with questions on income taxation and the federal budget, corruption in NSW politics, or in defence terms, the decision to purchase another 58 F-35 JSF aircraft (a controversial move in itself given the rhetoric concerning Australia’s parlous economic state).

One issue that Australia might be considering at present is the probability of Japanese cooperation in designing the propulsion and generator systems that will be used by the next generation of Australian submarines. With a white paper on defence due from the government by April next year (this could, of course, be delayed by questions concerning affordability and Australia’s strategic policy, which does require more in depth analysis than has been evident in previous white papers), the Coalition government in Australia must make a firm decision on what options will be adopted by Australia in order to ensure that it still retains a submarine capability for the next 30 years.  Given Japan has relaxed its position in relation to the joint development of defence technology, the Coalition is probably looking for a solid commitment from Japan to contribute to the planning of Australia’s submarines. 

This is unlikely to be a problem for Japan’s own Coalition government, with the LDP and New Komeito in agreement on the need for a revision of the three principles concerning the transfer of defence material (J), the scope of which would cover submarine propulsion systems. The involvement of Japan in defence technology development with Australia is also unlikely to raise many concerns within Japan itself, so long as Japan believes Australia to be a stable, responsible partner that is unlikely to upset regional stability in pursuit of unilateral objectives (prevention of weapons technology being used by a third party or rogue state is a fundamental part of the revision, which itself means that Japan will only work with advanced nations on defence technology development. This is already evident in Japan’s defence agreements with the UK and France in addition to its long-standing agreement with the US).

This particular blog post was inspired by some news footage shown over the weekend and subsequently broadcast over the internet.  At a time when the Japanese Diet is in the process of examining whether the Japanese Constitution, the hallmark of what PM Abe has called the ‘post-war system’, should be reinterpreted or amended to reflect the changing strategic circumstances surrounding Japan, a housewife from Zama City in Kanagawa prefecture has thought of a particularly unique way of drawing attention to the Constitution and the belief of many in Japan that it should remain as intended.

Put simply, Takasu Naomi (37), a mother of two young children and (according to this Asahi Shimbun report (J), a former exchange student at the University of Tasmania), managed to gather together around 1500 signatures in support of an application to the Nobel Prize Committee to have the Japanese Constitution awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. The article explains that Mrs Takasu, concerned about what a reinterpretation of the Constitution would mean for world peace, hit upon the idea of nominating the current Constitution after the EU was awarded a peace prize in 2012 (as the peace prize aims to inspire the pursuit of peace, regardless of whether this is done individually or as a group). 

According to the Committee office, only individuals and groups can be nominated to receive a peace prize.  Obviously the EU, being a conglomeration of states, was eligible but the same cannot not be said of a document (as an interesting sidenote, only politicians, academics, the head of peace institutes, and previous awardees are eligible to receive a peace prize).  While the likelihood of the Constitution being nominated is fairly low, it would be very interesting to see what would occur if it was nominated and subsequently awarded a peace prize.  For example, who would go to collect the prize? A representative of the same government trying to amend the Constitution? That would be a tad awkward.  Would Ms Takasu herself go? Being neither a Constitutional scholar or one of the original draftees of the document this would present all sorts of problems for the Committee office, not to mention the Abe government.

In a week in which Japan will be visited by US President Obama and in which issues such as the TPP and security will be high on the bilateral agenda, this particular act of civic pride won’t receive much attention except from those who object to the measures the Abe government is taking to transform Japan’s security posture. The issue of security promises to make dialogues more tense than usual, particularly given the Obama administration’s previous misgivings about the degree of nationalism on display within the Abe government (a point reiterated by the visit of 146 members of the Diet to Yasukuni Shrine on Tuesday (J), an act which left no-one in doubt as to its intent and the message it conveyed to the US, China and South Korea). While PM Abe himself did not participate in the visit (held over the Yasukuni Spring Festival from the 21st to the 23rd of April), Health Minister Tanaka did (on private funds), and Abe did contribute an offering in exchange for his presence (J).

To say that observers in the US are genuinely worried about where Abe is taking Japan depends on what side of the political fence such observers sit on.  Academic Joseph Nye, together with former Australian PM Kevin Rudd, penned an article for the Washington Post ahead of Obama’s visit, outlining why China was so upset with Japan over the Senkaku Islands and suggesting a method for de-escalating tensions between both sides (their suggestion; go back to the original Tanaka-Zhou formula of leaving questions of territoriality to future generations. This, it appears, is wishful thinking, and would not be satisfactory either to Japan or China in the present climate). If bilateral dialogue between the US and Japan produces no change in TPP negotiations (thereby further sinking Obama’s hopes of gaining US Congress support for the initiative) and does nothing to assuage Japanese fears of a weakened US presence in Asia, then Washington may have to get used to a more belligerent Japan acting independently of its major ally. 

