Oh what a busy week this has been, and it`s about to get a lot busier. This weekend marks the annual Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore, ordinarily a meet and greet session among the defence ministers of the region to re-confirm old alliances and (possibly) forge new ones, while dispensing the odd threat every now and then. This year, however, will be different, as PM Shinzo Abe will be making the keynote address on Friday to those gathered, the highlight of which will most likely be an explanation to the region on what Japan`s collective self defence will mean for bilateral and multilateral relations between Japan and other states. Amid questions regarding Abe`s intentions, Abe will use the occasion to outline where he sees Japan in the regional order, and how Japan might provide reassurance to those nations concerned about the rise of China. This may become more poignant given the speech made by US President Obama at West Point on Wednesday (US time). As Rory Medcalf points out, there was no mention of East Asia in his speech, which has led some to speculate that the US has no intention of becoming involved in Asian affairs, and would prefer that Asia sorts out its own issues with China, come what may.

While it is too early to make such definite pronouncements, it is true that Japan and Australia look as though they will be making further progress in bilateral dialogue on the sharing of submarine technology, the talks regarding which will continue in Tokyo next month.  Already some commentators in Australia have reckoned that this will infuriate China, and most likely it will.  Yet in the absence of any evidence that China intends to both be transparent in its defence spending and willing to negotiate with its neighbours over questions of territoriality, this, coupled with the current US stance on defence priorities, means that both Australia and Japan are `hedging their bets`, so to speak.  Both countries stand to benefit from increased defence relations, and in the current climate that is a welcome change from the otherwise fractious ties between regional states. It may be some time before such negotiations actually result in the transfer of technology, but it is the next step in a burgeoning defence pact between two regional democratic states who are concerned about the rise of an autocratic power unwilling to engage on equal terms.

The danger of a lack of military communication between China and Japan became all the more apparent on Sunday this week when news of an incident involving a Chinese fighter aircraft and a Japanese Marine Self Defence Force P-3C Orion came to light (J).  According to Japanese sources, the fighter aircraft, a Chinese SU-27 that was taking part in joint exercises between China and Russia in the East China Sea, came within 50 metres of the P-3C that was observing the joint exercises at the time. Given that this is an extraordinarily close distance in aviation terms, and in lieu of the collision between an US AWACS aircraft and a Chinese fighter aircraft over Hainan Island in 2001, the Japanese were suitably miffed enough to summon the Chinese ambassador to deliver a protest. For their part, the Chinese claimed that the Japanese had entered a `no-fly zone` declared over the training area, a zone within overlapping sovereign air space claims between China and Japan (J and E).

While these events were unfolding, within Japan`s political world further signs of dissent were making themselves apparent. On Wednesday one half of the dual leadership of the Japan Restoration Party, Ishihara Shintarō, announced that the party would herein split up, with Ishihara unable to reconcile with fellow leader Hashimoto Tōru`s plan to combine with the Unity Party of Eda Kenji. According to his explanation, Ishihara believed that the Restoration Party had been elected to bring about a fundamental change to Japan`s postwar Constitution, a position not shared by Eda (J).　As an explanation this appears a little too convenient, and it may be that Ishihara was merely `spitting the dummy` at being overruled during negotiations with Eda and saw this as a means of recapturing the media`s attention on his ambitions. I have to say, though, that Michael Cucek`s take on the whole drama was damn funny…

Michael Thomas Cucek @MichaelTCucek  29 May 2014

Name needed for new Ishihara Shintaro splinter party. Thinking: Ai Sarenai Shin Hassei Aikokusha To - a.k.a. ASSHAT

So, here`s to the weekend dialogue in Singapore, and the wave of commentary that will result from it.

News coming out of Japan over the last couple of days has been dominated by the release on Thursday last week of the Advisory Panel report concerning re-interpretation of Japan’s constitution, specifically Article 9 dealing with the renunciation of war and how this might be modified to reflect the changing security circumstances surrounding Japan. For those who remember, in February last year PM Abe established the Security Law Advisory Panel with the specific task of examining whether Japan had a right to exercise collective self-defence and whether the current reading of the constitution could be reconciled with this right (J).  The panel found that there was no impediment to Japan exercising a right to collective self-defence, as this right was already established under international law.

However given the level of domestic opposition to Japan changing the meaning of its constitution and embarking on military operations abroad, on Monday the LDP decided to put off any debate in the Diet over the right to exercise collective self-defence until after the regional elections scheduled to take place in April and May next year. According to the Asahi Shimbun, this is because both the LDP and New Komeito need to cooperate at the regional level, and if debate at that level became centred around questions of collective self-defence, the New Komeito (whose own position on collective self-defence is yet to be firmly established) would find it difficult to support the LDP position in its current form (J).  