That could truly take the dynamic of the region into unchartered territory.

This particular post takes as its subject the case of stem cell researcher Obokata Haruko, and the entire frenzy of claim, counter-claim and sensationalism that has surrounded her since the announcement on January 29th this year that her team at the Riken Centre for Development Biology (based in Kobe) had successfully managed to create STAP (stimulus triggered acquisition of pluripotency) cells using an acid based stimulation technique. The news itself was heralded as a breakthrough in cell research, with expectations that it could eventually lead to the development of tissue technologies to combat illnesses such as diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, among others.

For such a young researcher (Obokata is a mere 30 years old, a doctoral graduate of Waseda University and postgraduate student at Harvard University under the direction of Professor Charles Vacanti), her results were certainly unique, if not exceptional. This is where problems began to emerge, and in order to explain it in depth a little background is necessary.

In March of 2011, Obokata submitted her doctoral thesis for review by Waseda Professors Tsuneda Satoshi and Takeoka Shinji, along with Dr Yamato Masayuki of Tokyo Women’s Medical University and Professor Vacanti (although Professor Vacanti later revealed that he had received a copy of the thesis, but had not been asked to review it). The thesis was accepted by all three (sic) reviewers, and Obokata obtained her doctorate.

After completing postgraduate work Obokata was forced to remain in Japan after the Great East Japan Earthquake and continue her research under the direction of Riken (which she joined in 2011). Obokata, whose youth, combined with her love for the fictional Moomin characters and penchant for stylish dressing set her apart from other researchers, secured her own research prep laboratory (painted pink and yellow - video) and continued her work on stem cell manipulation until January 30, when the results of this research were published in Volume 505 of Nature magazine.

Obokata’s claims in her Nature article, combined with the fact that pluripotency had been tried by numerous researchers across the globe for decades without success, did raise suspicions about the validity of Obokata’s research. These suspicions grew during February, when the Asahi Shimbun and other domestic newspapers reported that research photographs accompanying Obokata’s doctoral thesis bore an uncanny resemblance to those pasted on the American National Institute of Health website under the title of “Stem Cell Basics” (J). This led Professor Takeoka to once again review Obokata’s thesis, during the course of which it became clear that other photographs in Obokata’s thesis were identical to those on the Cosmo Bio Company website. Cosmo Bio claimed that the photographs in question were taken in 2007, long before Obokata submitted her thesis, and that the photographs had never been offered to Obokata (J).

Given these revelations, on the 17th of February Riken, under the direction of Riken’s chairman Professor Noyori Yōji, held a press conference to announce that it would conduct its own investigation into Obokata’s research on STAP cells (J). The investigation found that Figure 1i (detailing DNA sequences) in the Nature article had been manipulated, and that Figures 2d and 2e in the article had been taken from Obokata’s doctoral thesis. Professor Noyori claimed that Obokata had been careless with the data she had accumulated, that Obokata had acted alone when manipulating the data, and that she lacked a sense of responsibility (J). Riken’s research chief, Professor Takeichi Masatoshi, said that the article had been poorly constructed (literally ‘it’s not a thesis’), while the researchers in charge of overseeing Obokata’s work, Sasai Yoshiki, Wakayama Teruhiko, and Tamba Hitoshi, all of whom who worked with Obokata on the article, bore a ‘grave responsibility’ for what had occurred.

Obokata continued to claim her innocence of any malicious intent when submitting the article, saying that no-one had told her that modifying photographs was illegal and that her team had merely wanted to display the best pictures for review. She also claimed that she had discovered the irregularities in the article before it was submitted to Nature magazine and consulted with Nature on these points. Despite calls for her to rescind her findings and for the article to be removed from Nature magazine, Obokata protested that her research was valid, that STAP cells could be manufactured, and that the undue pressure being placed on her by her employer and the media was affecting her health (J).

After spending some time in hospital, on the 8th of April Obokata gave another press conference at a hotel in Osaka (J), where she admitted that her inexperience and carelessness had contributed to the situation she now found herself in. Nevertheless, she again repeated her objection to the findings of the Riken committee (a position she took when it released its report on the 1st of April), and pledged to continue to seek verifiable, conclusive evidence for the creation of STAP cells.