While the so-called ‘grey zone’ elements of the collective self-defence proposal will be debated in a temporary Diet session beginning in Autumn, PM Abe appears determined to have a cabinet resolution on changing the constitution nailed down before the temporary session period begins. PM Abe has already given assurances to the US that he would have the constitutional re-interpretation in place before embarking on revitalised US-Japan security cooperation guidelines. The determination of PM Abe to enact such measures became all the more important following the election of new Indian PM Narendra Modi. As Rory Medcalf and Danielle Rajendram wrote for the Age newspaper on Tuesday, Modi, with his ‘Look East’ foreign policy, would likely wish to establish much firmer security ties with a number of states in the Indo-Pacific region, Japan being foremost among these.

The ability of Japan to exercise collective self-defence has been an issue followed closely by Australian observers, especially in light of PM Tony Abbott’s comments in Tokyo last month that essentially welcomed a more proactive Japanese military involvement in the region. While the Australian government likes to reiterate the ties of democracy and respect for rule of law that binds Japan to Australia, there is also a latent respect for Japan’s technological prowess and how this can be of use to Australia’s defence force.  Japan’s military capabilities have long been debated by those inside and outside the ADF, where there is certainly recognition that Japan possesses formidable military power and would be a strong asset in any conflict.  Hence the agreement between both countries to upgrade their defence relationship, for Japan, unlike other states in the region, has the logistical sophistication and technical ability to complement Australia’s own small but sophisticated military capabilities.

While other states in the region might baulk at the idea of a rejuvenated Japanese military embarking on operations overseas, Australia sees things quite differently.  The degree of closeness shared by the US armed forces and Japan’s SDF represents a powerful military presence in the northern Asia and one that Australia is seeking to tap into.  Combined with the emergence of an Indian government determined to expand its economy and global presence, Australia sees the potential of a regional trilateral relationship between itself, Japan and India.  Such is the degree of enthusiasm of the Abbott government to cooperate with Japan, it was prepared to release only a quiet rebuttal of PM Abe’s visit to Yasukuni Shrine (in contrast to the US and EU), so as not to upset both trade negotiations and the potential for strengthening the security relationship with Japan.

For the Australian government, confirmation of the right to collective self-defence (and the release of defence technologies to those states deemed ‘acceptable’ to the Diet) cannot come soon enough (in fact, given the level of public anger directed at the Abbott government for its ‘austerity’ budget, a bit of positive news would be very welcome, one would think).  While Abe (or more correctly, a joint LDP/New Komeito parliamentary committee) hammers out the minutiae of when and how Japan might be able to exercise collective self-defence, Australia is watching and waiting in anticipation of bigger things to come. 

As the date draws nearer for an historic visit to Australia by PM Abe, expect far more editorials examining the nature of the relationship, specifically the ramifications of an outbreak of conflict in the East China Sea and Australia’s possible role in such a crisis. It has emerged as an issue among Australian security experts in recent years, and the implications have yet to be thoroughly examined. While most seem convinced that Australia would not play a role in any conflict in the East China Sea, or at most a very minor role, the fact that much of Australia’s exports travel through the East China Sea area means that any instability would inflict major damage on Australia’s economy. Hence stability in that area is of primary importance to Australia, and when countries start saber rattling it causes a fair degree of anguish in Canberra.  

It has been interesting to read recently of the fallout (no pun intended) from the latest issue of ‘Oishinbo’, a long-running manga comic produced by Shogakukan in which the main protagonist, a gourmet by the name of Yamaoka Shirō, tours about Japan with his sidekick Kurita Yūko, tasting various local delicacies and learning something of the culinary traditions of Japan (and other nations) along the way.  This month the intrepid two made their way to Fukushima Prefecture, the storyline of which included a visit to the Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (as to why, ask the editors).  In one of the frames of the comic, a character is depicted as having a nose bleed as a result of visiting the area around the power plant. In another frame, the former mayor of Futaba-chō, Idogawa Katsutaka, says that the nosebleed is because of exposure to radiation, adding that many people in the area have suffered nosebleeds and extreme lethargy, and warns that people should not live in Fukushima for the time being (J).   

For a prefecture still affected by the stigma related to its exposure to radiation from the Daiichi power plant, this depiction elicited a range of comments, mostly criticism of the ‘insensitivity’ of the editors of Shogakukan in illustrating Fukushima in such a negative way (a point of view stressed by the Fukushima prefectural government, who complained that no-one in the prefecture had suffered the type of illnesses depicted in the comic) (J). As an aside, the governments of Osaka City and Osaka Prefecture also objected to the depiction of people suffering from eye and breathing problems as a result of the radioactive waste transported from Fukushima for disposal in the Kansai region (J). Even the federal government got in on the act, with Parliamentary Deputy Environment Minister Ukishima Tomoko stating that it was ‘disappointing’ that Shogakukan had chosen to illustrate Fukushima in such a fashion, especially ‘when the people of Fukushima are doing their best (presumably to overcome the events of 3.11)’, and according to Environment Minister Ishihara Nobuteru, no link has been established between nosebleeds and exposure to radiation - (J) and (J). 