Media commentators (and academics such as Robert Geller of the University of Tokyo) have raised questions about the method in which Riken sought to hang Obokata out to dry. It does seem somewhat implausible for a scientific research organisation to appoint three experienced researchers to oversee Obokata’s work, only to slam both them and Obokata for poor research methods. Would it be too farfetched to suggest that Riken expedited Obokata’s research before it was completed, on the belief that it would then generate sufficient interest in Riken’s activities and the financial benefits that would invite? For so many experienced biologists to submit an article to Nature magazine, itself a widely respected academic journal, using falsified data is very difficult to accept at face value. 

While Obokata may have been naïve, she has not deserved the storm of criticism flung in her direction by those who believe they have somehow been ‘duped’ by her initial press conference in January.  The announcement was an institution-wide event, and not of Obokata’s own doing.  There is far more to this story than has yet been brought to light.

On Monday night Australia and Japan announced the creation of an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA, which is the preferred term used by the Japanese. While Australian commentators tend to prefer Free Trade Agreement, this is a misnomer, as the agreement itself does not promise the complete removal of trade restrictions, merely their reduction). After seven years of negotiations (which began under the first Abe government and the Howard government in 2007), an agreement was finally hammered out on Sunday night, thereby allowing Australian producers greater access to the Japanese market while simultaneously giving Japanese manufacturers a green light to increase exports to Australia (PDF). While cattle producers were quite satisfied with the agreement, dairy, sugar and pork producers were less so, mainly because the tariff barriers to their products remain high and would only yield a small profit.   The agreement itself will be signed by both prime ministers in Canberra in July, when PM Abe visits Australia as a guest of PM Abbott.

This is certainly an historic deal, not least of which because it demonstrates that PM Abe was prepared to overrule more vested interests in Japan’s agricultural sector in order to promote his vision of a Japan that more actively contributes to regional growth (on this point, Aurelia George Mulgan had a particularly insightful blog post for the East Asia Forum, outlining the challenges for Abe in dealing with the agricultural sector and arguing that Abe still had a long way to go to generate confidence in his structural reform program).

While the degree of tariff reductions will generate criticism in Australia that they are nowhere near adequate (a reduction from 38.5% on beef to 23.5% over 15 years), they are the first cracks in the monopoly on prices and market access that Japanese small-scale producers have enjoyed for decades. For PM Abe to take this step also indicates that he is prepared to further Japan’s participation in the TPP, although like other countries Japan will not acquiesce to (primarily US) demands to place ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement) clauses within a joint document (this point was reiterated in the EPA with Australia, as no ISDS clause exists to allow companies to sue governments to the point of bankruptcy).

The other matter to come out of Abbott’s visit to Tokyo was the agreement to begin a dialogue ($) on technology and weapons development between Australia and Japan. This process has been underway since 2012, when Japan first stated that it would relax the restrictions on arms exports as part of the ‘normalisation’ process for its defence forces. The announcement has been a long time in coming, and Australia has been prodding Japan for information about its Soryu-class submarine engines and generators since the former Labor government was in power. With Australian Defence Minister David Johnston poised to deliver a speech on Wednesday ($) this week indicating that the Abbott government will reduce the number of future submarines from 12 to (most likely) 9, there is every chance that Japan will become a major contributor to the development of Australia’s future submarine fleet. As Senator Johnston will also indicate that the government may seek a proven submarine design from abroad rather than a totally new design created in Australia, this could become a litmus test for the future of bilateral defence technological development between Australia and Japan (although unions in Australia are already sounding warning bells, convinced that the Abbott government might try to sell them out in exchange for overseas shipbuilding expertise).

Of course, PM Abbott’s trip does not end in Tokyo, and already he has already made his way to Seoul to begin talks with President Park Guen-hye for the signing of an FTA between South Korea and Australia. It is just possible that South Korean defence industries will want to query Abbott about Australia’s defence needs, particularly following criticism of Australia’s sudden decision ($) to scrap the purchase of K9 self-propelled howitzers in 2012, a project that the former South Korean government of Lee Myung-bak took close interest in and hoped would serve as a  lynchpin for future Australian purchases of Korean defence equipment. Although the South Korean plan was abandoned by the Labor government, given Australia’s history of bailing on projects with South Korea, the Park government may indeed seek a more formal level of agreement between both countries to promote their security ties.

The real challenge of the tour, of course, will be China, and there has been no shortage of speculation on the reception PM Abbott will receive in Beijing. From recognition of Australia’s place as an ally of the US to dismissal of Australia as anything other than a bit player in regional politics, the impetus will be on PM Abbott to establish some sort of relationship with the Chinese leadership, even if this proves to be little more than an agreement on trade negotiations and private talks with President Xi Jinping. China will be particularly interested to know about Abbott’s time spent observing Japan’s National Security Council, given that he was the first foreign leader to witness its proceedings, and considering that China has considered any such institution evidence that Japanese ‘militarism’ is again on the march, China will be looking to see whether Abbott’s rhetoric on ‘keeping old friends while seeking new ones’ actually reflects Abbott’s intentions or is little more than window dressing for a wider plan to inhibit Chinese influence in the region.

It’s not often that I will spend a good part of an evening listening to legal judgments, however on Monday this week I found myself doing just that as the International Court of Justice handed down its verdict concerning Australia’s case against Japan’s scientific whaling program.  Contrary to expectations (particularly those from the Australian side, who believed that the ICJ would seek to find middle ground on the issue), the language read out by Judge Peter Tomka unequivocally declared that Japan’s current JARPA II program was not sufficiently scientific (given the size of the cull of minke whales, the exclusive concentration of study on minke whales, the absence of Japanese consultation with other countries on the science used by its program, the limited publishing of scientific results from the whaling and its repeated nature, and the absence of evidence that Japan had sought alternatives to lethal research) (the text of the verdict can be found here PDF). The ICJ therefore ruled that Japan could not justify issuing permits under Article VIII of the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling. The ICJ subsequently ordered Japan to cease the operation of JARPA II (by 12 votes to 4) and halt the issue of permits under its whaling program.

This result and the implications of it led media and foreign affairs analysts in Australia to worry whether the course of FTA negotiations currently underway between Australia and Japan might be derailed by Japan venting its anger about the result through renewed demands on Australia’s FTA negotiators. While Fisheries Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi and Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga expressed ‘deep disappointment’ about the outcome and described it as ‘regrettable’ (J), they also reiterated Japan’s position that it would accept the ICJ’s verdict. Although the verdict does not mean the end to Japan’s whaling program per se, as smaller scale whaling still continues in the North Pacific, it did resolve in one swoop an issue that had clouded Australia-Japan (and for that matter New Zealand) relations since 2010.  

As Daniel Flitton noted in the SMH, Tony Abbott never wanted to take Japan to the ICJ in the first place, yet the ICJ’s verdict had essentially cleared the slate for him to negotiate with PM Abe on the FTA without the issue of whaling impeding the otherwise positive relations between both countries.  Another area that subsequently came to light through the Australian media on Thursday was the news that PM Abbott would sign a defence and security agreement with Japan during his visit to Tokyo.  While the Australian newspaper had reported earlier that Abbott would be selling to Japan an initial 10 Bushmaster armoured vehicles for use by Japan’s special forces ($), the subsequent report on an agreement came as a surprise, but a welcome one at that.

This may be linked to the announcement by the Abe cabinet on Monday that Japan would ease its restrictions on weapons exports, thereby allowing heavy industries such as Kawasaki and Mitsubishi to sell its technology overseas and provide a boost to domestic Japanese industries involved in the production of defence equipment that have been struggling to boost revenue. As has been reported in this blog before, Australia has repeatedly showed its interests in acquiring Kawasaki industry’s diesel submarine engines to replace those in its current fleet of Kockum’s designed subs, and so Monday’s announcement, and the agreement to be signed in Tokyo, may pave the way for Japanese involvement in the Future Submarine program currently being devised in Adelaide.

Expectations are that Abbott’s visit to Tokyo will be the least problematic of his North Asia itinerary, especially in light of Abbott’s past comments on his admiration for Japan and the rapport he appears to enjoy with PM Abe. This rapport, however, may cause some difficulties when he meets with South Korean President Park and Chinese President Xi Jingping. Both leaders may ask Abbott why he considers Japan to be Australia’s ‘best friend in Asia’, and why this same level of courtesy cannot be extended to their countries as well. Abbott may very well reply that Japan has the distinction of being Australia’s largest trading partner for four decades and is a ‘robust’ democracy (points that he repeatedly raises when asked about this in Australia). He may also state that Japan has been a reliable bilateral partner for Australia, neither insisting on historical arguments or making demands, and someone you would want as a partner when instability looms (although he might be a bit more circumspect with his language on this point).

Next week thus promises to be a particularly interesting one from a foreign affairs viewpoint, and will provide markers on how the Australia-Japan relationship will develop over the next three years. Be rest assured that commentators in Australia will be watching PM Abbott’s dialogue with PM Abe closely.