The author of the manga series, Kariya Tetsu (72), was reported in January this year as having suffered from a series of nosebleeds after visiting Fukushima Prefecture a number of times since 3.11 (these details were included in an interview with Kariya conducted by the Nichigo Press newspaper in Australia) (J). After the publishing of the controversial comic frames, Kariya directed anyone with claims against them to aim their criticism at him rather than Shogakukan, saying that the responsibility for the frames was his alone (J).  

It seems that much of the criticism being directed against both the comic and Kariya stems from a belief that without any scientific basis, Oshinbo has raised the spectre of radiation fallout in a country still coming to terms with the meaning of 3.11, and by doing so has created an unnecessary level of fear and apprehension concerning not only Fukushima Prefecture itself but what it represents – namely, a failure to cope with disaster.  While recent months have seen moves towards re-starting nuclear power plants across the country despite widespread anguish at the degree of reliance on nuclear energy, the questions raised by Kariya have certainly sparked renewed debate about the consequences of nuclear accidents and whether the government (any government) can be trusted to deal with them properly. The degree of anger directed at Kariya and Shogakukan suggests that the debate about nuclear power in Japan is a long way from being resolved, and that the anguish of Fukushima still weighs heavily upon the psyche of the nation.   

The news on Monday that Australian casino billionaire James Packer and media mogul David Gyngell had gone ‘hammer and tongs’ at one another on Sunday afternoon prompted a few media commentators to write that this might have a negative impact on Packer’s plans to open a casino in Tokyo.  To see whether there was any truth to this speculation, I decided to take a look at how recent legislative moves by the Abe government have garnered the interest of casino owners worldwide, and how Packer’s conduct might have affected his chances. 

First, some background.  On November 29th last year, a general meeting of the LDP held debate on the possibility of legalising the operation of casinos in a specially designated area within the Tokyo metropolitan area.  The meeting saw the introduction of legislation, dubbed the ‘Intergrated Resort Promotion Law’, which had the blessings of the upper echelons of the LDP, including PM Abe and Finance Minister Taro Aso, both of whom saw the legislation as a means to revitalise the stagnant domestic economy and entice international consortiums to set up operations in the capital region.  Not only would a casino bring revenue into Japan, it would also serve as a useful aside to the 2020 Olympic Games, attracting gamblers who might otherwise take little interest in the sports on display (J).

On the 5th of December, the ‘International Tourism Industries Promotion Alliance’ (a group of politicians from the LDP, the Reform Party, the Lifestyle Party, and the Everyone’s Party formed in 2010) presented the IR Promotion legislation to the Lower House. The legislation itself is still under debate within the ordinary session of the Diet, with hopes that it will be passed before the end of the session mid-year.  Should the legislation be passed through the Diet, then an IR Promotion Committee (consisting of a staff of 20) will be established for the purposes of designating the site for the casino (and related businesses). This process will involve consultations with local government organisations, who will be invited to bid for the rights to host the casino (J).  

There are, of course, a large number of issues that remain to be resolved before any construction actually takes place,  not least of which is how both the federal and municipal governments can prevent any casinos from being overtaken by organized crime.  This, it appears, is one of the sticking points on approving the passage of the legislation.  In a nation that has a very regulated market vis-à-vis gambling, the potential for international consortiums to establish themselves in Japan raises concerns about just how effectively Japan’s own regulators will be able to ensure that the casino does not become a front for international money laundering and so forth.  Not only this, the potential for casinos to add to the problem of gambling addiction has community groups worried, and this in turn is filtering back through political channels to representatives in the Diet (although this is more of a concern for urban constituencies than rural ones, which is why the casino plan it is being so vigorously opposed by the JCP (J).   

Clearly for Japan to accept such a sensitive topic (and it is sensitive, as demonstrated by the stance of the New Komeito (J), who aren’t approving any legislation that hasn’t first be rigorously debated in the Diet), the character of those businesses wishing to bid for the rights to construct the casino are going to be closely scrutinised.  While there is no suggestion of impropriety by Packer (who recently joined PM Abbott on his visit to East Asia),  the footage of his public brawl with Gyngell might make legislators in Japan think twice about allowing him to expand his casino business into the Tokyo area (Japan already has enough brawling gamblers and underworld rivalries to contend with without having to worry about potential pugilism from James Packer – after all, if this is how he deals with his friends, what happens when he runs into regulations he doesn’t like?).

Packer’s reputation won’t concern most Japanese if he can convince them of his suitability of temperament and adherence to legal procedures. The absence of any controversy over Packer’s dealings in Macao will hold him in good stead, although his difficulties in Sri Lanka will cloud the judgment of any committee tasked with reviewing submissions. At this stage in proceedings, Packer has little to worry about as legal arguments over the casino are a long way from being resolved, yet it is early enough for Packer to embark on a PR campaign among Japan’s political and bureaucratic circles to ensure that his reputation remains intact. A few trips to Kasumigaseki and Nagata-chō may be in order for Packer over the next few months.